Jeff's comments
[on this page from time to time I'll give my thoughts of recent events]
1/24/08
Here's my Open Letter to Anonymous, a group of netizens who have declared war on Scientology. In short, I disapprove of their methods.
[This is assuming that there really is a group of netizens who've
decided to take on Scientology through harassment, DOS attacks, and
dirty tricks]
Dear Anonymous,
It's understandable that people get upset over the things the
Church of Scientology has done online and off. They harass, sue, play
dirty tricks on people, lie, etc. They tried to shut down a.r.s.
They spam our newsgroup to this day.
So I can see why you'd think damn it, it's time somebody shut them
down!
I'll just give you my insight for whatever it's worth. I've been a
public critic of Scientology since 1987. I've been on a.r.s. since
1994. My actions are pretty well known, and in fact you can go to
youtube and watch a lot of our protests and such, or go to
lisamcpherson.org and see some more of my activism. Also, I'm older.
I'm 52. So if it's of any value, here's an old, experienced critic's 2
cents.
The internet has already taken a big whack out of Scientology. Free
speech has allowed us critics to expose many of the lies and horrible
actions of Co$ for all the world to see. We've protested, right at
their front door. We've been on radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. So
it's not like you have to jump in and reinvent the wheel, or assume
nobody's been doing anything.
We've been quite successful because of the Golden Rule of the
Internet; Free Speech for Everybody. In fact, whenever Co$ has
attacked our free speech, it has spawned dozens and dozens of new
critics who would not otherwise have cared about this cult. Most of
us, and indeed most netizens, value free speech almost religiously.
So, as I understand it, one of your first methods for dealing with
Scientology is to shut down their web sites. This goes against the
Golden Rule. By silencing them in one format, all you've done is make
a martyr out of the cult. Martyrdom is GOOD for Scientology. It's
something for the members to rally around. It's proof that they're in
the right because they're being persecuted. Externally, it makes some
people ask "why is a church being attacked?" So you've lost me at
hello.
The weapons we choose are important. Our weapons as critics are
reason, evidence, argument, and free speech. If we "win" [and by win
I
mean, Co$ renounces its practices and policies that hurt people], then
we've won the argument over their policies and actions. However, if
YOU win using dirty tricks, harassment, and such, then you still
haven't won over their arguments. You've just pounded them into
submission. Their arguments stand.
We're supposed to be the good people. They're supposed to be the
bad people. If both sides are being creepy, then the public will just
look on this as a battle between two creepy groups and not be very
interested. If, however, one side is moral, honest, and just, and the
other side STILL beats up on them just for speaking out, there you
have a story. It is this CONTRAST between us and them that is part of
our message. The nicer we are, the better the contrast, the more
easily it is to see which side is the right side.
I'm very confident that we as critics have severely hampered
Scientology. I don't believe our goal is to destroy Scientology as
yours seems to be [here I'd better say, I don't represent anybody but
myself]. Our goal is to get them to stop locking people up until
they're dead, to stop pretending they're doctors, to stop destroying
families. If they want to believe in Xenu, fine. No problem. We can
still debate that, but believing in weird things is no reason for some
group to fear attack.
If you don't believe my mamby-pamby methods work, consider all the
cases in history where such actions did work; Gandhi, Martin Luther
King, Jr., Vaclav Havel, etc. These people didn't harass. They didn't
pull dirty tricks. They were straightfoward, honest, moral, and they
won. I believe their methods work admirably well on Scientology as
well.
So my wish for you is that you stop a while, listen to some of us
who've already been out there on the front lines working to expose
Scientology, and reconsider your methods. You seem to be coming onto
the stage presuming that us experienced critics never got anything
done since Scientology still exists. You're quite wrong. I hope
you'll take time to listen.
Jeff Jacobsen
for the ARSCC[wdne]
1/23/08
There are two things happening right now of interest. One is the leaked Tom Cruise video wherein Tom says that as a Scientologist he has to stop at a car accident to help, because Scientologists are the only ones that know what to do (paraphrased). Lisa McPherson was in a car accident. Scientologists came to the hospital where the ambulance had taken her, demanded that she not see a psychiatrist, took her to room 174 of their Ft. Harrison Hotel, held her against her will until she was dead (according to Mike Rinder), then drove her to a hospital 45 minutes away to a Scientologist doctor. Is THAT the kind of "help" you're talking about Tom?
The second thing is a group of Scientologists in Italy who were recently arrested for holding a woman against her will. This is not the second time such strangeness has happened. It's one of multiple times:
1955: Scientologists sued for holding crazy people in house
1990; Scientology family in Calfornia allegedly holds a woman against her will
1997: woman runs screaming from same hotel where Lisa was held
Scientology husband holds his own wife in 2002
Lynn Farney, high ranking official of Scientology's legal office, told the Clearwater police concerning whether psychotic members should be held at the Ft. Harrison hotel, "They were never supposed to be handled at the Fort Harrison, and that's been reiterated. They're not supposed to be there, they're supposed to be somewhere out in the countryside or something like that." [source]
There are other cases as well. This is policy. In fact, Scientologists now sign a waiver that essentially allows Scientology to hold them against their will!