Scientology on the news again, Anonymous owned them again

[starcraft]

Sqrl said:

 

Sorry I haven't kept up on this~

First, I never said CoS was evil or inherenly illegal at all. Although it has been marked by such corruption throughout its history including Operation Snow White which is documented by the FBI( as they investigated it). I would presume should you require proof you are capable of following up with the proper channels, as this is an FBI case that is on official record I am going to leave it up to you to discredit it as I feel absolutely no need to provide proof of something the FBI has already proven. Should you feel the need for more proof and yet lack the desire to look into it for yourself I will take that as willing ignorance on your part. I can't and won't look it up for you, as it does you no good for me to look it up.

Operation Snow White involved the illegal infiltration of 136 government agencies aimed at purging unfavorable records about the church. In the investigation of this case they found official church documents held by CoS officials that documented their conspiracy to harrass, discredit, and ruin the life of Paulette Cooper. This operation was known as "Operation Freakout".

Their recruitement tactics have routinely been called into question, just to give an example they've placed ads for "Jobs" and lure people to an interview where they attempt to pressure them into a contract for a volunteer position where they recieve no pay despite the ad offering a paying position. This was documented at the beginning of this thread by one of the news reports from Denmark I believe, but I've heard of others, I'll let your natural curiousity at such things lead you to search further. I've personally seen enough in this regard and again my searching doesn't help you, you'll have to do it on your own I've provided a starting point.

In regards to policies of the church they have in the past used such policies as the following located at: HCOPL Oct. 18, 1967 Issue IV, Penalties for Lower Conditions. Which stated "[SPs] may be deprived of property or injured by any means... May be tricked, sued or lied to or destroyed.". An SP is someone labeled an enemy of the church essentially. Once again that was an official policy.

Here I'll just copy a list of legal issues relating to the church from wikipedia, feel free to go their for their sources(I bolded some of my favorites):

* During the 1960s, Scientology was accused by the United States government of engaging in medical fraud by claiming that the E-meter would treat and cure physical ailments and diseases. A 1971 ruling of the United States District Court, District of Columbia (333 F. Supp. 357), specifically stated, "the E-meter has no proven usefulness in the diagnosis, treatment or prevention of any disease, nor is it medically or scientifically capable of improving any bodily function." As a result of this ruling, Scientology now publishes disclaimers in its books and publications declaring that "by itself, the E-meter does nothing"[26] and that it is used specifically for spiritual purposes.
* In 1978, L. Ron Hubbard was convicted in absentia by French authorities of engaging in fraud, fined 35,000 French Francs and sentenced to four years in prison. The head of the French Church of Scientology was convicted at the same trial and given a suspended one-year prison sentence.
* The FBI raid on the Church's headquarters revealed documentation that detailed Scientology actions against various critics of the organization. Among these documents was a plan to frame Gabe Cazares, the mayor of the city of Clearwater, Florida, with a staged hit-and-run accident; plans to discredit the skeptical organization CSICOP by spreading rumors that it was a front for the CIA; and a project called "Operation Freakout", aimed at ruining the life of author Paulette Cooper, author of an early book critical of the movement, The Scandal of Scientology.
* In 1988 the government of Spain arrested Scientology president Heber Jentzsch and ten other members of the organization on various charges, including "illicit association," coercion, fraud, and labor law violations. Jentzsch jumped bail, leaving Spain and returning to the United States after Scientology paid a bail bond of approximately $1 million, and he has not returned to the country since. Scientology fought the charges in court for fourteen years, until the case was finally dismissed in 2002.
* The Church of Scientology is the only religious organization in Canada to be convicted on the charge of breaching the public trust: The Queen v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, et al. (1992)
* In France, several officials of the Church of Scientology have been convicted of crimes such as embezzlement. The Church was listed as a "dangerous cult" in a parliamentary report.
* The Church of Scientology long considered the Cult Awareness Network (CAN) as one of its most important enemies, and many Scientology publications during the 1980s and 1990s cast CAN (and its spokesperson at the time, Cynthia Kisser) in an unfriendly light, accusing the cult-watchdog organization of various criminal activities. After CAN was forced into bankruptcy and taken over by Scientologists in the late 1990s, Scientology proudly proclaimed this as one of its greatest victories.
* In Belgium, after a judicial investigation since 1997, a trial against the organization is due to begin in 2008. Charges include formation of a criminal organization, the unlawful exercise of medicine, and fraud.
* In the United Kingdom the church has been accused of "grooming" City of London police officers with gifts worth thousands of pounds.
* In Australia, Scientology has been temporarily banned in the 1960s in three out of six states; the use of the E-meter was similarly banned in Victoria. In Victoria, Scientology was investigated by the state Government. In the conclusion to his report written as part of this investigation, Kevin Victor Anderson, Q.C. stated "Scientology is a delusional belief system, based on fiction and fallacies and propagated by falsehood and deception". The report was later overturned by the High Court of Australia, which compelled the states to recognize Scientology as a religion.

Thats the info I could find in 20 minutes looking around the net a bit and in the time I was reading I never saw one thing that contradicted or even remotely went against what I'd learned previously. In the united stated there is no such law that requires a person to protest with their face visible and as such the church has no such right to know who they are regardless of your claims that they do. You point to it as an indication of wrongdoing but truthfully the only real indication of wrongdoing by anyone is the wrongdoing of CoS and most of it is official policy passed down by the highest officials as I've shown above. Yet you would point to the fact that people fear for their safety and well-being as overriding proof of everything I posted above and to that I have no responce because its just not a reasonable position.

Ironically the tactics you've used in this thread in discrediting those who are pro-Anonymous are perfectly synonymous with the policy letter issued by Hubbard here. It talks about always keeping the focus on the attackers and pushing to disclose their deads and their crimes and keeping the focus off the church. What better way to attack one side of the issue than to feign that you are a moderate. You've played that part to a "T" and I have to admit I personally can think of no better explaination for your irrational position with the possible exception of willing ignorance. With that said I have no proof so I'll keep that a strong suspicion for the time being.

Once you've looked into each of these cases and can provide proof to the contrary for at least half of them we can shift our focus away from CoS but until then I have no interest in any conversation that would provide further fodder for the strategy described by hubbard that you seem to have employed.

 

 

 

You were doing so well until that paragraph.  You see you at least tried to paint the issue in a more quantitative light than pooper and ssj12 (who keeps linking to the most incredibly biased) sites.  But what I was wondering as I read your post is whether it would end with an actual opinion on the point I have been making this entire thread.

Do you, Sqrl, feel that a mob has the right to say whatever they wish about anyone whilst maintaining anonymity?

Do you believe that it is ok that Anonymous has absolutely no level of accountability whatsoever?

PooperScooper and his cronies have tried to paint me as a man in support of the CoS, both as a religion and an organization.  It takes one glance over my posts in this thread to realize that that is complete crap.  What I vehemenently oppose is the idea that Anonymous could take these incidents, apply them broadly to the entirety of the CoS and then use them to discredit the organization and it's members WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY.  

If you can prove something is true, you will win a defamamtion law suit.  Why does Anonymous not simply file a lawsuit against the CoS, if it's evidence is so damning?  Why must they hide when the simplest logic dictates that their whole "they'll kill us if they know us" routine is bogus?