More on SPs and declares
(Updated 2009-10-25. Update at the end of this blog post)
I have come to the conclusion that LRH must have had two different definitions of “an SP”:
- The SP case – the real suppressive person with continual intentions to do others harm
- The person administratively declared as an SP by the church
The first is covered mainly in Scientology philosophical technology (bulletins, books, lectures, etc.). The other is covered mainly in Scientology administrative technology (policy, executive directives, etc.).
The first is handled by Power Processing if not Clear or by NOTS if above Clear (as far as I have been able to deduct having talked to one of the most senior tech people on the planet). The second is covered by a set of administrative steps (the A-E steps) to get the person back into the good graces.
A person declared an SP is not necessarily a Suppressive Person case. If he is indeed a suppressive case, then the needed case handlings (Power or NOTS) would have to be done as part of step A where he would have to show case gain.
It is important to differentiate between the two definitions of “SP”, as a person declared a Suppressive Person could take the declare to mean that he is an SP case and thereby take on a wrong item (a technical term used in auditing [Scientology counseling]). Obviously Hubbard should have used two different terms.
I think it’s any organizations right to throw out and shut the door on anyone breaking basic organizational rules. If someone was acting destructive inside a shop, I think it’s perfectly alright for the shopkeeper to keep the door shut for that person. But to label him suppressive is another matter…
As only Power Processing or NOTS would really handle an SP case, it seems technically impossible for anyone being Clear and having completed OT VII to be an SP – as by then he is way passed Power and the NOTS case is gone. If it is indeed possible to be a real suppressive having completed OT VII, there seems no remedy in sight for that person, and that would violate the notion that the Bridge is complete for all.
If the church comes out saying that just one OT VII or VIII is a real suppressive, they would have to admit that either the tech is wrong or the tech is misapplied in the church. With the thorough Security Checks all through OT VII, the extremely detailed OT VII EP check and the mother of all Security Checks before OT VIII, it is quite an admission to say they got all that wrong when they let a real SP through OT VIII.
Even if they would say that an OT VII or VIII was only administratively declared suppressive, they would have to answer a few pesky questions of how come they could let such a person through with all the filters in place.
The church is liberally declaring people they don’t like as SPs. These days they need external enemies much as the former Soviet Union needed to invade Afghanistan to forge a unifying purpose for its population. The church is cracking and external enemies are serving nicely as glue.
There is talk about an SP declare coming down the lines on me. Although I haven’t seen one, I would welcome a declare and would post it here if or when it comes.
2009-10-25: Conclusion so far
After much debate about this blog post, I have reformed my viewpoints. I hereby present my conclusions thus far.
Given that policy allows a person to be declared an SP without verifying the person to be a real SP case, I cannot see other possibilities than these three:
- LRH used two definitions of SP: A) The SP case and B) The administratively labeled SP
- LRH used two different concepts: A) An SP and B) A declared SP. And a different definition of “declare” was used than what is found at Mirriam Webster’s
- LRH allowed people to be declared SPs without ensuring they ware actual SP cases and letting justice policies handle the mis-declares afterwards. This is a violation of Presumption of innocence and thus parallels Napoleonic law
In any case, the system makes it very likely that a person in need of help is given the most serious wrong item imaginable, the worst of all possible misjustices.
My current viewpoints:
- None should be declared an SP who is not a factual real and raving SP by a thorough investigation before the declare
- An organization has the full right of kicking rule-breakers out. This is called expulsion in Scientology and should be used on those who are not factually an SP but is non the less unwanted in the organization. There is no need for excessive name calling or giving people wrong items
In any case; there should be no forced disconnections. A person should be free to associate with whomever they want. A declared SP (a real one) serves as a warning to others and not an order that people disconnects from him/her.