Home > Church of Scientology, My timeline > Declaring Free Speech Suppressive

Declaring Free Speech Suppressive

I finally got hold of the Suppressive Person (SP) Declare issued by the Church of Scientology on myself and my wife.

Keeping with the concise style of this blog, thankfully the issue is one of the slimmest I’ve ever seen. I am guilty of mainly one crime; Exercising my right to free speech. My wife is declared suppressive for supporting this basic human right.

A suppressive person is according to the Scientology Technical Dictionary:

  1. Those who are destructively anti-social.
  2. A person who rewards only down statistics and never rewards an up statistic. He goofs up or vilifies any effort to help anybody and particularly knifes with violence anything calculated to make human beings more powerful or intelligent.

Hubbard describes twelve characteristics of a suppressive person. These are used to determine if a person actually is an SP.

Our SP Declare however does not attempt any evaluation against these characteristics. There seems to be more than one standard regarding what an SP really is.

An SP Declare is often issued as a way to silence critics of the church and as internal damage control to ensure that other Scientologists are forbidden to communicate with the person. In this way the church believes that any valid criticism is contained and not allowed to spread to other active Scientologists.

According to the policy HCO PL 29 APRIL 1965 III “ETHICS REVIEW”, a person goes through several ethics steps before finally being declared suppressive. There are a total of 35 steps before the bottom – Expulsion – is reached. A relevant quote from the policy:

Only a Comm Ev [Committee of Evidence] can recommend suspension or remove certificates or awards or memberships or recommend dismissals

A Committee of Evidence is convened to gather facts and ensure a person is not assumed guilty until proven innocent. A person should have the opportunity to defend himself as is usual for any civilized justice system. This is also covered in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights, Article #11, part one which states “Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence“. Also, according to policy, I am to be given a copy of the Declare.

I was never summoned before a Committee of Evidence nor given a copy of my Declare. Neither was my wife. In fact, the church has made no attempts to contact me or my wife since our departure, except for the infamous OSA ambush meeting.

I have promised that I would give a public critique of my declare once I got hold of a copy. I will go through the issue paragraph by paragraph and give my comments along the way:

Geir Isene, of Oslo, Norway, are hereby DECLARED Suppressive Persons and are EXPELLED from the Church of Scientology, pursuant to HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RB I SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.

We were EXPELLED from the church three months after we publicly announced our departure and left the organization.

Geir Isene publicly and broadly announced his departure from the Church of Scientology, making false, denigrating and derogatory statements about Scientologists in good standing and about the Church.

Following HCO PL 6 Oct 1967R, “CONDITIONS OF LIABILITY AND DOUBT”, Doubt Condition point 6, a person is required to announce his decision publicly to both sides. This is exactly what I did by publicising my Doubt write-up

According to HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RB I “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS” it becomes a suppressive act to do so if the person then decides to leave the Church of Scientology.

The Declare makes generalized accusations without any backing, claiming I have been making false, denigrating and derogatory statements about Scientologists in good standing and about the Church. What exactly is false?

The church at least on the face support the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Article 19 says “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.“.

Also according to the Creed of the Church of Scientology: “We of the Church believe… That all men have inalienable rights to think freely, to talk freely, to write freely their own opinions and to counter or utter or write upon the opinions of others… And that no agency less than God has the power to suspend or set aside these rights, overtly or covertly.“.

Declaring someone a Suppressive Person for exercising his Human Rights and acting according to the Church’s own Creed is hypocritical at best.

He connected to a known squirrel, who is engaged in a spiteful rumormongering and black propaganda campaign, in an attempt to discredit and vilify Scientology and Scientologists in good standing.

Who is this known squirrel (“Those who engage in actions altering Scientology, and offbeat practices”)?

Geir is guilty of the following suppressive acts, per the above referenced policy;

“Public disavowal of Scientology or Scientologists in good standing with Scientology organizations.”

I have never disavowed Scientology. I am a Scientologist.

I have disavowed the current management of the Church of Scientology, which I consider suppressive. One should ask oneself this annoying question: If Scientology was indeed taken over by a suppressive person, is there any way to remove that person from power using Scientology policies without oneself being declared suppressive?

“Engaging in malicious rumormongering to destroy the authority or repute of higher officers or the leading names of Scientology or to ‘safeguard’ a position.”

Rumormongering? What I have written on my blog is either fact or my opinion. No rumors have been started from what I have written here.

As (his wife) condones these suppressive acts of Geir, she too is guilty of the same as per HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RA III, OFFENCES AND PENALTIES;

“Being a knowing accessory to a suppressive act.”

By this standard, several thousand of the 50000 or so active Scientologists world-wide would have to be declared as they will have seen at least some of the suppressive acts perpetrated by the current management of the church.

Geir was given assistance and opportunity to get true data and resolve his situation with Standard Tech. However, he continued to associate with squirrels and continued to commit suppressive acts.

I was given a set of template unsubstantiated affidavits from current staff at the church’s international headquarters amounting to little more than attempts at character assassinations of Mike Rinder and Marty Rathbun and glorifying of David Miscavige. Also, who are the squirrels I am continuing to associate with?

Any certificates or awards that may have been issued to Geir or (his wife) are hereby cancelled. Any licenses they may have signed to use the marks of Dianetics and Scientology are cancelled as well and they may not use the marks in any manner whatsoever.

Should Geir and (his wife) come to their senses and recant, they are to do steps A-E of HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RB I, SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS.

Should the Church of Scientology come to its senses and reform, I may consider joining to actually apply Scientology to help individuals exercise their free will and personal integrity.

Their only Scientology terminal is the International Justice Chief via the Continental Justice Chief.

Given that Tommy Davis is the International Justice Chief and seeing how he so blatantly lies on camera… no, I don’t think I will give him a call.

  1. 2010-04-07 at 06:40

    *LOL* Looks like some kind of badly applied justice system from 15th century.

    The Scientology Inquisition?

  2. TRUTH
    2010-04-07 at 07:39

    DM and his minions are international joke these days! Only a real SP would declare the organization’s most productive members. DM (SP) is definitely guilty of this act. I have asked IJC for a comm ev and thorough investigation on DM within the past few years, but they are refusing to deliver. Who are they fooling?

    This SP declare is nothing but generalities and no truth (time,form,place and event). Full of lies.
    Well, I am not really surprised.

    • Overdriver
      2010-04-07 at 19:22

      Please, can you show an ethics order from the time of LRH with stated specifics? I’ve got into Scientology after LRH left his body and saw many ethics orders but none with specifics. This one is not the least different.

  3. 2010-04-07 at 08:13

    Tommy Davis isn’t IJC. I have never heard what his post is. I don’t even know if he has one. He used to work at CC Int.

    • 2010-04-07 at 15:45

      I got confirmed from a trusted source he is now double-hatted as the IJC – at least he was last year.

      • sherrymk
        2010-04-07 at 22:46

        Really??? I find that difficult to believe…well maybe not.

      • Margaret
        2010-05-02 at 00:34

        Geir, if they didn’t send it, how did you get a copy? You don’t need to name names, but I’m curious of the process you went through. Thanks.

        • 2010-05-02 at 20:03

          Someone walked into an org and took a photo and mailed it to me.

  4. NOTSaware
    2010-04-07 at 08:22

    Wow that was really amazing. It’s full of generalities and nonsense! Tommy Davis is the most obvious Liar the church has on the front lines!!!

  5. 2010-04-07 at 12:52

    Very well done Geir . This SP declare is 20 campaign bars worth !!
    This is what happens when a Scientologist applies standard tech : he gets declared.
    Why ? Because Scientology gives you enough guts to confront evil , raises responsibility level and perceptions. At some point on the grade chart you then become a danger to top management .

  6. Anonymous
    2010-04-07 at 13:30

    There sure are a lot of suppressive persons! Funny thing is that when all the older books were canceled and all my certs were canceled and then I was told I had to re-do certain auditing steps, and then ordered to study all the basic books again, I felt I had been declared unofficially, along with LRH and anyone who studied the “old” materials. Wait a minute! Isn’t saying that the materials are “old” and not to used a high crime?

  7. Thalkirst
    2010-04-07 at 14:12

    Geir, this is really pathetic. Even if we consider the original purpose of this kind of labeling (if you label them, they come back) it even fails at that.

    It basically says that you have expressed some criticism and spoke to someone who is considered to be critical with the Church.

    It is sad to see what this organization has degenerated into.

    • Overdriver
      2010-04-07 at 19:25

      Per LRH policy you can’t be critical. That is Scientology.

  8. Old person
    2010-04-07 at 14:53

    Dear Geir

    All these mechanisms were set up by L Ron Hubbard himself, as used just as suppresively by him as they are by Mr Miscavige, don’t you think?

    You remember Scientology trying to frame free-speech promoting journalist Paulette Cooper, amongst dozens of others?

    It’s your choice whether you get over Scientology or not.

    • 2010-04-07 at 15:43

      It’s not a matter of getting over anything. It’s a matter of focusing on what works and using that to forward progress.

  9. anon
    2010-04-07 at 15:19

    You’re one of the few who have actually received a written declare rather than just hear about it through back channels, like many recent ex-CoS members. How dare you exercise your freedom of speech and freedom of association. Treat it as a badge of honor.

    • 2010-04-07 at 15:42

      I do treat it as a badge of honor. You know when you really have exercised your freedom of speech when you get flak for it.

      But I didn’t actually receive it – someone took a picture of it and sent me the picture.

      • Margaret
        2010-05-02 at 00:38

        Ah … that answers it. Thanks.

  10. Li Po
    2010-04-07 at 18:20

    Congratulation! 🙂

  11. 2010-04-07 at 19:36

    Wow, Geir, that is a pretty cut and dried declare order. I wish I could get a copy of mine. I’ve never seen one, so based on the datum of “if it isn’t written it isn’t true,” I am not declared. I still, however, plan to continue my association with you as I’ve found you to be one of the finest Scientologists I’ve ever met in my 40 years in Scientology.

    And seeing as the “church” didn’t even bother to send you a copy, I’m guessing that they know that the independent comm lines are faster and probably more secure than church lines!

    • 2010-04-07 at 19:47

      That is one hell of a compliment, coming from you and all. Thank you!

      I am honored to consider myself your friend.

      • Overdriver
        2010-04-07 at 19:48

        You are very welcome, my friend! 🙂

  12. Overdriver
    2010-04-07 at 19:47

    Dear Geir, I can imagine this supressive person declare was a kind of a shock to you, but I’ve never seen an ethics order being different or containing specifics. Were there any specifics in the time of LRH?
    You write that “Declaring someone a Suppressive Person for exercising his Human Rights and acting according to the Church’s own Creed is hypocritical at best.” Although some paragraphs above you quote policy which says “it becomes a suppressive act to do so if the person then decides to leave the Church of Scientology.” (And that is from HCO PL 7 Mar. 1965RB I “SUPPRESSIVE ACTS, SUPPRESSION OF SCIENTOLOGY AND SCIENTOLOGISTS”) So this is clear… So what about hypocrisy? Please, recognise that LRH stated that if you leave the Church – no matter why – than you should be declared. Period.
    (And do not think it is different in lower ethics games. If you do not do what the ethics officer wants you to do, right there you fell out of the game. Many Scientologists know that and they just do conditions BECAUSE ethics wants them to. Not too much difference from your case, only in magnitude. They do not even think they would get into a lower condition. So they must know somewhere deep inside that conditions does not work… Do you understand, what I mean…?) The best part of it that even LRH did not defined the exact meaning of ethics. You can’t find it even in the State of Man course. Or you just take moral codes as a supplement for ethics and you do not criticise Miscavage and the Church. And that is ethics defined in this case. Period.
    There are certain things you do and you can get declared. I beleive even without a Comm Ev.
    You also quote the Creed of the Church but I sincerely beleive it is only for Div 6 publics, greens, newcomers like many human rights issue in the Church.
    We all know how the Church “translates” human rights.
    I do not know the exact situation with Mr. Miscavage. I do not want to get into that. But for sure, LRH did not wrote any policy letter regarding what if an SP will be the leader of the Church and besides Miscavage was the right man of LRH once.
    So, what I want to tell only that this exactly IS Scientology. If you say you are a Scientologist, than you must take this… But if you say you are only 98 % Scientologist, and do not take this, that means you are actually a Suppressive per scripture committed Scientology. Scientology makes it’s own enemies as I already told.
    There are way too many good things in Scientology and you too are really great that you ara brave, you actually use your mind well and that you want to practice Human Rights. But these things things does not go together (with Scientology).
    The present game conditions were created by non other than L. Ron Hubbard himself. Scientology is not 100 percent gold. You get that maybe only one percent not-gold and you get into serious trouble. Only from “that one tiny percent”.
    There are staff members and OTs and fellow Scientologists all with some sort of training but how could it be that just a few raises eyebrows over what’s going on?
    I know it is not easy for the Church. Despite I does not like the lies, I know it is hard for them and somewhere I respect them.
    I respect you as well. I respect you maybe more. You are amongst the rare ‘new OTs’ who are really good.
    I think this game of Scientology in it’s present state leads to nowhere. Dead end. There is no way out without respecting human rights. There is no way out with lies. There is no way out with faults in the system.
    And if you look at the situation there are serious faults right from the beginning.
    Anyway, I hope everything will turn out right, so have a nice evening!

    • 2010-04-07 at 19:51

      I was not shocked by this declare – rather I was slightly disappointed by the fact that it was so lame.

      I know nothing is 100% – and as I have written many times before – there are several parts I would like to see reformed.

  13. Overdriver
    2010-04-07 at 19:54

    sorry for the typo above:
    “and besides Miscavage was the right man of LRH once”
    instead of “right man”, right hand.

  14. sherrymk
    2010-04-07 at 22:44

    Hi Geir!!! Well you finally got yours. Compared to mine, you’re a friggin’ angel. What a joke. Sherry

  15. 2010-04-07 at 23:23

    I remember President Obama? saying we will go over the economy: “line by line.” Eventually the only way to sort out Scientology, like anything, is to increase the information infrastructure to text ratio up to a degree sufficent to restore ARC/U. Perhaps not only to Chapter and Verse levels but even to TOC’s (Table Of Contents) listing summating titles for each verse/paragraph as well. Eventually it all becomes a wiki-flowchart. Infotech/civilisation trends that way: linked desktops is i3: Al Gore’s International Information Infrastructure, linked documents is w3: World Wide Web, linked data is g3: Giant Global Graph (announced by Tim Berners Lee’s blog in the last quarter of 07). WebOS is next: Web Operating System – able to find any file anywhere – maybe they’ll call it d3?: Dynamic Data Delivery? – feel free to invent a name for it. Anyway, there should be a class action on behalf of everyone falsely declared because Human Rights is held sacred by all people, and that never should be invalidated.

  16. Marta
    2010-04-08 at 01:59

    My, my, defrocked in ALL CAPS no less. It’s a destim to see how ridiculously this reads. More proof of what a sham the CoS has become. Lame is an excellent descriptor – such understatement.

  17. 2010-04-08 at 03:40

    declaring,(in writing no less, a person suppressive could be called defamation

    (def·a·ma·tion/ˌdɛfəˈmeɪʃən/ Show Spelled[def-uh-mey-shuhn] Show IPA–noun the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel; calumny)

    and there is the potential for a suit against the church by all those that have been called, in writing, a suppressive person.

    Certainly it is libellous to call someone suppressive.i woudl be interested in how much damages one could reasonably expect if one persued the libel in a civil court

    • 2010-04-08 at 05:50

      I have a kick-ass lawyer that could indeed take the case if I so decides…

      • Margaret
        2010-05-02 at 00:46

        Haha, talk about a “class action” lawsuit. Of course, the CoM’s defense would be that they only “declare” it internally, and being a “church” and all, have every right to describe people as “of the devil” or “infidels” etc.

  18. ExKane
    2010-04-08 at 08:26

    Yet another Co$ footbullet.
    This also prompted a discussion on WWP if you care.

    A lawsuit is an interesting idea, but I wonder how viable that would be.


  19. MostlyLurker
    2010-04-08 at 09:23

    There are many little mistakes in that Ethics Order. It should have read

    “Geir was given assistance and opportunity to get official data and resolve his situation with Standard Lies. However, he continued to associate with free people and continued to commit self determined acts.”

  20. disinfected
    2010-04-08 at 14:20

    Geir, while I am, in many ways, sympathetic to your position, I do find a certain amount of irony in your protestations. Incidentally, I see, as I write this and look over the comments, that I am echoing a previous post to a certain degree.

    Geir, you act as if abridging your “right to free speech” is some sort of squirrel action on the part of the so-called “Church of Miscavology”. Who are you kidding? What Church of Scientology did you belong to that EVER allowed free speech? Are you claiming that you managed to go “full OT” without ever looking at the list of High Crimes in the ITSE (Ethics) book. I doubt it. Where in ITSE does it say that someone committing a High Crime must also meet the definition of an SP as per the twelve characteristics. It doesn’t.

    Fact of the matter is that you are exactly “guilty” of what you were declared for and you were, for many years, a member of, and enjoying the fruits of, a group that can and routinely does expel members for no more than exercising a “basic human right”. That is where the irony comes in.

    We could have a fruitful discussion as to whether uncurtailed “free speech” is appropriate in any dedicated group. I doubt you allow your (young) children “free speech” i.e. would you allow them to scream anything their reactive minds desired in any situation or do you expect their good sense and good breeding to enable them to curtail such “free speech”? Do you think you can stand in the midst of a group of soldiers and say whatever you please, support the enemy, etc? You would soon be the guest of honor at a “blanket party” if you tried.

    You knew when you were in that what you are doing now was not an option. So you have little room to complain now. Just carry on with what you think best but don’t act like this declare is not “standard Scientology”. Because it is.

    God bless.

    • 2010-04-08 at 15:31

      Your post is partly Straw Man (see WP).

      I never claimed that I was arguing only against the current management that have issued this SP declare. As I have said before and will again here if only to spoon feed you: I know there are policies that are wrong (according to my ethics). I want to see them reformed.

      I do think it is insane for any group to label a person expressing opposing views to its leadership as “suppressive” simply because he indeed exercises his basic human right of freedom of speech – which is btw one of the building block of this group itself (the Creed of COS). It doesn’t matter if it is China, Iran, Church of Scientology or the local stamp club doing it – it is still aberrated.

      I never agreed that it was ok in policy to limit free speech. Remember, I was on the board of directors of the Norwegian counterpart to the EFF ever since 2005. But that alone was not enough insanity for me to depart at that time. I needed to meet DM himself to wake up.

  21. An old acquaintance
    2010-04-08 at 21:01

    Congratulations on getting (at least in electronic form) a proper SP-declare. We don’t see eye to eye on much regarding Scientology, but I salute your principled stand, and the spirit in which you have taken the declare!

  22. Ron Minor
    2010-04-09 at 01:17


    Well done on your response to your recent declare. It’s too bad that these OSA terminals don’t have the same level of integrity that you have shown them. I’m proud to see that there are real Scientologist’s out in the world such as you.

    I’m jealous that you were able to get a picture of your declare. I know I have one myself, after 30 years of receiving constant junk mail from the church, I now get nothing…. One side benefit. I’m sure my biggest crime (from their view) is practicing Scientology outside of the Church.

    Ron Minor

  23. 2010-04-09 at 03:51

    Governments are investigating the CO$ in Australia and elsewhere and would be interested in false SP declares ie that’s a State class action, etc.

  24. Mary Jo
    2010-04-09 at 06:28

    Dear Geir,
    Thanks to you I saw a way out of the mess. Your doubt formula and then your support and friendship were invaluable to me, as we were both New OT VIIIs and both realized who Miscavage is when we were face to face with him at MVs. I am very grateful to you for your courage and continue to be so. Because you continue to manifest it every day. And you express yourself with personal integrity, every day.
    Thanks and love always to you and yours,
    Mary Jo

    • 2010-04-09 at 07:04

      Thank you so much for the acknowledgement 🙂

  25. TRUTH
    2010-04-10 at 08:48

    Geir, your reliable source is absolutely correct. Tommy Davis is the “IJC” as well as the Spokeperson for the C of S.
    Tommy sends out replies (if he feels as he should)signed with Mike Elise’s name, not his own name so no one would know he is wearing the IJC hat.
    Right now, the church is run by DM and his right hand man (Tommy Davis) who obeys his master(DM).

  26. Liam
    2010-07-05 at 20:08

    I think I know how to clear the whole thing up. Hubbard died in 1986. That makes him 24 years old now – in his new body. I think he will show up one day and boot DM out of the top spot. Hubbard HAS to see what’s going on now, right? Oh, you can’t say that his return is unexpected. Why did all those Sea Org folks sign a Billion Year Contract? Because they assumed Hubbard would be coming back, lifetime after lifetime. So, where is the dude?

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: