Talk:Scientology Justice

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 31/7/2006. The result of the discussion was keep.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on August 1, 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Scientology Justice article.
Article policies
The Arbitration Committee has placed all Scientology-related articles on probation (see relevant arbitration case). Editors making disruptive edits may be banned by an administrator from this and related articles, or other reasonably related pages.
Scientology Portal
This article is supported by WikiProject Scientology, a collaborative effort to help develop and improve Wikipedia's coverage of Scientology.
The aim is to write neutral and well-referenced articles on Scientology-related topics.
See WikiProject Scientology and Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Arbitrary section header

A user originating from 131.107.0.80, which is a microsoft proxy server, added a npov and clean-up template to this article. Without a discussion initiated by this unknown party, those templates were removed. --Fahrenheit451 22:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Let's stick to verifiable facts

Removing this paragraph:

Many Scientologists wonder how much justice there is in the Church of Scientology to "snarl about". It is interesting to note that David Miscavige routinely demotes and removes personnel under him by order alone, dispensing with any justice action, when L. Ron Hubbard's policy is explicit that a Comm Ev needs to be done to authorize such a measure.

This is heresay and no verifiable source. To state “many Scientologists” – who are we talking about? Sounds like apostates POV. I am a Scientologist and I don’t know any Scientologists that say this. --Nuview 11:30, 17 February 2006 (PST)

Sure, Nuview, if a member of the cofs did say something like that, they could be put under non-enturbulation order, comm ev'd, or declared a suppressive person. Interesting that you use the term "apostates". Your senior Mike Rinder does as well. Interesting POV you osa folks have, a Scientologist outside the cofs disagrees with you, and you label them "apostates". --Fahrenheit451 02:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the article, Nuview has explained that a piece of information is not attributed, that is, it is not published, that is, it is not previously published to the public by a reliable and ruputable source. That's his point. An appropriate point, given WP:NPOV and WP:V and WP:RS, appropritely stated :) Terryeo 16:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV, sources

An article about Scientology Justice whose only 'references' are old policy letters from the 1960's is clearly faulty and probably deliberately skewed. Highfructosecornsyrup 20:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Those "old policy letters from the 1960's" are senior policy. If Hubbard didn't change or cancel them before he died, then they're stuck with them. AndroidCat 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "misused tags"

Antaeus Feldspar removed my "fact" tags and my "disputed" tag and said they were "misused". I'd like to know how this is so. Almost none of the important sentences have sources, and I DO dispute the NPOV of this article, so I don't see how it's someone else's place to remove the tag without a better explanation. Highfructosecornsyrup 01:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: on his talk page, Antaeus Feldspar said I didn't have a right to an explanation "When you're making high volumes of very obviously POV changes" and "I concentrate on undoing the damage first"! Wow. How are my changes "obviously POV"? What do you presume to think my POV is? What articles have I "damaged"? So much for WP:CIVIL and assuming good faith. How the heck am I supposed to dispute an article if you watchdog over it and refuse to let a "disputed" tag be placed on it, even though I explained myself on the talk page and you didn't? Highfructosecornsyrup 01:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] damned if I do, damned if I don't

First Antaeus Feldspar removes my npov/sources tags and says I'm too specific and overboard with all the citation needed notes. So I put them back without the cite-notes, and now Fubar Obfusco reverts me AGAIN, saying I need to be more specific. So it's a classic Catch-22: either way, I'm not allowed to dispute the NPOV and lack of sources that this extremely biased article has. Highfructosecornsyrup 05:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Importance?

Has anyone outside of Scientology published anything on the subject of Scientology justice? Steve Dufour 03:22, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

  • This is a matter of discussion for WP:SCN talk page, not here. Thanks. Smee 08:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC).


[edit] unsourced opinion and OR

80 percent of this article was unsourced gossip, so out it goes. Since it's such a large removal, I'll repost here and let the assembled masses peruse it: (restored article removed by wikipediatrix)

Anyone want to write a real article on the subject? Or, better yet, merge it to Ethics (Scientology) where it belongs. wikipediatrix 17:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome to help me write a real article. Ethics and Justice are two distinct subjects. It deserves its own article.--Fahrenheit451 20:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your simple opinion, but I'm looking for a little more in-depth discussion of the issues than that. I'm restoring the disputed text here since you removed it for some reason:

Court of Ethics

A court of ethics is convened by an ethics officer or church executive senior to the church member being charged. The offenses being accused are of non-serious nature and the sentences are at the discretion of the person who convened the court of ethics. The court is not supposed to engage in investigation, but rather operate only on known evidence. There is no means of recourse from the sentence of a court of ethics.

Committee of Evidence

A committee of evidence is usually referred to by the abbreviated term, "Comm Ev" and is a tribunal that deals with serious offenses. In principle, the comm ev is only convened at a church member's request or when there is evidence of serious wrongdoing by a church member.

In practice, those who have had negative experiences with comm evs maintain that a Scientology organization can simply ignore requests by a church member for a comm ev if the actions of one or more church executives would be viewed negatively as a result, or a Scientology organization can convene a comm ev against a church member whose actions are viewed as threatening to vested interests of one or more church executives. In the latter case, charges against a church member can be based on false accusations with no evidence whatsoever, and the comm ev is, essentially, directed to find a way to confirm the charges. A set of wild card charges often used to set-up a church member for punishment, are violations of any ten points of the 1965 policy letter "Keeping Scientology Working" written by founder, L. Ron Hubbard. (The ten points in this policy letter were not criminalized by L. Ron Hubbard, as per the implication of the discussion in that policy letter, many church members were not fully following these points and he urged them to work harder at doing so. The criminalization of these points occurred in January 1991.) These ten points are very general, thus anyone can be accused of violating some of them to some degree. "Violators" are deemed guilty of high crimes and can be declared a suppressive person and expelled.

There is a method of appeal of such abuses that extends to the International Justice Chief, but that is no guarantee any abuses get remedied.

Administrative procedure

Administratively, the comm ev is initiated by a convening authority, usually the LRH Communicator of the organization. This person does so at the request, usually, of another church executive who makes formal accusations of violations of church ethics codes. A chairman, a secretary, and two to five other members are chosen by the convening authority who are "senior" to the accused. No one may object to any person who has been chosen to serve on the comm ev. Their task is to read and hear evidence for and against the accused church member. They have two weeks to complete the comm ev. After reviewing evidence, the secretary and members vote on whether they think the accused church member is guilty or not guilty of each of the presented charges. There is no standard method of voting. Conviction on a charge is by majority vote. The comm ev then recommends punishment, which in principle, must be done in accordance with L. Ron Hubbard's policies, but in practice, is arbitrary. The outcome of a comm ev is issued in a document called the "Findings and Recommendations". All comm ev members must sign this document whether they agree with it or not. The Findings and Recommendations require approval of the LRH Communicator, the Continental Justice Chief, and the International Justice Chief. Disapprovals on this document are rare, but the Recommendations can be changed to lessen the severity of the punishment. The only means of recourse are: A review comm ev, where the committee is supposed to just listen to the recordings and review the documents of the original comm ev, then issue new Findings and Recommendations, or a petition by the accused church member to have the comm ev cancelled, which is directed to an executive highly-placed in the church hierarchy. The review comm ev has the option of making new recommendations which can be more harsh than the original.

Comparison with Trials by a Jury

The comm ev resembles a military tribunal more than it does a jury trial or a court martial: There are three to six voting members versus six or twelve on a jury. A comm ev requires a majority quota for conviction, while a jury trial requires unanimity. Due process of some form is present in jury trials, but absent in comm evs. A felony jury trial requires charges to be unanimously approved by a grand jury to proceed, while a comm ev can be initiated on executive accusation alone. There is citizen access to jury trial proceedings and documents as a means of oversight, while comm evs are done with some level of secrecy where even other church members cannot review the evidence and testimony. Jury members must be peers of the accused, while voting members of a comm ev must be seniors of the accused church member. (In practice, comm ev voting members are always church staff members.) In jury trials, the accused may retain legal counsel for assistance in court. Comm ev policy explicitly bars any legal representation. Jury trials have strict rules for evidence, while comm evs can use certain forms of hearsay, such as an offhand comment scribbled on a piece of scrap paper. A jury trial allows testimony by witnesses on material fact. A comm ev allows this in principle, but in practice, a comm ev chairman may arbitrarily refuse testimony by a relevant witness. Jurors can vote on charges with impunity based on the facts and the law. Comm ev members face being comm ev'd themselves if the convening authority believes they were not aggressive enough in pursuit of the comm ev findings. This provides a grand opportunity for a pre-ordained verdict. Both the comm ev and military tribunal suffer from the separability problem. Even if there is no manipulation otherwise, individual charges voted on simultaneously can produce an outcome that is unsatisfactory to all parties. If sequential voting were used, it would necessitate some members having to change their votes based on prior verdicts. However, there is no guarantee that any voting members would do so.

Tool of Coercion?

When L. Ron Hubbard devised the comm ev in 1963, there were considerably fewer church offenses designated and published than there are at present. The number of charges brought against church members in comm evs has increased over the mid-1960's. At the time of its inception, the comm ev may have had favorable acceptance compared to what existed previously. Nevertheless, most Scientologists presently dislike comm evs and will take or not take certain actions for fear of them. Commonly heard phrases in the Church of Scientology are: "If I don't, I will be comm ev'd" and "If I do, I'll get comm ev'd."

The kinship of the comm ev to a military tribunal gives it the same vulnerabilities to injustice, namely paradoxical verdicts and trial "rigging". The use of multiple accusations from altitude, generalities (such as the Keeping Scientology Working violation), inconclusive evidence, no standard method of voting, semi-secretive proceedings, vague rules of evidence, possible retaliation against voting members, and no application of fundamental justice, wreak havoc on justice within the Church of Scientology. Since 1980, the Commodore's Messenger Organization International has exerted influence over comm evs held at Scientology organizations staffed by Sea Organization members. This is usually accomplished by "discussions" with the comm ev chairman so as to preserve plausible denial. Any church members who object to the comm ev or its unjust results are often accused of "snarling about justice".

After 1966, Hubbard did not do any further development of the Comm Ev as he did with other administrative subjects. This contradicts his own statement from the Flag Executive Briefing Course, "Progressive and dynamic technologies actually do not cease to develop, they continuously refine."

In a lecture given on 2 August 1970, Hubbard admitted that Comm Evs were very unpopular with Scientologists: "..This, of course, requires something that is very unpopular, which is a comm ev."

It could be said that the comm ev procedure was motivated by L. Ron Hubbard's disdain for and utter rejection of law courts. Unfortunately, this includes basic inalienable principles of justice, the foremost being, natural justice.

You do not WP:OWN this article, so stop restoring edits that remove unsourced contentious info just because youdontlikeit. wikipediatrix 20:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN it either, so stop you POV editing. The material is sourced but youdontlikeit. --Fahrenheit451 20:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you own the HCOPLs in question? If so, then feel free to create inline citations that show exactly where each of these disputed statements comes from. But I think you're bluffing and actually have no knowledge of whether the info in the article is actually contained in those HCOPLs or not. Prove me wrong by coughing up some actual quotes and inline citations. wikipediatrix 22:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikipediatrix, I do own all of them. You are violating WP:AGF by your snide comment, "But I think you're bluffing and actually have no knowledge of whether the info in the article is actually contained in those HCOPLs or not." Knock it off.-- Fahrenheit451 23:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
If you own all of them, you should have no problem coming up with inline citations that show exactly where each of these disputed statements comes from, and you should be able to provide relevant quotes for the article too. Can't wait to see what you come up with. wikipediatrix 02:09, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


I voted keep as per 'trix and agree with her assessment. I have read all the materials relative to Scn justice (and have been on the receiving end of almost all of it) and most of that is OR. I removed a heap of it and may rewrite based on source materials but what I left is close enough for now to the policies. --Justanother 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lack of third-party refs

No a third-party refs for this article. Might be there is none online. How about checking expertises etc? Will do that but any other comment is welcome. Otherwise this article goes AfD. Misou 00:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

But... but... it's already up for AfD right now as we speak... wikipediatrix 00:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)