Ed Brayton is a freelance writer and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media.(static)
Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« Evolution and Atheism: A Fascinating Exchange | Main | God Angry at Oklahoma, Missouri and Georgia »
Category:
Posted on: May 13, 2008 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton
L. Ron Brown has a frightening post at the Frame Problem where the leader of the Church of Scientology in Canada, speaking to protesters wearing masks, tells them "we could find you, just so you know. We could. If we wanted to." Sounds like a not-so-subtle threat to me. What other possible purpose could be served by saying that? He has video of it as well, which I'll post below the fold:
YES! Send me a free issue of Seed.
If I like what I see, I'll receive 5 more issues (6 in all) for just $14.95. That's 50% off the cover price! If I'm not completely satisfied, I'll simply write "cancel" on the invoice and owe nothing. The free issue is mine to keep.
(Non-U.S. subscribers, click here.)
Comments
Honestly though, did you expect any different. They, as you well know, have their "Fair Game" policy.
She sure is a creepy human.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | May 13, 2008 10:25 AM
It would be news if Scientologists *weren't* threatening people. They're not exactly the most honest of organizations. Paulette Cooper springs to mind.
Posted by: tincture | May 13, 2008 10:33 AM
I guess you could vaguely rationalise it by arguing that the protestor claimed that the scientologists wouldn't be able to find her. The cult leader responds that they could, not as a threat, but as a statement of fact.
That's the best I can do!
Posted by: SteveF | May 13, 2008 11:09 AM
That's a rhetorical question, right?
Posted by: V Profane | May 13, 2008 11:14 AM
Eh, meh. The anonymous group has made a big deal out of being anonymous, and while that's a legitimate point, it is also a bit of drama queeny theater too.
If you were an organization, say, academic science, that was accused of being so oppressive and persecutory that critics claimed they had to remain anonymous, you might be a little snarky about how big a deal they were making about their anonymity too, and not really mean such statements as a real threat. So I don't see this as a particularly strong case of a threat (though it certainly could be, given the organization's history), especially considering that she premises the whole thing with "we wouldn't even bother" to find the person's identity.
Posted by: Bad | May 13, 2008 2:14 PM
Uh, it would seem the video has been pulled. I wonder why?
Posted by: Jeff Knapp | May 13, 2008 3:22 PM
Bad: I don't know. The pairing of "we wouldn't bother" with "but we could" sounds like pure bravado to me. Fake threats, like a puffer fish.
I think Scientologists are feeling a little beleagured right now, what with cherished secrets like that candid interview with Tom Cruise coming out, not to mention the profile-raising Anonymous is engaged in. There's always, in my opinion anyway, been an under-the-radar element to Scientology (oh, just another harmless loony cult) that's served them well, but with Anonymous, among other influences, blowing away some of the smoke-screen more people are really starting to look at them and ask questions. Unpleasant questions.
Secrecy is a big deal to them, if I'm judging this correctly. Witness the way their own followers get the "secrets" revealed to them stage by stage until the Big One, Xenu and all that, which anyone with an Internet connection can find out in no time flat. That's kind of a weird reversal of the Insiders vs Outsiders dynamic, don't you think? Keeping your own folks in the dark? Crackers.
Anyway, secrets being such a big part of what they are, and so many of them being blown lately, it makes sense this woman would hint at secret powers to find people; it's nearly all she has left. It makes good fodder for the cattle, sorry, the followers, too: "Don't worry, Anonymous is no threat to us, we can out them whenever we want, except they're not really a threat so we won't deign to."
Posted by: North of 49 | May 13, 2008 5:48 PM
I know that particular Scientology building quite well (the three-story white building you can see in the background at 0:25 is the gym I go to) and it's in pretty crappy shape. The downtown Toronto branch doesn't seem to have much budget at all, so I'm not sure how successful they'd be at actually tracking someone down and intimidating them.
Posted by: Alex | May 13, 2008 6:25 PM
This is typical Anonymous baloney. You see a snippet of a conversation. You do not know what comments precipitated the exchange. This is typical of Anonymous.
Posted by: mem555 | May 13, 2008 7:09 PM
Brayton, get a life. This was no threat, either implied or direct. You are really reaching on this one. You guys bring up Paulette Cooper as being "Fair Gamed". When did this occur? In like 1967? 1977? She is doing just fine, with no ill effects and is profiting quite nicely by selling those same lies and hearsay stories to psychotics like you guys. If Fair Game is still in effect how come you can only come up with an incident that occured before LRH cancelled the policy letter. How come nothing has come out on Jason Beghe or the Masgavige niece? Don't you think Scietologists are savvy enough to leak a story, a juicy tidbit that would surely find its way to the press? At least come up with an incident that occured "after" most of you were born!
Posted by: mem555 | May 13, 2008 7:16 PM
mem555 - hmmm.... scientologist perhaps?
Posted by: c-serpent | May 13, 2008 7:39 PM
All I can say is, she's at least partly right. CoS has been pretty aggressive about sending private investigators out to follow around anons and take pictures. We had one waiting at our metro stop to take pictures of people--since then we've been careful to take the bus instead of driving. Don't want them to get our license plates. Sure I doubt that they have the resources to pursue everyone they identify under fair game, but it's better to play it safe anyways. Here in DC they even hired bums around Dupont Circle to look out for anons and follow them around.
Posted by: Hyuga | May 14, 2008 12:43 AM
@c-serpent, no perhaps about it. Love the line about fair game being cancelled.
"The practice of declaring people FAIR GAME will cease. FAIR GAME may not appear on any Ethics Order. It causes bad public relations. This P/L does not cancel any policy on the treatment or handling of an SP."
Emphasis mine.
It's not at all surprising that mem555 would say something like that. Scientologist drones know less about their own organization than outsiders. They have such wonderful internet filters.
Posted by: tincture | May 14, 2008 3:42 AM
"When you're a Scientologist, and you drive by an accident, you know you have to do something about it, because you know you're the only one who can really help..." Tom Cruise.
30 years ago my then teenage brother's best friend became a Scientologist at the insistence of his mother who was a member. Subsequently, he drove his car off a cliff in Washington and died at the scene. His death was believed to be a suicide. I don't know if his Scientology experience had anything to do with this, but it's too bad Tom Cruise wasn't at the scene to save him with those special life-saving Scientologist techniques...
Posted by: Dr X | May 14, 2008 8:47 PM
Mem555,
Someone once broke in my house and stole some of my stuff. I'm not experiencing any lasting ill effects from it. Doesn't mean it was an excusable action or that the people who did it aren't responsible for it now, 15 years later.
And aside from this completely pathetic attempt at a justification, your attitude is deplorable. That fucking cult sought to have a woman institutionalized. Do you think there's no lasting effects to that? How about trying to have her imprisoned for a crime she didn't commit. You think there's no lasting effects to having been framed or lied to by people you thought were your friends? The woman was a depressed, suicidal mess because of the mind rape they pulled on her, and the best you can come up with is that it all happened 30 years ago so it doesn't matter?
Lame. Worse than lame, it's laughable. If we had done that to you I doubt you'd be singing the same "oh it's all water under the bridge" tune now.
And that she isn't in prison now isn't a testament to the decency of that cult, it's a testament to their failure. A failure I doubt they were as pleased with and I don't doubt they learned a great deal from.
Posted by: Leni | May 14, 2008 9:07 PM
Wow - really? Institutionalised? Yikes!
But I thought Lron thought that Psychiatric care was evil. Perhaps it's not so bad if your cult caused the problem in the first place. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | May 15, 2008 1:19 AM
I happen to be the sassy little protester that spoke to her and I must say that I have yet to be found. Not that it would be hard however, Toronto Scientologists are rather lazy as well as just obvious when they do private investigations... So, I am not too worried about being found and have my life ruined.
Posted by: Asia | May 17, 2008 1:38 AM