Editing Disconnection (Scientology) (section)

==Policy==
Antagonists to the Church of Scientology are declared by the Church to be [[Scientology ethics and justice#Suppressive person|suppressive persons]] (SPs) or [[potential trouble source]]s (PTSes). The Church teaches that association with these people impedes a member's progress along the [[Bridge to Total Freedom]].{{Citation needed|date=December 2009}}

In ''Introduction to Scientology Ethics'', [[L. Ron Hubbard]] sets out the doctrine that by being connected to suppressive persons, a Scientologist could become a Potential Trouble Source (PTS):

{{blockquote|text=A Scientologist can become PTS by reason of being connected to someone that is antagonistic to Scientology or its tenets. In order to resolve the PTS condition, he either HANDLES the other person's antagonism (as covered in the materials on PTS handling) or, as a last resort when all attempts to handle have failed, he disconnects from the person. He is simply exercising his right to communicate or not to communicate with a particular person.{{r|hubbard-ethics|page=206}}}}

Hubbard defined "handling" as an action to lessen a situation towards an antagonistic individual by means of communication, and ''disconnection'' as a decision to cut communication with another individual.{{r|hubbard-ethics|page=206}} Hubbard also wrote that [[Scientology ethics and justice#Ethics officer|ethics officers]] should recommend handling rather than disconnection when the antagonistic individual is a close relative.{{r|hubbard-ethics|page=208}} He also stated that failure, or refusal, to disconnect from a suppressive person is a suppressive act by itself.{{r|hubbard-ethics|page=209}} In one case cited by the UK government, a six-year-old girl was declared suppressive for failing to disconnect from her mother.<ref name="kew" /> Sociologist [[Roy Wallis]] reports that Scientologists connected to a suppressive would usually be required to handle ''or'' disconnect, although he found some "Ethics Orders" which ordered unconditional disconnection.{{r|wallis|page=144}}

{{quote frame|align=right|width=25%|text=[In the child custody case, t]here had been much evidence as to how Scientology broke up marriages and alienated children from their parents. He gave examples which showed "the ruthless and inhuman disciplinary measures" used. The methods blocked out all reasoning powers, and everything had to be paid for. {{r|sinister}}}}

According to Church statements, disconnection is used as a "last resort", only to be employed if the people antagonistic to Scientology do not cease their antagonism—even after being provided with "true data" about Scientology, since it is taught that usually only people with false data are antagonistic to the Church.<ref>Church of Scientology [https://web.archive.org/web/20031020205700/http://scientologytoday.org/Common/question/pg78.htm What is Disconnection?] (archive.org copy of website Retrieved on 2008-05-16)</ref>

Originally, disconnection involved not only ending communication with someone but also declaring it publicly.{{r|wallis|page=144}}<ref name="acts">Hubbard, L. Ron (23 December 1965) HCO Policy Letter "Suppressive Acts" reproduced in {{cite book |title = Hubbard Scientology Organisation in New Zealand and any associated scientology organisation or bodies in New Zealand; report of the Commission of Inquiry| first= Sir Guy Richardson |last=Powles |author2=E. V. Dumbleton |date = 30 June 1969|oclc= 147661 |location=Wellington|pages=53–54}}</ref> The Scientology publication ''The Auditor'' included notices of disconnection from named individuals.{{r|wallis|page=144}} It was also common for Scientologists to send short letters to the suppressive person, to warn them that they were disconnected.{{r|wallis|page=145}} [[Roy Wallis]] interviewed a number of people who had been declared suppressive, some of whom had received hundreds of these letters.{{r|wallis|page=145}} The Scientologist was also required to take "any required civil action such as disavowal, separation or divorce" to cut off contact with the suppressive.<ref name="acts" />

The policy was introduced in 1965 in a policy letter written by Hubbard.<ref name="acts" /> The "Code of Reform" introduced by Hubbard in 1968 discontinued [[Fair game (Scientology)|fair game]] and [[List of Scientology security checks|security checks]], and cancelled "disconnection as a relief to those suffering from familial suppression".<ref name="reform">Hubbard, L. Ron (29 November 1968) "Code of Reform" reproduced in {{cite book |title = Hubbard Scientology Organisation in New Zealand and any associated scientology organisation or bodies in New Zealand; report of the Commission of Inquiry| first= Sir Guy Richardson |last=Powles |author2=E. V. Dumbleton |date=30 June 1969|oclc=147661 |location=Wellington|page=26 |url=https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/book/lookupid?key=olbp25106}}</ref> However, although the words "fair game", "disconnection", and "security checking" were discontinued due to them causing bad public relations, the practices continued with alternate labels.{{r|atack|page=188}} When the New Zealand Government set up a Commission of Inquiry into Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard wrote to them saying that disconnection had been cancelled and that there was no intention to bring it back. The Commission welcomed the letter, but noted Hubbard did not promise never to re-introduce the practice of disconnection.<ref name="powles"/>

In his book ''[[A Piece of Blue Sky]]'', [[Jon Atack]] cites an internal document dated August 1982 that, he alleges, re-introduced the disconnection policy.{{r|atack|page=35}} A belief that disconnection was being used again, and not as a last resort, led a group of British Scientologists to resign from the Church in 1984, while keeping their allegiance to the beliefs of Scientology.<ref>{{cite news |title = Buy-out bid for sect HQ: Factions announce plans to fight 'disconnections' | work = East Grinstead Courier |date = 16 February 1984}}</ref> Their interpretation was that the teachings of L. Ron Hubbard "encourage the unity of the family" and therefore that the disconnection policy was "a misrepresentation or misapplication".<ref>{{cite news |title = Sect row over policy: Members Quit in 'Disconnection' Protest | work=East Grinstead Courier |date = 9 February 1984}}</ref>