Newcomer/Oldtimer Engagement and Rapprochement

[michelmanen]

It seems some people need to take a seminar in what "respecting diversity" in 2L really means and how that relates to freedom of speech...

It is one thing to hold personal views about the private beliefs of our fellow citizens; it is an entirely different matter when public officials, elected to represent the interests of the entire community, make public statements, on CDS public fora, in writing, expressing their "opinion". Such action clearly is no longer a private matter, but a public statement, and should be regarded and treated as such. And while CARE will defend to the last the right of any citizen to free speech, public officials when making public and published statements must adhere to certain standards which are rather more complex than "I'll say what I want when and where I want to and who cares about the consequences". A private citizen is quite entitled to do so; a public official isn't - certainly not in writing, in an official CDS publication.

Unfortunately, now that our Judiciary has been gutted, the only institutions left standing are those staffed by the very individuals involved in this matter... Fairness, equality, respect, individual rights and the rule of law seem no longer to be relevant topics in the "Brave New CDS" of today.

CARE certainly will propose a diversity policy that will deal with such issues clearly and decisively - unless, of course, the very same people who diligently labored to strike down our Judiciary will also succeed in having our party declared unconstitutional because of our proactive policy of absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship -and all this in the name of some as yet-to-be-proven narrow and inward-looking community standards whose invocation serves no other purpose than justifying the desire amd determination of a small oligarchy to hold on to its feudal privileges of power and decision-making despite the changing and evolving nature of our growing and increasingly diverse community...

MM

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="michelmanen":2871vml1]It seems some people need to take a seminar in what "respecting diversity" in 2L really means and how that relates to freedom of speech... [/quote:2871vml1]I think you might need to attend that seminar yourself given what you go on to say.

[quote:2871vml1]It is one thing to hold personal views about the private beliefs of our fellow citizens; it is an entirely different matter when public officials, elected to represent the interests of the entire community, make public statements, on CDS public fora, in writing, expressing their "opinion". Such action clearly is no longer a private matter, but a public statement, and should be regarded and treated as such... A private citizen is quite entitled to do so; a public official isn't - certainly not in writing, in an official CDS publication.[/quote:2871vml1]So, you would wish to restrict the rights to free speech of our public officials? I note that you have made no such admonition of our erstwhile Chief Judge, yet you choose to criticise a comment about 'the Gorean mentality' which is hardly a criticism of an individual.

[quote:2871vml1]Fairness, equality, respect, individual rights and the rule of law seem no longer to be relevant topics in the "Brave New CDS" of today.[/quote:2871vml1]This is hyperbole. We have upheld these principles and continue to do so.

[quote:2871vml1]...determination of a small oligarchy to hold on to its feudal privileges of power and decision-making despite the changing and evolving nature of our growing and increasingly diverse community...[/quote:2871vml1]Is this an attack on the Representative Assembly, the democratically-elected body which repealed much of the Judiciary Act earlier today? Or the Scientific Council, which is an unelected body? Please make your intentions clear.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3a0tf39n][quote:3a0tf39n]Fairness, equality, respect, individual rights and the rule of law seem no longer to be relevant topics in the "Brave New CDS" of today.[/quote:3a0tf39n]This is hyperbole. We have upheld these principles and continue to do so.[/quote:3a0tf39n]

As you know, it is the view of many that the destruction of our professional judiciary is wholly incompatible with those aims.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Ashcroft Burnham":2xu1826n][quote="Patroklus Murakami":2xu1826n][quote:2xu1826n]Fairness, equality, respect, individual rights and the rule of law seem no longer to be relevant topics in the "Brave New CDS" of today.[/quote:2xu1826n]This is hyperbole. We have upheld these principles and continue to do so.[/quote:2xu1826n]

As you know, it is the view of many that the destruction of our professional judiciary is wholly incompatible with those aims.[/quote:2xu1826n]And the view of many more that our 'professional judiciary', as established by the Judiciary Act, was a grave threat to those aims.

[Flyingroc Chung]

Hi Carolyn, weclome to the CDS forums, where the "vigorous discussion" occurs. As a gay sort-of-furry in public office, I can testify that the CDS community as a whole is really welcoming of people with diverse backronds and orientations. We are pretty much all nicer in-world and out of the forums. Really.

Part of diversity, of course, means that we all have opinions about how to live our lives well. I suspect that as CDS grows, we will need to find more and better ways to treat each other of differing value systems with fairness and respect; while staying true to our core principles. A crucial component of that is that we are all treated equally under the law. And I think I can speak for the whole community when I say that we are all committed to this ideal.

I would also apologize in an unoffical capacity for the DPU--the faction I belong to. Not reaching out more to new and existing citizens have been one of our failings. I tend to see that as reflecting our philosophy of "doing" rather than "talking"; though I think we sometimes fail to see that taking the time to talk to people is actually doing something important.

Lastly, try not to stress out over forum debate. Things get heated in here, but in the end I believe everyone is working on a just and equitable society within SL.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":229pe2rg][quote:229pe2rg]As you know, it is the view of many that the destruction of our professional judiciary is wholly incompatible with those aims.[/quote:229pe2rg]And the view of many more that our 'professional judiciary', as established by the Judiciary Act, was a grave threat to those aims.[/quote:229pe2rg]

Really? You have collected evidence showing the quantitative comparison?

[i:229pe2rg]Edit[/i:229pe2rg]: Incidentally, why did you write "professional judiciary" in quote marks?

[michelmanen]

So, let us see:

1. Our SC decides to entrust to a respected legal profesional the design of our Judiciary;

2. The matter is debated at length, over a period of weeks, and the JA is approved three times by the RA.

3. A four-month process of hard work and public consultatons ensues.

4. Realising that a fair and impartial judiciary will actually mean the application of the rule of law to all their actions and the limitation of their hitherto unchecked powers by a functioning legal system, a small group of individuals decides, in the name of some undefined and unclear community values, to violate the clear and established custom of the CDS not to hold RA meetings during the two weeks preceding an election, let alone pass critical legislation, by adopting a bill submitted less than 4 days beforehand, after virtually no public consultation and debate, on the basis of the voluminous comments made by less than 10 individuals on our forums.

5. The very person who triggered the submission of this bill sits as a member of the only institution capable of vetoing such legislation for unconstitutionality.

6. No other appeal possibility exsists because the bill in question has destroyed the only independent institution capable of fairly and firmly weighing issues of democracy, constitutionality and the rule of law in our community besides the RA and SC, some of whose mebmers have worked together to achieve the very destruction of our judicial system.

7. Public officials make insensitive public statements in public media and other public officials admonish those of our citizens who dare object;

8. The only party whose core values are absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship and who genuinly appeals to the wider citizenry other than the less tthan 10 vocal individuals who currently run the CDS and post volumes of notes on our forum is dragged before the SC in order to be declared illegal and forcefully disbanded and forbidden from participating in supposedly free and fair elections because of their very polices of absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship and in the name of the self-same undefined and unclear community values.

9. And so, the circle closes. The very few individuals who today wield power in the RA and SC have worked together to:

1. apply the semblance of democracy in order to invalidate their own, previous decisions arrived at after extensive debate and consultation;

2. have destroyed the only fair and impartial institution whose very raison d'etre is to uphold the rule of law and capable of checking the unlimited powers of the remaining institutions;

3. are planning to declare illegal and ban from the political process the only party who explicitly campaigns for the values of bsolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship;

4. are doing so by violating long-stading CDS customs that such actions cannot be taken less than two weeks before elections to the RA are due to be held.

I call this a Kafkaesque story of Orwellian proportions where Big Brother is watching us all and some citizens are clearly more equal than others.

[Brian Livingston]

[quote:3efdavme]8. The only party whose core values are absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship and who genuinly appeals to the wider citizenry other than the less tthan 10 vocal individuals who currently run the CDS and post volumes of notes on our forum is dragged before the SC in order to be declared illegal and forcefully disbanded and forbidden from participating in supposedly free and fair elections because of their very polices of absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship and in the name of the self-same undefined and unclear community values. [/quote:3efdavme]

Err, as has been pointed out on several occasions, Factions, as per the CDS constitution, are only to be made up of CDS citizens. This is not some kind of partisan conspiracy, it's a basic reading of the constitution.

[i:3efdavme]Article IV, Section 2 - The Faction Body[/i:3efdavme]
[quote:3efdavme]All faction members must be Neualtenburg citizens and must join a special SL group created for the sole purpose of running for seats in the RA. No citizen is required to be part of a faction and cannot be a member of more than one faction at the same time. [/quote:3efdavme]

[michelmanen]

Our Counsel will make submissions to the SC on this issue.

[Carolyn Saarinen]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3bww1fqo]I'm not aware that I, or anybody else, has suggested excluding people from CDS citizenship on the basis of their involvement in d/s activities.[/quote:3bww1fqo]

In response to a post about 'authentic' Roman pornography in CN Aliasi said: "I'm unsure tying things to the sim theme is so desirable. There were slaves in ancient Rome; [i:3bww1fqo]should we now welcome all Goreans and hardcore D/s lifestylers[/i:3bww1fqo]?" My italics. The clear inference is that she does not consider lifestylers to be welcome at present and does not want them to be.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3bww1fqo]I don't agree that d/s is a sexual orientation. Unlike homosexuality it's a lifestyle choice.[/quote:3bww1fqo]

Which is [i:3bww1fqo]exactly[/i:3bww1fqo] the kind of argument that was and is used by homophobes. I'm appalled to see a gay man resorting to this sort of hair-splitting. What is the difference between a sexual orientation and a lifestyle choice? Not being inclined to D/s yourself, how can you possibly know how it feels to those who are?

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3bww1fqo] There's a world of difference between the negotiation, compromise and interplay between two adults in a loving partnership of equals and the acting out of d/s roles. Please don't try to characterise all of us as part of that world, we're not.[/quote:3bww1fqo]

Is there? How do you know? Are you seriously suggesting that people in long-term D/s relationships don't love each other? Once again, this is exactly the sort of argument used by bigots against homosexuals.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3bww1fqo]I don't really care what you do in private, but other people do and they have a right to express their views without being threatened/silenced by (mis)quoting the community standards.[/quote:3bww1fqo]

What I [i:3bww1fqo]said[/i:3bww1fqo] was that a party leader who expressed disgust at my sexuality could not expect my vote. That is neither a threat nor an attempt to silence anyone. I doubt you would vote for an openly homophobic faction and that would be your right.
The quote from CS is a direct cut and paste from the SL website. Explain to me how it constitutes a misquote.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":3i1or9qy]
I see no qualification in your original remarks stating that you restrict your predjudice to a specific minority of Goreans. Do you also find homosexuals 'personally disgusting' ? How about ethnic minorities? And whether you do or not, what part of the CDS Constitution appoints you as the cop in my bedroom?[/quote:3i1or9qy]

I see I should further explain myself. I DID use qualifiers; 'hardcore'. Here, I was referring to people of similar mindset as those Goreans; I've ran into a few. Those who do not confine D/s to a lifestyle they enjoy, but actively preach it as the only way someone can be a fulfilled human being. I'm mindful of one who said something like "Everyone's dom/sub, there's just those who realize this and those who are fooling themselves".

Does this accurately describe you? Not a "I happen to like to live like this", but "I believe YOU need to live like this"? Then yes, you'd be correct, and I do not apologize. It's right in my profile; I won't talk to your master if I have a problem with "this girl", I'm talking to the one who's responsible - and you can't shift responsibility for your actions; agreeing to let someone else manage your life does not remove that responsibility.

But if it's something you like to do in the bedroom? Go wild. Do what thou wilt, if it harm none. Or even if it harms, between consenting adults. I'm not telling you how to live your life; I merely don't wish to be told how to live MINE, which includes expecting nonconsenting parties to honor your wish for domination or submission.

As for my feelings on homosexuals... well, that's one of the stranger accusations to throw my direction. I've never been one for self-hatred.

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="michelmanen":3hrtd0v4]1. Our SC decides to entrust to a respected legal profesional the design of our Judiciary;[/quote:3hrtd0v4]I think that's a rather partial reading of events. As I understand Ash came to our community in order to develop a legal system and seek office as Chief Judge. I will agree that the RA, and others, could be criticised for entrusting too much power and control over the design of the judiciary to one individual. It's a mistake we should avoid in future.

[quote:3hrtd0v4]2. The matter is debated at length, over a period of weeks, and the JA is approved three times by the RA.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]Too quickly, and with insufficient scrutiny, in hindsight.

[quote:3hrtd0v4]3. A four-month process of hard work and public consultatons ensues.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]Actually, it was more of a massive ruckus as long-time citizens who had missed the debate on the Judiciary returned to find the Constitution had doubled in length and a new institution had been granted sweeping powers over their Second Lives and property. This was followed by the vocal complaints of some new citizens who thought the Judiciary Act was wholely misconceived. I disagreed with both groups at the time, I don't any longer.

[quote:3hrtd0v4]4. Realising that a fair and impartial judiciary will actually mean the application of the rule of law to all their actions and the limitation of their hitherto unchecked powers by a functioning legal system, a small group of individuals decides, in the name of some undefined and unclear community values, to violate the clear and established custom of the CDS not to hold RA meetings during the two weeks preceding an election, let alone pass critical legislation, by adopting a bill submitted less than 4 days beforehand, after virtually no public consultation and debate, on the basis of the voluminous comments made by less than 10 individuals on our forums.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]The notion that there has been insufficient debate on this issue is laughable. We've debated nothing else for months. And the RAs term of office has not ended yet.

[quote:3hrtd0v4]5. The very person who triggered the submission of this bill sits as a member of the only institution capable of vetoing such legislation for unconstitutionality.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]Are you referring to me? Presumably you think I should have kept my concerns about the judiciary to myself and not acted on them? In any case I am only one member of the CSDF and our faction has only two out of five RA seats. Clearly the other members of our faction had similar worries. It was not only our faction reps on the RA but the two DPU reps who were present, who voted to repeal much of the Judiciary Act they had previously passed. Clearly they thought it was important enough to risk their seats in the RA by taking this step.

[quote:3hrtd0v4]6. No other appeal possibility exsists because the bill in question has destroyed the only independent institution capable of fairly and firmly weighing issues of democracy, constitutionality and the rule of law in our community besides the RA and SC, some of whose mebmers have worked together to achieve the very destruction of our judicial system.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]So the plan was to make the judiciary the final arbiter of these questions? That was the accusation made against the Judiciary by some of its opponents, I can't say that I wholely believed it. You appear to have confirmed their suspicions though. We have been saved in the nick of time then from a 'judicial coup'. Phew!

[quote:3hrtd0v4]7. Public officials make insensitive public statements in public media and other public officials admonish those of our citizens who dare object;[/quote:3hrtd0v4]This is Aliasi's comment about Goreans? What was insensitive about her statement? Why shouldn't I (or anyone else) push back against attempts to censor people's views?

[quote:3hrtd0v4]8. The only party whose core values are absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship and who genuinly appeals to the wider citizenry other than the less tthan 10 vocal individuals who currently run the CDS and post volumes of notes on our forum is dragged before the SC in order to be declared illegal and forcefully disbanded and forbidden from participating in supposedly free and fair elections because of their very polices of absolute inclusion, deep diversity, the power of the best argument, and multi-level citizenship and in the name of the self-same undefined and unclear community values.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]The [b:3hrtd0v4]only[/b:3hrtd0v4] party? That's a rather big claim. On the issue of CARE's constitutionality, I will be arguing that you are within your rights to have members who are not CDS citizens provided they do not take decisions on the party platform for elections or select candidates for the RA. We have a similar situation in the CSDF. We have open enrollment and so some avatars from outside the CDS have joined because they broadly share our political philosophy, we hope they will become members of the CDS. But they can only be 'supporters' according to our Charter. I see no conflict between this situation and the Constitution.

[quote:3hrtd0v4]9. And so, the circle closes. The very few individuals who today wield power in the RA and SC have worked together to...[/quote:3hrtd0v4]No, the RA has taken a decision it is perfectly entitled to do. The SC has yet to consider the Constitutional Amendment and Bill.

[quote:3hrtd0v4]I call this a Kafkaesque story of Orwellian proportions where Big Brother is watching us all and some citizens are clearly more equal than others.[/quote:3hrtd0v4]I call this a one-sided distortion of the facts intended to shore up CARE's vote in the elections.

[Carolyn Saarinen]

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":672xnkso]
Lastly, try not to stress out over forum debate. Things get heated in here, but in the end I believe everyone is working on a just and equitable society within SL.[/quote:672xnkso]

I am not stressed, but I am concerned. What I [i:672xnkso]said[/i:672xnkso] was:
"Oh, and a hint to faction leaders: Public expressions of your disgust for my sexual orientation will not win you my vote, and I [i:672xnkso]do[/i:672xnkso] vote."

That seems to me to be a perfectly justified position for a citizen of a democracy to take. One might almost be surprised that it excited comment at all. Instead, I find myself obliged to make ever longer and more detailed defences of my position against a series of antagonists, apparently determined to browbeat me. Whatever anyone's intention, the message this sends to me, and probably other newcomers is: "Mind your place and shut your mouth or prepare to be ganged-up on."

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":24hf1ipy]I think that's a rather partial reading of events. As I understand Ash came to our community in order to develop a legal system and seek office as Chief Judge. I will agree that the RA, and others, could be criticised for entrusting too much power and control over the design of the judiciary to one individual. It's a mistake we should avoid in future.[/quote:24hf1ipy]

That is not strictly true; I came to SecondLife hoping to help to design a legal system and be a judge in it. I sought out self-governing communities that wanted me to do that for them. I found what was then simply called Neufreistadt, and, after talking to a few people, it was clear that there was indeed a genuine demand for a judicial system. I never had any intentions of forcing anybody who was unwilling to accept a judicial system that they did not want: I specifically sought out communities that wanted a judiciary. It is unclear why you think that it was a mistake to use a system designed by one specific person, though.

[Ashcroft Burnham]

[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":fz53rbqq]...That seems to me to be a perfectly justified position for a citizen of a democracy to take. One might almost be surprised that it excited comment at all. Instead, I find myself obliged to make ever longer and more detailed defences of my position against a series of antagonists, apparently determined to browbeat me. Whatever anyone's intention, the message this sends to me, and probably other newcomers is: "Mind your place and shut your mouth or prepare to be ganged-up on."[/quote:fz53rbqq]

That is exactly what has happened to all those people who have been supporting the judicial system that I spent months working on (at the request of those in power) and that was destroyed to-day (by those same people).