Trudy
Arbitrary lines are hard to draw, however, clearly such statements that are
insensitive to the philosophy of the list would have to be detrimental to
the lists discussion. My point isn't only an emotional response but also
practical. If K writes something that is clearly against the progression of
reconciliation, which any questioning of mandatory sentencing must be,
(unless we have some agreement that mandatory sentencing isn't a clearly
discriminatory act) then this works against the lists objectives. Karen can
have her views but I think that when they clearly and consistently move
against the philosophy of the list (as per the web site) then the
obstruction must be removed: nothing against Karen, nothing unfair, nothing
reactionary or aggressive, just a decision to remove obstructive and
distracting ideas.
Your questions are fair (see below) but for my mind they don't address the
context of this discussion. By this I mean that your questions situate this
list as a microcosm of broader society - a democratic society. While this
list may be attempt to democratic it does not have the problem of broad
inclusion. I agree that we need to work with people we do not agree with -
this is the reconciliation of those who are positive toward Aboriginal
struggles and those who are not. But this list has a specific purpose that
immediately sets it apart from the broad objectives of general democracy. It
is a strategic attempt to generate discussion on Reconciliation. It is not
an attempt to help remove the white blindfolds of those who wear them. My
point is that we could be generating discussion of how to do this elsewhere
on this list, but not actually doing it here. This list is an artificial
sanctuary for those pro-reconciliation not a mock democracy where everyone
gets a say. We are by our purpose exclusive and this is necessarily a bad
thing. It is deliberate.
"-If not for breach of the rules, when do we kick someone off?
--Every time someone says something we don't like or agree with?
--How many of the 'we' would it take?
--Where do we draw the line on what is said?
--How much do we believe in freedom of speech?
--How do we try to change 60% of the Australian public when we can't
handle just one of them on the list?"
So if she is not in breach of the rules maybe we need to reconsider the
rules. It doesn't have to be terrible thing to exclude someone just because
they are detrimental to the purpose of the list.
As for the objection re mandatory sentencing, I've trashed the mail, but I
recall her mail suggesting that mandatory sentencing wasn't a bad thing. For
me, in the context of Howard and Herron's diminishment of responsibility
regarding the Stolen Generation and their avoidance in addressing the NT's
laws, this is objectionable. When people are dying because of, not just
ignorant, but clearly discriminatory policy then to have a member of this
list actively reducing the nature of its violence is quite objectionable. It
is worthy of dismissal.
Ben
------------------------------------------------------
RecOzNet2 has a page @ http://www.green.net.au/recoznet2 and is archived at
http://www.mail-archive.com/
To unsubscribe from this list, mail [EMAIL PROTECTED], and in the body
of the message, include the words: unsubscribe announce or click here
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20announce
This posting is provided to the individual members of this group without permission
from the
copyright owner for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under
the "fair
use" provisions of the Federal copyright laws and it may not be distributed further
without
permission of the copyright owner, except for "fair use."
RecOzNet2 is archived for members @
http://www.mail-archive.com/recoznet2%40paradigm4.com.au/
