- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
Andrea, I challenge your ruling that commentary other than AGREE or DISAGREE is inappropriate for a proposal in agreement seeking on two counts:1. The permissible positions, stated at the beginning of this proposal, are AGREE, STAND ASIDE, or BLOCK; not AGREE or DISAGREE.2. This proposal is currently in agreement seeking. Discussion and possible amendments are part of the process. How could one ever hope to reach agreement on something without the possibility of discussion?Please reconsider your ruling.
There is nothing to reconsider. The votes necessary here are already longstanding rules.Please confine your commentary to the proposal torecognize, as others have already done.
It is a pleasure to welcome a new chapter to our State Party, and it is gratifying to bear witness to the growth of a movement I believe to be wholly integral to that most elusive of dreams, A Better Future. I believe it will serve us well to count among our allies a chapter in Longmont, Colorado, my hometown. As I'm sure many of you already know, Longmont is manifest proof that it lies within our power to better our society. Fewer than a hundred years ago the Ku Klux Klan marched down Main Street, and Longmont, that quiet wide spot in the road, boasted higher membership in that organization than most cities across the states once part of the Confederacy. That today we consider the incorporation of a group of people who could not be more opposed to such evil cannot be other than a boon to the spirit of this Party, and to the wider fellowship of people struggling to shed the nightmarish inheritance of our History, and to realize that which we know to be possible. But given the choice before me, I must perforce second the opinion already expressed that included in this Chapter's bylaws are clauses that are inimical to our most cherished principles, viz 2.2.1. Further, the Longmont Green Party explicitly rejects the false ideas that are used to derail social justice movements, such as reverse racism and misandry. While prejudice may exist against white people, against men, against cisgender people, against heterosexual people (or any other privileged group), this prejudice is not oppression because there are no institutional power structures designed to disenfranchise these privileged groups."This prejudice". I was startled to read such frank admission of a dangerous conceit from members of a party that has for decades nurtured as its very heart all that is opposed to this. While it mightn't be possible to oppress members of society born into privilege because our society lacks institutions whereby to do so, does that fact render prejudice permissible? Is adopting the tactic of those segments society we count as enemies really in our best interest? This clause, born I think of an entirely justifiable anger, makes us all vulnerable to what ate at the hearts of the men who marched down my hometown's main street a hundred years ago, wearing white cloaks. Moreover, this clause is in direct violation of its parent clause, viz2.2. The Longmont Green Party’s expression of the 7th and 8th Key Values, as well as of the Third Pillar of the Green Party (Social Justice) causes it to declare that we are an anti-oppression party, actively dedicated to the work of challenging white supremacy, cissexism and heteropatriarchy. As such, expressions of sexism, racism, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, and other oppressive behaviors are not in keeping with the values of this party.I'm sure it will be pointed out to me that the operative word in clause 2.2 is "oppression" and that what I object to in clause 2.2.1 is made right in the absence of the power to oppress. I myself do not believe expressions of prejudice are ever permissible, and for that reason I must cast my vote as STAND ASIDEuntil such time as these grievances are addressed either by revision or I can be convinced of my misapprehension.
The point of agreement-seeking is to discuss and seek agreement. Only after agreement has been achieved is it time to vote. Without discussion all we have is take-it-or-leave-it.Michael HaugheyJC Greens
Michael, please vote. The content of the bylaws is not up for discussion, as they are not asking for collaborative edits. They have already done that.You have offered your opinion, so now please take one of the following votes: AGREE, DISAGREE, STAND ASIDE or BLOCK.
I'd like some clarification on 2.2 and 2.2.1 [/color] [/color]2.2 begins with declaring that the chapter is anti-oppression and defines somewhat what that means.[/color] [/color]2.2.1 goes on to then define the difference between oppression and prejudice. However, there is no statement regarding whether prejudice is allowed, whether the chapter disagrees with prejudice, or if expressions of prejudice are permissible. Is this a Green Value? That prejudice is okay because it's not oppression? The wording does not explicitly say the chapter rejects prejudice[/color]I STAND ASIDE.
Ok, thank you for all for your participation.This proposal passes, with 8 locals voting (7 needed for quorum) and 11 votes in agreement (85%) and 2 stand aside.Congratulations to our newest local, Longmont Green Party!For those of you seeking clarification on their bylaws, feel free to contact them directly. Thanks again for your participation!
The leadership of the Longmont Green Party has graciously offered to discuss their stance on the anti-oppression language in their bylaws.That discussion will be had here: http://gpco.fullydefiant.com/forum/index.php?topic=318.0This thread will be closed within a couple days. Thank you.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.