The 2024 WSFS Business Meeting Agenda published today by the Glasgow 2024 Worldcon contains the text of 12 amendments passed at the Chengdu Worldcon that are up for ratification; 20 newly proposed constitutional amendments; and the full text of 12 resolutions – but not the text of two other resolutions described by the committee as calling for the “censure of certain groups and named individuals over the administration of the 2023 Hugo Awards”.
The titles of the two resolutions are:
- “Statement of Values for Transparency and Fair Treatment” submitted by Chris Garcia, James Bacon, Frank Wu, Chris Barkley, Steve Davidson, Kirsten Berry, Chuck Serface, Paul Weimer, Andrew E. Love, Claudia Beach, Nina Shepardson, Bonnie McDaniel, Tobes Valois, and Linda Robinette.
- “Chengdu Censure” submitted by Terri Ash, Kevin Sonney, Cliff Dunn, and Kristina Forsyth.
The resolutions will still be brought to the floor of the Business Meeting, but the substance of the charges will not be allowed to be discussed. Instead, Glasgow 2024, availing themselves of procedures in Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised, will treat the censure resolution as “a motion to form a committee on investigation as the first step in disciplinary proceedings.” This committee will be elected by the meeting to conduct an investigation into the allegations contained in the resolutions — including a reasonable attempt to speak with the members accused — and report back to the 2025 Business Meeting in Seattle, USA.
Glasgow 2024 has assumed the authority to say the Business Meeting will be placed in executive session while all of these proceedings are handled, and that session will be exclusively focused on the formation of an investigative committee into the charges. Glasgow 2024 says they will suspend livestream coverage during the related portion of the Business Meeting. The details of debate will not be published in the publicly available minutes, nor will this section of the meeting be shown in the posted recording of the Business Meeting.
The committee says this procedure has been formulated after taking “legal counsel to ensure adherence to Scottish law.”
We are concerned that publication of these items, as well as public debate about them in Glasgow 2024 spaces, will bring us out of compliance with Scottish libel and defamation law and expose Glasgow 2024, the World Science Fiction Society (WSFS), and/or its members to significant legal liability.
But their statement in the agenda also says, “The World Science Fiction Society also has the clear right to hold its members accountable for their conduct and do so as transparently as possible.”
Discover more from File 770
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Mike Glyer:
It was in England. The Worldcon’s answer is a reference specifically to the Scotttish law, which as noted above (but IANAL) apparently is substantially different. Also, the Eastercon’s actions did not include dealing with being asked to formally censure anybody.
Rcade says A Worldcon changing how a resolution is presented and discussed at the Business Meeting and unilaterally altering what it would accomplish — by making it a motion to form a committee without the consent of the resolution authors — is taking power that was not granted to that con by anything in the WSFS Constitution. It is a terrible solution that creates more problems than it solves.
I’m puzzled. Can’t any member including a supporting member submit it a proposed motion? The answer is answer. That member obviously not going to be there.
So the Business Meeting has first to dispose of proposals that are contrary to the rules of the organization or illegal. Or immoral or fattening. It is empowered to decide to do with an motion including passing it to the next Worldcon, or giving over to committee for further study.
@bill:
IANAL either, but: Such a statement might still be slander under Scottish law, but if the cameras are off and the statement isn’t in the BM minutes, it’s not slander by the Worldcon. Their lawyers have apparently concluded that if X says later “while we were in executive session Y said thus-and-such about Dave,” X and Y might be liable, but the Worldcon wouldn’t be.
Sorry, but the comparisons between Glasgow and Chengdu feel apt to me.
The Glasglow con committee is unilaterally declaring that they have the right to do something, based on speculative concerns that members of the committee might suffer consequences because of differences in how things work in Scottish society.
I see zero reason to privilege statutes over known customs. The concern that a member of the Glasgow con committee might lose their house over what someone says at a business meeting does not strike me as meaningfully different from a concern that a member of the Chengdu con committee might be disappeared over what a Hugo nominee might say at the awards ceremony.
Whether you’re talking about Scottish statutes or CCP guidelines, at the end of the day, you’re really looking at how you think those norms will be enforced, speculating as to potential consequences, and making judgement calls as to how much risk you’re willing to take on in exchange for holding a Worldcon in your country.
In either case, whether those are valid concerns or whether the path the con committee took to avoid those concerns is the best (and most narrow) path is a matter that can be debated.
However, it feels like the basic principle is the same: This–whether we’re talking about freedom to nominate anyone we want for the Hugos or discuss anything we want at the business meeting–is a concept that I would expect most of fandom takes as the default, but it turns out that it’s based on the peculiarities of American customs, which con committees in other countries do not feel any obligation to be bound by, and feel that they have absolute power to make whatever decisions are necessary to enforce their local norms.
(I’m going to ignore the “Robert’s Rules require them to take this action” argument because it’s unclear to me that they have any basis for acting as the business meeting’s parliamentarian like that, and it seems ludicrous to treat this as a con committee just having an excessive passion for following Robert’s Rules.
It should be noted that a con committee does have the authority to impose new rules on the business meeting (WSFS Constitution 5.1.4), but that’s a different thing than what they’re claiming. More importantly, that’s more of a suggestion than the binding decision they appear to think this is: the business meeting would be free to ignore any such new rules by the usual 2/3rds majority.)
… which I guess is a decision to be made by those with more knowledge in the field of parliamentary procedure than I possess: Should this be construed as the con committee badly explaining how they’re using constitutional powers under Section 5.1.4, and a motion to ignore what the con committee has decreed would be in order at the preliminary session of the business meeting?
I’m not giving a pass to you or anyone else here who’s offering “apparently” as the excuse for claiming unnamed Scottish lawyers as authority for their personal opinion.
You don’t know what they said.
Laura: Ben Yalow is attending the Buffalo NASFiC this weekend. You can see the back of his head in Rich Lynch’s photo of opening ceremonies. NASFiC is a WSFS convention, of course. One of life’s little ironies.
Can I ask the obvious question? What do people want to have happen to these two?
Not have them involved in anything that is Worldcon in any manner what so ever?
Drummed out of fandom to wonder the mundane existence?
A censure in and of it itself doesn’t really do anything. You’re not expelling them by this action.
Cat Eldridge: When the Business Meeting passes a resolution it’s making a statement of position. Everyone is aware that resolutions are not binding on anyone. The movers of these resolutions want the Business Meeting itself to say out loud, through a democratic vote, that some of the shit that was done does not represent the values held by WSFS.
@Mike Glyer–
At Eastercon, McCarty tried to force his way in, and did that in public with lots of witnesses. He gave everyone the clear impression he intended to be confrontational and disruptive. That’s something any organization can take action to stop.
Yalow was much more sensible. He stopped, talked to con officials, agreed to restrictions intended to prevent confrontation and disruption, and then abided by them.
And although everyone knew who the two people were, and which was which with regard to the actions taken, yes, Eastercon itself was careful not to publicly attach names to them. Which is to say, they did things every convention specifies in its rules thar it can and will do, and were very careful not to do or say anything that violated English libel law.
The resolution at issue for Glasgow is so clear and specific that just publishing the proposed resolution, not even passing it, would put Glasgow at serious risk with regard to Scottish libel law. And no, organizational rules, including the WSFS constitution, can’t legally be interpreted to require the organization or its agents to break local law.
That’s why the solution to the problems of holding a Worldcon in Uganda, caused by Uganda’s appalling laws, is to not hold a Worldcon in Uganda. There isn’t another solution.
And no, Scottish libel law isn’t a human rights violation. It’s just different from US libel law, with are far greater emphasis on protecting individuals from libel than on our 1st Amendment/free expression priorities–which seem extreme to countries that really aren’t suffering under a crushing burden of government censorship. It’s just a different emphasis on where to draw the lines.
The Glasgow committee is doing absolutely the right thing, for a Worldcon held–really, anywhere in the UK. And even here on the US, when a con decides they have to ban someone, they are usually careful to avoid being specific about why, unless forced. You might recall that when Worldcon 76 was too open about exactly why they were banning JDA, they wound up spending $100,000 defending the resulting lawsuit, and that one finally ended in a settlement. It’s really stupid</em for conventions to confirm publicly why someone is banned/not being allowed to have an attending membership.
OK, but Mike, neither do you.
So there are a few possibilities:
Either they did or they did not take legal advice before making this decision.
Assuming for the sake of argument and the entire financial resources of the convention that they did, they either followed, partially followed, or did not follow this legal advice.
Absent knowing what the legal advice was (and it’s covered by solicitor†-client privilege), you cannot judge whether their action was justified or required under law, unless you too take legal advice.
What remains is whether you are willing to consider that the concom is following the legal advice, or whether instead you think that it has instead gone completely off its rocker and decided, despite all of its efforts to run the convention without fear or favor to anyone as a rebuke to the secrecy and shenanigans of last year, to screw the pooch with regard to, of all places, the Business Meeting.
Obviously, opinions will vary. They always do.
† Although Scotland, like England, has two distinct legal roles – solicitor and advocate – this is definitely a question one asks of a solicitor.
Lis Carey: There were five grounds asserted in JDA’s suit against Worldcon 76. Four of them were related to the action of banning him. Glasgow hasn’t taken away from that a lesson that they shouldn’t ban people. And they now have the legal exposure that comes with banning people. They have that even without making an announcement. And JDA’S suit was not only about the wording of the announcement, that was just the only issue the court was going to allow to proceed to trial.
Evilrooster: I haven’t claimed to know what legal advice Glasgow received, so don’t put words in my mouth.
I know the “apparently” folk are trying to give cover to what is purely their personal opinion.
But one thing we absolutely do know is that Glasgow is telling the Business Meeting in advance how it must take a certain action under Robert’s Rules. And that the WSFS Constitution doesn’t give them that authority.
I try to operate a news site. So I want to know Glasgow’s position. I want to know the source and substance for their position. Therefore I decline your invitation to assume answers they have been unwilling to provide.
Doubling back to the overlap between this issue and the question of minimum criteria for a country to host a Worldcon, I haven’t been able to find a comprehensive index of nations based specifically on defamation laws. Given this isn’t the first time the issue of the overlap between Worldcon and libel laws has arisen, it is a reasonable dimension on which to consider the suitability of a host country/territory. It’s also one that “maybe not England” is an answer. Also, as bad as English law is on libel (and noting that in the issue above it’s Scottish law at play not the horrors of England) there are other countries as bad or worse (e.g. where defamation or insult are criminal offences). Thinking in terms of “what is an unacceptable risk in general” would be the way to consider it I suppose.
Revenge of the Censure from the Black Lagoon
Then they can refuse to publish or present the resolutions. No one is saying that a Worldcon must do something it believes will break local laws.
But local laws do not justify manipulating the Business Meeting to change a resolution’s desired outcome from what the proposers sought to what the current Worldcon wants to happen.
That’s a terrible precedent to set. Either let each item of new business be handled normally or don’t let it be considered at all.
rcade on July 20, 2024 at 10:35 am said:
Okay. Then the censure motions are ultra vires, because the WSFS Constitution has no disciplinary rules. Unless you’re saying that “WSFS can do anything it wants to do, whether it’s mentioned in its Constitution or not.”
In other words, the only authority that the WSFS Business Meeting has to entertain disciplinary motions is to rely upon its adopted parliamentary authority, which actually has written rules for dealing with such things.
Although of course some people appear to think that there should be No Rules At All,other than “Do what I say!”
Purely for information here is a link to a short overview of Scottish defamation law
Obviously this should not be used as a basis for any action without taking proper legal advice but I think it indicates that the Scottish law isn’t as wildly out of step with other jurisdictions as discussion here might imply (Japan on the other hand, yikes!)
https://www.rocketlawyer.com/gb/en/family-and-personal/resolve-legal-disputes/legal-guide/defamation-in-scotland
Note that libel laws in all jurisdictions are constantly evolving.
Kevin Standlee: The WSFS Constitution has no disciplinary rules. However, the Business Meeting has somehow passed many resolutions over the years. All the authority needed is for a WSFS member to introduce a properly co-signed resolution to the floor of the Business Meeting. A resolution is a statement of position. As you know, resolutions are not binding. They cannot impose any disciplinary measures. Therefore, a resolution is not ultra vires under your reasoning because one does not attempt to do the thing you say the Constitution does not provide for.
I’ll bet the 1984 Worldcon committee (L.A.con II) wishes the chair of that year’s Business Meeting had been aware of the requirement to form an investigative committee when a censure motion is introduced. That year’s committee was censured at its own Worldcon — for not having provided British Worldcon bidders tables in the registration area for use in publicizing their 1987 bid. That motion went right through.
You see, in 1984 it was not a custom in American fandom to staff bid tables — back then we were young and our attitude was we didn’t want to be stuck at a table all day, we wanted to roam and talk to our friends and maybe attend programming. In the evening people threw bid parties, and that’s where you went to meet the bidders (perhaps secondarily to eating and drinking everything they set out.) The day after the complaint tables were provided at registration. And the practice immediately spread throughout American fandom too.
The WSFS Constitution gives four other things higher authority than Robert’s Rules of Order: “Meetings shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of (in descending order of precedence) the WSFS Constitution; the Standing Rules; such other rules as may be published in advance by the current Committee (which rules may be suspended by the Business Meeting by the same procedure as a Standing Rule); the customs and usages of WSFS (including the resolutions and rulings of continuing effect); and the current edition of Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised.”
I think placing it below our “customs and usages” shows that the authority of Robert’s over our operations was intended to be far more narrow than you’re treating it here. We don’t have to give it the final say on how to handle a motion of censure.
I don’t see anyone in this discussion saying there should be no rules. Or in any of the hundred other threads about the next Business Meeting. I’m not sure what you get out of portraying these discussions as a bunch of barbarians at the gates while you stand athwart yelling stop.
We can take it as a given that people care about the rules. Otherwise we wouldn’t be driving ourselves crazy by getting involved in things like this.
The idea of seperating Business Meeting and Hugos from Worldcon is starting to look much more appealing when I originally dismissed the thought out of hand. Don’t imagine it will ever happen, but I have more sympathy for that idea then I ever thought I would.
The purpose of the censure is part of restoring faith in the Hugo process. Formally saying that they did something while representing us that we do not condone.
So this is kicked to committee for further consideration it doesn’t actually need. And who knows if Seattle will take it up either. That’s the typical way to kill a proposal.
I don’t think anyone should do something they believe or have been advised may be illegal. It’s just annoying that the one part of the Hugo recovery I thought would soon be a done deal is the part that definitely won’t be addressed for at least another year.
@Mike Glyer–
The four counts related to banning JDA were dismissed. The only one that was going to go to trial was the defamation count–at which point, they reached a settlement. I suspect that was because both sides had a come to Jesus moment with their lawyers, Worldcon 76’s lawyers telling them that they could lose, and JDA’s lawyers telling him that winning wasn’t guaranteed, the lawsuit was expensive, and even if he won, it could continue to damage his reputation.
Glasgow didn’t take the lesson from it that they can’t ban people, because the four counts related to banning JDA were dismissed.
They may well have taken the lesson from that case that they can’t defame people, because that’s the one that wasn’t dismissed and Worldcon 76 finally settled on.
You know this. You reported on it at the time.
Lis Carey: Well, if you refuse to understand my point, so be it. But once again — it’s not that the four grounds were dismissed, it’s that JDA filed a suit to assert them, and Worldcon 76 had to pay for a legal defense against them to get them dismissed. That’s the legal exposure. Glasgow hasn’t explained their action, and perhaps their choice to ban these two people is just as defensible under Scottish law as Worldcon 76’s decision was under California state law. It’s taking that action that creates the exposure. Keeping the explanation secret doesn’t magically avert the exposure.
Of course, I think it’s just possible to say two members have been banned, whether under the Code of Conduct or for another reason, without including defamatory charges of racism like happened in JDA’s case.
His lawyer Peter Sean Bradley said he represented Jon del Arroz pro bono.
file770.com
The same lawyer has filed suit on behalf of a former Fresno cop fired because he was a member of the Proud Boys.
The court case was a long way from deciding if defamation had occurred. One side had to pay for lawyers and the other didn’t. The side with no legal costs got an apology and a $4,000 settlement that could be portrayed as a victory.
“The rules we must follow”, indeed!
The comparison is apt because Glasgow only announced this decision after the deadline to submit proposals to the business meeting.
That appears to be deliberate management of the membership’s knowledge in order to minimize potential responses.
Which is right out of Chengdu’s playbook.
I have to be honest – I’m struggling to see what the focus of all the ire is! It surely can’t be that Glasgow Worldcon have acted in accordance with their understanding of Scottish law, because what they’ve done here would seem entirely on a par with their decision not to allow weapons or things that might look like weapons into the convention, also in accordance with Scottish (and U.K.) law.
It can’t be – can it? – that they announced this decision after the deadline for proposals to be submitted, because it seems to me appropriate to have all the proposals submitted first and then decide how to manage them.
It also can’t be – or can it?!! – that they’ve decided that since discussing (and hence ‘publishing’) potentially defamatory proposals would be in violation of Scottish law (and which, as I said earlier, is easily Googleable), the best way forward is to set up an investigative committee to examine the accusations, seek responses from those accused and then consider possible actions – because as someone who has been a union caseworker and represented people against whom some pretty horrible claims have been made, that does seem a reasonable approach.
So what is it that everyone is so het up about?!
Steven French: Glasgow has already banned these two from attending. Did they give them due process? We just know they decided one of last year’s Worldcon co-chairs and Hugo Administrator can’t be allowed in. Somehow they decided that. Where do you Union caseworkers stand on that issue?
I’ve been involved in fandom since 1981. And for all that time, every attempt to deal with any sort of bad behavior that wasn’t clear financial embezzlement has been met with, “We can’t, we’d get sued!” “We can’t possible refuse con membership to a person known to have raped multiple children, we might get sued.” “We can’t possibly refuse to allow club membership to a person who sexually assaulted you, we might get sued.” “We can’t possibly institute a Code of Conduct, we might get sued.” And in every case I am aware of, when I asked, “Which law would we violate?” the answer was a vague hand wave, and when I asked, “Have you taken legal advice?” I was told, “But that would cost money!”
I would really, really like to extend Glasgow grace and trust. They’ve done a lot of the right things. And my layman’s understanding of British libel law is that it is completely and predatorily bonkers, and that the Scots looked at that and said, “Hold my beer.” So, I can absolutely entertain the possibility that there are real legal issues here.
But I am not reassured by the older and wiser fans being certain of the legal landscape. And I am not reassured by bomb-throwers like BrianZ trying to draw an equivalency between McCarty betraying his role of trust as given to him by the Worldcon and this Worldcon trying to clean up the mess created by that and other actions of the Chengdu Worldcon.
We, as a subculture, have a very long history of tolerating abusers and putting them in positions of power, and then being super confused that a) abusers behaved badly and b) people don’t think us trustworthy because we trusted known abusers. So much of this is chickens coming home to roost.
I would really like fandom to survive and thrive. But we have a lot of housecleaning to do, and it turns out it’s really hard because of our past choices.
Mike Glyer on July 21, 2024 at 5:16 am said:
“Steven French: Glasgow has already banned these two from attending. Did they give them due process? We just know they decided one of last year’s Worldcon co-chairs and Hugo Administrator can’t be allowed in. Somehow they decided that. Where do you Union caseworkers stand on that issue?“
Mike: ok so the issue is not the appeal to Scottish Defamation Law or the decision to instigate the process of forming an investigative committee, or anything to do with that, it’s the banning of certain individuals from the convention. My own personal view is that unless there is clear and compelling evidence that someone will be disruptive (ie threats made beforehand etc, behaviour at previous meetings and so forth) they should be allowed to attend, with the proviso that the instant they start anything they will be escorted out by security. Unfortunately that line usually held little force in my union cases where HR would typically invoke some vague notion of ‘reputational risk’ in order to enforce some form of suspension or ‘gardening leave’ while an investigation took place. Perhaps the Glasgow Team have the same attitude. I don’t necessarily agree with it but I can understand why they might adopt it.
Mike Glyer on July 20, 2024 at 3:19 pm said:
I was responding to the assertion that we aren’t bound by our organization’s adopted parliamentary authority (which is in the Constitution) because “I say so,” which is what I considered rcade’s position to amount to.
I’m not defending the actions of the people in question. I’m defending what I consider to be the rule of law. I can’t rely upon the law to protect me unless I can rely upon it protecting everyone.
@Steven French–
One of the two tried to force his way into Eastercon when denied admittance, and had to be escorted off the property by, I forget whether it was hotel security or the police. The other one was cooperative with the con and accepted a set of restrictions to avoid confrontation and disruption during the con, and abided by them when allowed to attend.
I can see solid grounds for banning the first one, at least.
S. French:
This is absolutely the source of my outrage.
It seems highly doubtful to me that they only decided this policy in the 9 days between the submission deadline and the agenda release. I think they decided to go this route weeks ago and they sat on the policy to avoid inspiring business meeting submissions criticizing Glasgow’s handling of the situation. That is quite contrary to the transparency they’ve promised.
The way this is going I could easily see -no one- wanting to host a Worldcon going forward.
How could the Glasgow committee decide how it is going to deal with resolutions weeks before they are submitted? They could decide, and then the resolutions could be changed. The deadline is when you know what you have to deal with. They don’t have a time machine. If they did have a time machine, we could complain that they didn’t use it to go back and change Scottish libel law.
Tom Becker: How could they? The military axiom is to plan for your enemy’s capabilities not their intentions. That’s how plans exist ahead of a triggering event. Drafts of these resolutions went public a couple of months ago. One of them I’m told was submitted well before the deadline; I don’t know about the other. But go ahead and make sarcastic comments about a time machine.
Robert’s Rules of Order allows a motion of censure to be heard and voted on by members without moving the matter to executive session:
“A motion to censure a member can occur in two circumstances. First, if the chair has named the person (as a result of that person’s poor behavior), a member can make the motion to censure when the chair asks for a penalty. Second, if members know of another member’s bad behavior and want to bring it to the attention of the assembly in the form of a motion to censure, that can be done under new business or under the part of the agenda called for the good of the order.”
Censure resolutions are not required to be moved to executive session.
Mike Glyer:
This is exactly the kind of legal cosplay that drives me spare and gives me hives. “Due process” is something that the courts are mandated to provide to defendants before depriving them of life, liberty, or property. The WorldCon is not a court, and cannot provide “due process” even if it wanted to. Moreover, being barred from attendance at a social event is not equivalent to the deprivation of life, liberty, or property. In order to provide due process, there is an entire, complex legal apparatus, complete with an investigatory arm, highly trained advocates, an empowered judiciary, and legal enforcement. Fandom has none of that, nor should it aspire to acquire it.
We are a social organization. That’s not nothing. It matters. But the way in which social organizations enforce norms is by praise and disapprobation, by choosing who we associate with, by talking and working together, and not accepting association with people we do not approve of.
I would lilke these things to be more transparent, not less. I wish we didn’t have to rely upon whisper networks and quiet deals amongst con-runners in the know. That’s a shitty way to run these things. But the answer isn’t legal cosplay. It cannot be. And we need to stop it. Preferably yesterday, but I’ll take today.
Robert’s Rules of Order, which Kevin regards as just as binding as the WSFS Constitution on our operations, includes this passage about trials held in executive session to consider a member’s censure:
“The accused has a right to due process — to be notified of the charges, given time to prepare a defense, and allowed the right to appear and defend himself or herself.”
Robert’s actually calls it a “trial”, which isn’t going to assuage your concerns about legal cosplay.
One more reason for me to side-eye RRoO, I guess.
Seriously, though, at its core RRoO was designed for organizations that are far more formal and far less social than what fandom is. It might, just might, be an acceptable fit for the business meeting…but yeah, it does lead to legal cosplay which does not actually help.
I guess my other question is, does RRoO actually define what “due process” is, in these circumstances? Because without a definition, I have zero idea what would actually constitute “due process”. “Due process” is a concept that requires a whole bunch of other agreed upon things, like rules of evidence, how to evaluate witnesses, impartial judiciary, access to appeals… I don’t think we have any of that. At very least, it requires an agreed upon set of rules, and I’m pretty sure we don’t have that, either.
Lydy Nickerson: Too bad you didn’t pause to consider the context of my reply to Steve. He was, in his own sarcastic way, upholding the due process Glasgow has imposed on the Business Meeting. So I challenged his defense of the year-long investigative process Glasgow is imposing on the Business Meeting by pointing out that the Glasgow leadership has shown they believe they know enough to not merely censure but ban two individuals who inspired these resolutions.
Mike: I apologize for missing nuance.
My point stands. Legal cosplay is not an appropriate way to deal with these issues. There are things we can and must do, including follow the law. But there are things that we really shouldn’t do, and one of those is set up a shadow judiciary with none of the resources or accountability of actual courts.
I acknowledge that I am kinda twitchy on the subject. I’ve been fighting this particular set of brain-worms for many decades, and I’m tired.
Lydy Nickerson: rcade quoted to you things Robert’s due process includes. Due process is doing all the required steps and giving the targets of censure the rights provided in Robert’s. It doesn’t pull in everything in general civil and criminal law.
Lydy Nickerson: If we plow over this field enough I may miss what you mean by legal cosplay and shadow judiciary. Is that directed at the announced plan for the Business Meeting to launch an investigation. Or at any BM consideration of these resolutions?
Same. RRoO was never intended to be used the way Kevin Standlee is trying to use it today. It’s guidelines for running meetings and holding votes, not constitutional provisions voted on by our membership.
T. Becker:
The problem with your sophistry is that Glasgow did not notify the membership of the potential issue in advance. If they were not trying to guide the business meeting to their desired ends, a transparent concom would have put it’s membership on notice of the local legal constraints.
Mike: RRoO’s definition of “due process” isn’t the worst thing I’ve ever read, but I also don’t like it much. I continue to think that RRoO is really not designed for an organization which is largely social. Insofar as we have legal entanglements and organizations, it is to promote our ability to socialize in various settings, and to do stuff that we love.
I confess that I am not well-versed on the actual details of the things that the Glasgow committee says they can and can’t do. In general, I think it is both desirable and necessary for the BM to do a careful and transparent investigation of what went wrong with Chengdu, name names, and determine appropropriate consequences. I understand that Glasgow feels that Scottish libel law prevents them from doing that. I am not a lawyer, and I would be very interested in an actual legal opinion from someone who practices law in Scotland.
What I will say is that I have absolutely seen this exact set of behaviors and excuses used for more than 40 years to avoid actually dealing with bad actors in our midst. It goes back farther, but I’m just talking about what I, myself, have seen. “Due process” is so very frequently used as a way of saying “we aren’t going to deal with this.”
My actual argument, insofar as I have one, is two-fold. First, we are a social organization and as such, we should act like it. It is true that we have in trust several important functions, such as administering the Hugos, and we should treat that as a social good and be honest and transparent about our administration of same. Secondly, we have, under the guise of being afraid of legal action, allowed abusive people to have positions of authority in our organizations, and we are paying for it. We are both too legalistic and not legalistic enough, but the pattern is clear: we will not ostracize abusers for abuse. Our primary power as a community is social, and our binding commitment is love of the genre. We abdicate our power when we resort to legalistic hairsplitting.
None of this is to say that I think we should be capricious, unfair, or random. I don’t think that we should act like a bunch of high school cliques all trying to one-up each other. Instead, I think that we should start actually reckoning with our actual place in the world, both socially and legally. And we are a social organization, and we do not have the means to become a judicial one. The way healthy social groups deal with this is to be open and honest about what is going on. To make it possible for people to talk about abuse they have received without being ostracized. For people to care enough about that kind of thing to take it seriously. To create a social organization that cares about this stuff, even if we are imperfect. Not to hold a tribunal for every accusation, but to center those who feel under threat, and to work to create a world where that is no longer the case. it’s actually a lot harder than tribunals, I’ll grant you. But it is also within our power.
Lydy Nickerson: Thank you for a very clear explanation.
Lis Carey:
Does this mean that if McCarty had cited a Chinese legal authority that validated his exclusions, that you would have supported his actions?
If so, I suspect you are in the minority.
I suspect that most of fandom blames the Chengdu concom not for failing to cite a statute, but rather for violating the norms of worldcon when they found out that their country constrained their freedom to operate.
And in that regard, Glasgow is quite analogous to Chengdu.
@ChewyGlacier: I can only speak for myself, but I definitely would not have been angry with McCarty if he had been transparent about what was happening while it was happening, and had made a full disclosure, and if the numbers had not clearly been jiggered. I might have been very angry with the concom that put him in that position, but I would not have been so angry with him. Moreover, if we had known that the Hugos had an asterisk due to governement intervention before the voting many things could have been done. Or not. But there would not be this deep sense of betrayal.
As dubious as I am about Glasgow’s need to punt the censure issues, I am willing to give them a smidgen of room to explain themselves. This is not something being pulled at the BM, last minute. It is being said now, out in the open. I am worried, but this is a not the same level of betrayal and lack of transparency as Chengdu and I really wonder at your motivations for trying to create an equivalency.
Apologies if I came across as sarcastic. But I think Liz has hit the nail on the head (repeatedly): the behaviour of a certain individual at Eastercon is sufficient reason for banning them. However it remains the case that if the proposals in question were to be published, the Worldcon organisers could be liable to prosecution under the Defamation Act. What remains contentious then is the decision to convene an investigative committee but I still feel that’s perhaps the best way forward under the circumstances.