“Hi,
Thanks
for the mail. In the case of meetings which have outside affiliations
(ie. no longer an AA group) we refer you to the following:
Concept
12, warranty five: “And at times the Conference will need to take
certain protective actions especially in the area of Tradition
violations.…….. Individuals, sometimes outside organisations may
try to use the A.A. name for their own private purposes……..Whenever
and however we can, we shall need to inform the general public also;
especially upon misuses of the name Alcoholics Anonymous. This
combination of counter forces can be very discouraging to violators
or would be violators. Under these conditions they soon find their
deviations to be unprofitable or unwise…” (see
http://aacultwatch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/minority-report-continued4.html
for the relevant page extracts from the Concepts)
Extending
the above principle to local AA service structures (which extension
Bill Wilson makes reference to in the Concepts themselves), where
they have identified groups that have deviated significantly from the
guidelines (specifically Tradition 3 but with reference also to
Tradition 4) they may take action to ensure that outside agencies are
made aware of these. In the instance you have cited this group
presumably has been delisted under Tradition 3. It is therefore to be
deemed itself an "outside organisation". If it continues to
represent itself as an AA group (either explicitly or implicitly) to
other agencies then these should be notified accordingly by the local
AA service structure ("intergroup" in Great Britain). It
should be made clear to the relevant courts that this group is no
longer affiliated with AA, and therefore may not be regarded as an AA
group. This should be sufficient for the courts themselves to
recognise that any documents emanating from this group may similarly
be considered illegitimate. Of course this problem would not arise at
all if AA itself had not breached its own traditions by participating
in the court mandated system. But then we don't seem to learn from
our past mistakes - co-operation is fine but not endorsement! The
"court card" system goes way beyond the former and
certainly constitutes (literally) an endorsement of judicial policy -
whether or not courts wish to refer offenders to AA is their business
- but it certainly isn't ours!
Cheers
The
Fellas”
Comment:
A reply to an enquiry from a member in the US. Court mandated
attendance in the US is equivalent to the “chit system” in the
UK. Our participation in both are quite clearly contrary to AA
tradition – with the consequent (and inevitable) problems. People
are being referred to AA who are determined (by the courts) to have
an alcohol problem which in some way contributed to the commission of
their crime. It does not follow from this that they are necessarily
alcoholic drinkers any more than most of the “binge” drinkers who
clutter up town centres (and subsequently hospital A and E) are
necessarily so either. Nevertheless AA is being used as a 'dumping
ground' regardless. Our continued participation in this judicial
remedy constitutes an endorsement of the policy, and is contrary to
Tradition 6:
“Six—An
A.A. group ought never endorse, finance or lend the A.A. name to any
related facility or outside enterprise, lest problems of money,
property and prestige divert us from our primary purpose”
(Long
form – extract): “While an A.A. group may cooperate with anyone,
such cooperation ought never go so far as affiliation or endorsement,
actual or implied. An A.A. group can bind itself to no one. “
Cheerio
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
