There are a number of
points to be made before we come to the section dealing with the
“chit” system.
We quote:
“In
some Probation Areas like the Thames Valley Area sophisticated
systems have been built out of this co-operation. AA has been
asked to co-operate in the provision of training courses for
Probation staff. Elsewhere there are as yet less formal but still
effective links, like contributing sessions to Alcohol Awareness
Courses, and more will develop in time.
At
a more general level, AA has enjoyed attending and providing speakers
for conferences on alcohol-related topics, at events organised at
Parliamentary and Ministry levels, and has been invited to submit
comments to policymaking bodies. A group of AA and National Offender
Management Service (NOMS) officers hold regular meetings to discuss
shared interests in Probation and Prisons.”
(p. 3)
We're
not entirely clear what constitutes “co-operat[ion] in the
provision of training courses for Probation staff”. If it's simply
the provision of literature (conference approved) then this is not a
problem. If it involves AA members recounting their personal stories
and sharing their experience, strength and hope with regards to
recovery from alcoholism to interested parties then again this is not
a problem. Anything more than this is highly questionable. We're not
in the “training” anybody business. Remember - “no lectures to
be endured”!
Again
we're not entirely 'up to speed' with what is entailed by the
statement: “[AA] has been invited to submit comments to
policymaking bodies” (p. 3ii), We may well have been invited but according
to our own traditions no response should be offered.
We
quote: “10.—No A.A. group or member should ever, in such a way as
to implicate A.A., express any opinion on outside controversial
issues—particularly those of politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian
religion. The Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one. Concerning
such matters they can express no views whatever.”
Note:
the term “particularly” in the quote above does not imply
'exclusivity'.
(our
emphasis)
Further:
“Always
try to heed the Twelve Traditions but don’t beat yourself up when
you make a mistake. We all make many mistakes in service. Just
accept it as part of the growing process.”
p. 4
It
might be a good idea if the authors of this document took their own
advice! (see Tradition 10 above)
And:
“Remember:
the best endorsement of AA is a clean and sober recovering alcoholic
recounting their experience with humility and honesty.”
p. 4ii
The
term “clean” is generally (but not exclusively) applied within NA
to someone who is drug free (including alcohol). The term “sober”
is used within AA to refer to someone who is drink free. The ONLY
drug that AA deals with is alcohol. It is no concern of ours whether
an AA member is using drugs other than alcohol or not ie. whether
they are “clean” or not. That's their business, not ours.
But
now we come to the “chit” system as described within the
document. “Rarely have we seen” a better of example of AA 'double
speak' than we encounter here. (pp. 9-9ii)
In
particular:
“Possible
problems and solutions.
Experience
has shown that a minority of members will object strongly to the
concept of the chit system, often incorrectly arguing that it
contravenes our tradition of anonymity. This, in fact, refers to
“…..at the level of press, radio and television”. It is
true that member’s details are rightly confidential to the extent
that they wish to remain personally anonymous in meetings. However
the chit system described in Guideline 13 has been endorsed by AA’s
General Service Conference as satisfying all necessary
confidentiality requirements as no member’s or prospective member’s
names or even initials are required on the chit that is issued.
Another
argument that is often raised is that by having a confirmation system
we are doing more than co-operating with the Probation Service and
other organisations. It is important to be clear that neither AA nor
any AA member reports any probationer’s attendance at AA to anyone
in the Probation Service or elsewhere. We simply give the probationer
a means by which they can report on themselves to their
supervising probation officer.”
The
issue of anonymity is hardly relevant here, and focuses solely on the
signatory of the 'chit' without even passing consideration being
afforded to the anonymity of the recipient. But then why should we
bother. They're only felons aren't they! Of more significance,
however, is the second paragraph. The rationalisation employed here
(and that's precisely what it is – a rationalisation!) is that we
are “simply giv[ing] the probationer a means by which they can
report themselves to their supervising officer”. Poor things! It
would seem that they're quite unable to report themselves. They need
us to make a mark on a bit of paper so that they can do it
'properly'. Right! Yeah of course. We buy it! But if all they've
got to do is report themselves then let them do precisely that. Why
should they need a middle man! The answer though is pretty obvious.
AA members (on behalf of AA) are confirming the attendance of the
probationer. No chit - no confirmation - back up in front of the
'beak' for a slap on the wrist - or maybe worse! This argument at
best is misguided, and at worse simply disingenuous. AA members are
not employees of the probation service nor is AA an adjunct of the
judicial system. We're non affiliated! We don't endorse! Geddit!
Cheers
The
Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)
No comments:
Post a Comment