AA MINORITY REPORT 2017 (revised)

Click here

Saturday 5 July 2014

Conference questions (2014) – almost! (contd)


A personal 'favourite' of ours:

As guardian of the Three Legacies in GB, would Conference consider:
a) What action should be taken regarding external websites and publications which make personal attacks on AA Groups and individual members by name;
b) Giving guidance to the Fellowship on the involvement of AA members in such websites;
c) Giving guidance to Groups and individuals under attack from such websites.

Background

It is known that certain non‐AA websites exist which, sadly, are aimed at spreading malicious gossip or, worse still, directly attacking some AA Groups or individual AA’s.
Whereas we do not wish to do anything which would raise their profile, websites such as these do affect AA as a whole because new prospects might believe that these websites speak for the majority of AA, when in fact they neither represent AA, nor do they speak for AA. Whilst at first it appears we in AA can do little or nothing to stop these websites operating (Tradition 10 – we ought never be drawn into public controversy), we ask Conference’s help on if and when to act, and how to act.
Where such problems continue, the Concepts suggest that Conference may ‘need to take certain protective actions’ or ‘press for the discontinuance of such a practice’. Our question seeks to ask Conference to consider (a) how AA groups ought best to draw such matters to its attention (or the attention of the GSB); (b) how they should act for the best; and (c) when Conference or GSB might find it necessary to intervene.
While Concept 12, Warranty 5 states ‘that no Conference action ever be personally punitive or an incitement to public controversy’, the text of the essay explains that ‘we can inform tradition violators that they are out of order. When they persist we can follow up by using such other resources of persuasion as we may have, and these are often considerable’
This section has much to say on these matters and there is clearly a need for Conference to show leadership in such situations to uphold Tradition 1 and avoid further breaches of Traditions. All are entitled to their opinions about groups and individuals. But when those opinions are publicly voiced, particularly when it is easy to identify those groups and individuals, by people with no identity other than as AA members, then several Traditions are being broken. (1, 3, 4, 10, 11).

Terms of Reference No. 7 Adequately covered by Committee 2, Conference 2011. An internet safety leaflet has been produced and is available to the Fellowship”

Comment: Firstly it would have been helpful to be able to consult the above leaflet on internet safety to see what it actually says. Unfortunately the publication in question (remember – it's a leaflet about internet safety!) is not, as far as we can discern, available on the AA GB website?? We did, however, find the following on the US website: AA Guidelines – Internet. This document, of course, offers guidance only. It is not enforceable.

To continue: Naturally this question (or non-question) is of particular interest to us (being one of those “external websites”). The simple answer to this query (and as the questioner clearly demonstrates he or she already knows) - there is nothing that the AA conference can do about any non-AA website ie. any website not directly controlled by any part of its service structure. This lack of ability to intervene may be attributed (thankfully) to one simple principle: freedom of speech – a freedom recognised under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (p. 71):

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”

This right is later qualified under Article 29, part 2, of the Declaration:

2. In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.”

(our emphases)

Apart from the fact that the AA conference may issue guidelines on the conduct of AA members qua AA members it possesses no other authority. So the questioner is acting in a somewhat disingenuous fashion, we believe, in requesting “help on if and when to act, and how to act” when it's already been acknowledged that neither the conference nor the service structure can do anything at all about “external websites” (other than those recourses offered by the law eg. defamation, breach of copyright etc ie. under part 2 of Article 29. See above). The conference may seek, however, to persuade “tradition violators” to desist but persuasion is as far as it can go, “considerable” or otherwise. But finally Article 19 trumps anything the AA conference may or may not come up with. Of course it is open to the aggrieved parties to challenge our assertions (as they have already sought to do via various media available on the web). After all we can hardly seek to deny a right to others that we so eagerly assert ourselves. But so far the cult seem remarkably inadequate when it comes to defending or even justifying its own activities. But then it is rather difficult to defend the indefensible!


See here for a full list of other questions that didn't quite get through the 'filter'

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

No comments:

Post a Comment