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)
