A conference question … not quite!

One of our “personal” favourites!

Comment:

Another easy one!

a) What action should be taken? None! (But we would say that wouldn't we!). And it's a bit difficult to determine how one would go about making a “personal attack” on a whole group? The clue's in the word “personal”! And finally of course if someone is sufficiently aggrieved there is always the recourse of legal proceedings. We ourselves (strange to say) are occasionally threatened with the latter … but much to our disappointment nothing ever materialises.... Otherwise it's called 'freedom of speech'
b) See above - and specifically 'freedom of speech'
c) Easy peasy! Stop abusing newcomers and you will cease to be of any interest to us! Or putting it another way – start acting responsibly … if you can remember how!

For your information:

Tradition 10

Short form:

Long form:

It's worth noting carefully the wording of this tradition (and for that matter all of the traditions – even the much misquoted Tradition Four). We have emphasised the relevant sections: 

“in such a way as to implicate AA” ie. to represent oneself as being a spokesman for the organisation. AA doesn't have a spokesman and we (aacultwatch) certainly don't represent ourselves as being such. (implicate: to involve as a necessary inference; to imply). 

“outside” ie. outside the direct context of AA. Our subject matter deals specifically with 'internal' issues – what should NOT be going on in our fellowship 

“can” - “can should be used only to express the capacity to do something, may must be used to express permission”. Semantically speaking therefore this is ineffective. Clearly AA members do have the capacity to act and speak thus. Whether they choose to do so or not is up to them (and subject to the law). But even where legal sanctions may apply they still 'can' act if they are prepared to take the consequences. But note the use of the word “may” in Tradition Three (long form)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous ….. but only semantically speaking!)

Tradition Ten, Grapevine, February, 1953, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Editorial: On the 10th Tradition, Grapevine, September, 1948, Bill W

See also Links and downloads

Uncontroversial controversy!

"When I've raised the concerns I've discussed in this article (Big Bookery, indoctrination, druggie talk in meetings , chanting and hand-holding etc) at group conscience and intergroup meetings I've been accused of violating Tradition Ten by stirring up controversy. But Tradition Ten is about public controversy - i.e. outside issues. There has always been controversy in AA, for example read Bill W's essay on Tradition Three in 12 Steps and 12 Traditions. Another time, commenting on the turbulent 1958 US Conference, Bill observed, "If individuals were deeply disturbed - I say, 'This is fine'. What parliament, what republic, what democracy has not been disturbed? Friction of opposing viewpoints is the very modus operandi on which they proceed. Then what should we be afraid of?" (from As Bill Sees It). A GSB trustee speaking at the 1971 US Conference said, "Honest differences of opinion should co-exist in AA. I suppose it is a miracle there isn't more controversy inside AA." Or as the chairman of this year's British Conference (2007) reminded delegates, "We can disagree without being disagreeable." In 1971 the editor of Grapevine said, "A magazine would be terribly bland if there was never any controversy. In AA there are as many opinions as there are alcoholics. We welcome diverse points of view."

In AA we seek unity - not the unanimity of the graveyard. In any case it is the dissonant practices I have described which generate controversy.

Bill W wrote in Alcoholics Anonymous Comes of Age, "Within AA I suppose we shall always quarrel a good bit. Mostly, I think, about how to do the greatest good for the greatest number of drunks ... Surmounting such problems, in AA's rather rugged school of life, is a healthy exercise." ...

Grapevine's Statement of Purpose reads in part, "The awareness that every AA member has an individual way of working the program permeates the pages of Grapevine, and throughout its history the magazine has been a forum for the varied and often divergent opinions of AA's around the world ...."

(Share, July 2007)

PS: The US 1971 references are from Not God: a history of AA, by Ernie Kurtz (Hazelden)."

(our thanks to this member for pointing us in the direction of the article)

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

Tradition Ten

Short form:

"Ten—Alcoholics Anonymous has no opinion on outside issues; hence the A.A. name ought never be drawn into public controversy."

Long form:

"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."

Comment: Again a pretty straightforward statement - or at least for some! Alcoholics Anonymous (collectively) and AA groups (as constituents of AA) "can express no views whatever" and "oppose no one" in relation to "outside controversial issues". Conversely AA members (individually) may (and do) hold whatever views they like, they may express them to whoever, whenever, and in whatever fashion they like, but NOT "in such a way as to implicate A.A.", and "particularly" not (though not exclusively) in those areas relating to "politics, alcohol reform, or sectarian religion" [some synonyms for "implicate": incriminate, involve, compromise, embroil, entangle, inculpate. Some antonyms: eliminate, rule out, acquit, exclude, dissociate, disentangle, exculpate]. Following on from this (and within the context of AA) an individual may express themselves according to the principle of freedom of speech (something of a luxury these days with the increasing proliferation of legal constraints!) but should make it clear that their statements represent only their own views and not those of Alcoholics Anonymous. ie. they are NOT spokesmen for the organisation nor for that matter are they the SOLE authorities on what constitutes its guidelines and programme of recovery, and moreover their mode of implementation. This tradition certainly does NOT - and indeed should not - exclude criticism of AA (ie. "inside issues"), nor does it dictate or delimit the forum in which such commentary might take place. It certainly does not exclude criticism of the activities of the cult, nor where and in what form this might be expressed. To emphasise the point: the statement "Alcoholics Anonymous groups oppose no one" is made with reference to "outside controversial issues", and is NOT to be taken to refer to "inside issues" ie. the activities of rogue elements within AA. Indeed AA groups (and their members) “must” take action where such groups (and their members) cause harm to AA members (and indeed to the general public) and as a consequence bring the fellowship itself into disrepute (see: Personal Conduct Matters (Guidelines for Alcoholics Anonymous in Great Britain: No. 17))

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)