Questions (not) accepted for conference 2016 (contd)

Comment: AA currently has no effective method for dealing with any form of bullying, sexual harassment etc (online or otherwise) within the fellowship. It does propose guidelines (16, 17) and therefore can be said to have a policy in place … but implementation is patchy. In some areas sexual predation (so-called '13 stepping') may be described as virtually endemic, and shockingly blatant in some instances. Some of the accounts that have been relayed to us almost defy belief. Of similar concern, and far more widespread, is the virtual 'institutionalisation' of bullying and coercion practised predominantly by cult groups under the guise of sponsorship. This has been extensively documented on the aacultwatch website. Here the programme is no longer disseminated as “suggested” but rather as compulsory, and the edicts of the 'sponsor' to be taken as absolute. Any recourse for those so abused is effectively non-existent. They either tolerate it (and in some instances become perpetrators themselves), leave AA or find some kind of refuge in the wider fellowship where such perversions are largely absent.

However recently, when looking into the background of a question submitted to conference (and rejected), we stumbled upon this little gem:

The General Service Board of Alcoholics Anonymous (Great Britain) Ltd is a registered charity. Its objective is “TO HELP CHRONIC ALCOHOLICS TO OVERCOME THEIR ADDICTION TO ALCOHOL AND TO SERVE THE FELLOWSHIP KNOWN AS ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS IN SUCH OF ITS WORK OF ASSISTING ALCOHOLICS TO ACHIEVE SOBRIETY.” and it acts “AS AN UMBRELLA OR RESOURCE BODY”. Under the terms of its registration the charity ie. the General Service Board, is required to report any serious incidents including “fraud, theft or other significant loss” and “suspicions, allegations or incidents of abuse of vulnerable beneficiaries “ (in this case AA members) to the Charity Commission. Failure to do so may lead to regulatory action for mismanagement.

Following on from above (and in the absence of any formal complaints procedure within AA) we would advise anyone who has been the subject of any kind of abuse (or indeed is a witness to such acts) to make a formal complaint via the General Service Office (whose email address is: gso@alcoholics-anonymous.org.uk - using perhaps the heading “Attn: General Service Board”). The latter are then obliged to report this to the Charity Commission. Although no kind of effective response may be expected from the General Service Office or the Board Itself a sufficient number of complaints forwarded in this fashion may serve to place pressure on the GSB (and on AA) to take these matters far more seriously, and institute some real reforms (ie. effective action) to deal with these widespread abuses.

Additionally there is also provision on the Charity Commission site for members of the public (including, obviously, AA members) to make a complaint directly to the Commission itself. Again this may serve ultimately to focus the fellowship's concentration on the pressing need to carry out substantial reforms. Failure to do so can only lead, in the long run, to the progressive demise of AA in Great Britain, and the loss of a valuable resource for dealing with chronic alcohol addiction.

But most importantly ... for the newcomer .. there is no longer any need to suffer in silence. Make your voice heard! And help create a healthier environment in which members can flourish rather than flounder!

Cheers

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Needless to say we shall be using both of the above procedures in future, and (we anticipate) with increasing frequency. Moreover when contacting the General Service Board we will take care to remind them of their obligation to submit an additional report to the Charity Commission in each instance. We will also be carrying out checks to ensure they do so....

Predators – their part – our part!

A member drew our attention to this case study (for want of a better expression) of predatory behaviour within AA entitled: Predators Lurk in Alcoholics Anonymous

Some extracts:

“The structure of AA actually serves to help the individual who wants to prey on people. New members are encouraged to seek out a “sponsor”, a person who has been clean and sober for some time and knows the 12-step program. This person must be of the same sex. This is ostensibly to prevent men from preying on women, but same sex predators can – and do – exploit the AA system.“

“Ironically, the regulars in the AA community are usually aware of who the predators are, in fact …... came under scrutiny from a local AA chapter, when their leadership council voted to ban him from their meeting place after accusations of inappropriate behavior with sponsees.“

“After …... was banned from that AA location, a general meeting was held which drew a standing-room-only crowd and resulted in heated debate. …... admitted he had engaged in homosexual behavior in his past but denied inappropriate actions with members of AA. Many were unconvinced, but the crowd voted to allow ….... back in the meetings. One member said, “Who are we to exclude anyone? Our program teaches us to be inclusive.””

Comment: What is interesting about the above is not so much what it says about the predator (he is what he is and must take responsibility for his actions) but rather what it says about some members of AA. Apparently it is acceptable (or tolerable) to the latter to allow certain individuals to sexually exploit (and otherwise) newcomers to the fellowship on the grounds that to bar them from meetings would not be “inclusive”. Here the rights of the predator are to be upheld but not those of their victims. One individual may prey upon literally scores of newcomers, perhaps driving them away from the fellowship and even condemning them to death, and apparently that's OK so long as the perpetrator's sobriety is safeguarded! Well guess what? It isn't OK! In fact it's an abdication of responsibility and indication of moral bankruptcy. We would remind these members here of AA guidelines (GB):

and in particular:

“Failure to challenge and stop inappropriate behaviour gives the offender permission to repeat the offensive behaviour and encourages others to follow suit”.

Bullying, harassment, intimidation, sexual predation undoubtedly exist in AA, an inevitable consequence perhaps of any social grouping. Inevitable maybe but NOT to be either condoned or ignored. Within the cult groups this kind of conduct is endemic, even systemic, and sanctioned under the guise of 'strong sponsorship' or so-called 'tough love'. The 'carrot and stick' approach with the 'twelve promises' dangled as an incentive to the sponsee to comply coupled with numerous reminders (sometimes explicit) that failure to accede to their sponsor's every “suggestion” (ie. direction) will inevitably result in relapse and perhaps death is a powerful combination to resist especially when presented as the 'authentic' AA message to the vulnerable newcomer. So how about the newcomer's rights! What happened to the concept of a 'duty of care'? The General Service Office (York) can't do anything about this problem nor can the General Service Conference. So guess where the bucks stops! ….... You got it!

So if you've got a bully/predator in your midst (and you're sure of your facts) confront them (preferably in front of the group). Ask them to account for their conduct. If they're unable to do so inform them of the consequences if they continue. ie. banned from attending the meeting. If they don't get the message go ahead and ban them. Inform other groups and members of your decision. If it's a cult group where such conduct is the norm then it's up to other groups in the area to apply sanctions. Exclude the group from the local intergroup and refuse to recognise them as an AA group - and then make sure to publicise the fact remembering to notify any outside organisations that may be in contact with them. Remember: Our first duty is to the alcoholic who wants to stop drinking not to facilitate those who have other motives for attending meetings – that's our primary purpose!

Over to you,

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Our thanks to the member who drew this essay to our attention

Bullying in East Kent

We quote:

“Dear fellas.

At last weeks East Kent Intergroup AGM which I attended, there was a report from a woman who had been subjected to bullying by a male member of the fellowship in East Kent.

This is not a new problem and one where it was suggested that guideline 17 be read out at the beginning of every meeting. If matters continued, outside organisations like the police should be involved.

What is noted is a group member can call a group conscience at any time during a meeting but what also should be noted is this bully sometimes corners his female victims outside meetings.

The treasurer of the intergroup also read out an email from someone who decided to leave a group where this bully was bullying female members. It was sent to the treasurer as he was requesting a receipt for a contribution but was leaving as a group treasurer.

The content was :-

My Dear …...

Just a question of a receipt for £### sent by me on behalf of ###### Wed.

I have now left this meeting as I could no longer accept the personal behaviour of a member.

He was someone I was powerless over,who I come to realise I certainly could not change.

He was a bully to female members and that was unacceptable, that I found quite shocking because he should of known better, and was talking the talk but his ego it would appear,stopped him walking the walk, if you can understand. I also know that he was economical with the truth.(Dallas)[a reference to the Primary Purpose movement - see below]

Any way mate that was my shit and I decided that it was best to go before I smacked him in mouth! not PC AND IN NO WAY SPIRITUAL 'EH?.

This bullies behaviour is not acceptable and he evidently has bullied officers of EKIG as well.

What was also shocking on the evening is directly after this was read out a member of another Group felt it an appropriate time to advertise in a 'matter of fact' way a forthcoming convention.

Eh HELLO! - it seems some group members in EKIG think its OK to gloss over this behaviour.

I don't know what's more shocking - the bully, them or both.

Please can you publicise this on your website - for the record this bully is an American who clearly sponsors himself.

Women - please watch out for him and remember he is a bully and his behaviour is unacceptable.

Keep up the good work fellas”

Comment: Well three guesses who this might be! No.. Give up! OK then.... It's none other than the local guru-in-residence and Big Book aficionado (or one of them at least!) Harry K... aka Batman. However Harry's reputation has spread far and wide already so this is hardly news! Still we're happy to do our bit in bringing such malefactors to the fellowship's attention. It is so often the case that those who preach the loudest seldom live up even to the most modest of expectations .. and Harry is no exception! Still the word is that he's defected to Cocaine Anonymous where apparently he's busy lecturing them on recovery … leather bound Big Book and all.... As they say - our gain is their loss!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS Guidelines are all very well! But they're not much use unless they're IMPLEMENTED!

PPS Apparently Dover Monday is still ruminating about whether to break its affiliation with the Primary Purpose movement. Its group details are still listed with this outside organisation (together with the contact details for both Harry K and Harry A (otherwise known as Harry the Handbag aka Robin – see Batman above)). Until such time as it does Dover Monday may not refer to itself as an AA meeting. Herne Bay Wednesday however has decided to remain listed with Primary Purpose and similarly therefore may no longer be considered - or refer to itself as - an AA meeting.

Batman and Robin (aka Harry K and Harry A – East Kent)

Well ..... what can we say? The complaints about this particular dynamic duo continue to flood in! For those of you who aren't in the know these two self-appointed experts on the Big Book (and on little else apparently!) have been attempting to carry the message to the ignorant heathen of East Kent (otherwise known as AA members) for some time now (whether the latter want it or not). Harry A (aka Harry the Handbag) haunts the the Aylesham Wednesday meeting in Kent whereas Harry K (easily identifiable by the leather bound and name inscribed copy of the Big Book he carries around with him constantly - much like a baby pacifier) likes to spread himself around a bit more. This tag team can also be observed performing their double act at Dover Monday, Herne Bay Wednesday (both groups affiliated with an outside organisation ie. Primary Purpose – see Tradition 3) and Westgate Sunday. This odd duet is strangely effective, the reasons for which have eluded us for some time now. It certainly isn't because of the “message” they purport to carry. Anyone with even a superficial knowledge of the tome in question can easily discern that neither have a clue about its contents. Indeed the book itself hardly enters the equation. It rather serves as a platform upon which they can quite perversely promote their own inadequacies. We might have used the term “personalities” here but in both cases this again is peculiarly lacking. With Harry the Handbag the main impact he produces in the psyche of any hapless listener who wanders into his path is a kind of stunned nausea. He can drone on at length in a peculiarly hypnotic fashion rendering the victim incapable of either fight or flight, doomed to endure the experience to its bitter end, and quite helplessly paralysed by Harry's remorseless lecturing. On the other hand the Caped Crusader (Harry K) has an entirely different effect. Here his quite breathtaking arrogance is of such a degree that the observer is again paralysed but this time for another reason entirely. Indeed the listener is held in the grip of a kind of horrified fascination verging on disbelief, mesmerised by the prospect that anyone could possibly mistake their own profound stupidity for some form of knowledge. So assured is Harry K of his own masterful insight that the audience is quite captivated by the sight of such self-delusion in operation! Together the pair are quite insuperable and would no doubt by now have converted the entire world to their way of thinking (let alone AA!) if left unchecked! However nature as always comes to our rescue, and the effects of any contact with these two rapidly wear off once the victim is removed from their direct vicinity. Thereafter their stultifying influence is mitigated, sanity rapidly restored, memories of the ordeal fade, and full recovery is again assured. However, and as increasing numbers of AA members develop an immunity to their particular brand of fanaticism, the pair are becoming more and more desperate, their message correspondingly strident and extreme. Indeed no less a personage than Dr Bob (co-founder of AA) has recently been pronounced as “off the programme” by Harry K. Apparently the poor old doc was insufficiently attentive to the Big Book and therefore his recovery deficient (according to our 'expert'). Now we don't suppose Bob is going to be too worried about this (what with him having been dead for some time now) but he did manage to scratch together a few years sober before his passing, and he did help a few alcoholics along the way. Moreover he didn't feel compelled to shove his 'lack' of personality down anybody's throat, and there's still a few of us around who are rather glad he got together with Bill back in the day. So if we had to choose between Dr Bob's example and either/or both of the Harrys then it really is no contest. Bob's any time!

Cheerio

The Fellas (Friends of Alcoholics Anonymous)

PS There's been some debate in East Kent about what to do with this obnoxious pair. The answer is simple – and really rather obvious! Treat them like the 'drunks' they are! Standard procedure is:

1. Ask them to behave themselves - that they cease to disrupt the meeting (see anti-bullying guidelines)
2. If they fail to do so invite them to leave – although making it clear they will be welcomed back any time they are able to conduct themselves appropriately
3. If again they fail to grasp the basics of civilised conduct call the police in and have them removed

End of problem

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)

Anti-bullying policy

(Download: Personal Conduct Matters (Guidelines for Alcoholics Anonymous in Great Britain: No. 17)

This guideline makes it abundantly clear that ALL forms of “Bullying, harassment and offensive behaviour are negative and UNACCEPTABLE forms of DISCRIMINATION that are in conflict with the AA Traditions and our way of life in recovery. ANY such behaviour needs to be taken seriously, and sober AA members MUST deal with it as it arises”.

(our emphases)

Now in the case of the cult groups such coercive behaviour has become the norm within their group “consciences” (if such conduct can be considered to occupy this category!) and thereby legitimised and indeed rationalised as being the authentic means by which the recovery programme of Alcoholics Anonymous may be communicated. Manipulation, indoctrination, discrimination, coercion, segregation, isolation, threats, (in some instances blackmail), general control “freakery”, and even outright thuggery are the norm within these groups, and include some of the techniques deployed from within the cult armoury to gain the “compliance” of newcomers: their “victims” (and we use this last term because that in fact is what they are). Given the “institutionalisation” of such behaviour this naturally implies that anyone on the receiving end of this abusive conduct will fail to find any redress from within these groups. The guideline goes on to make it clear that: “If the situation is sufficiently serious or complex, it may be necessary to involve members from outside the Group” (under the much misquoted Tradition Four). In practice this means that other groups (via Intergroup but not solely) have a moral obligation to tackle any such problems. The guideline goes on to propose that at the individual level we should: “Treat other people with respect and dignity” and that at the group level: “Your Group may wish to discuss and agree, at a Group Conscience meeting, upon a 'clear statement' to display for example”:

This Group does not tolerate:

Bullying

Harassment

Discriminatory behaviour

Personal Conduct Matters!

The guideline also makes it clear that such individuals actually have a legally enforceable right to be treated properly (under the Protection Against Harassment Act, 1997 and the Human Rights Act, 1998). Moral considerations aside, too few groups are currently aware of this fact and fail to act accordingly.

See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullying