Motion about calumny
4. Moved, R. Rudolph, seconded _______ that it is our sense that whenever a person is accused of calumny as an act inimical to Mensa, the person calumnified must provide substantial proof that (1) his ability to perform his official Mensa functions has been severely compromised, (2) that the person performing the calumny was deliberately fabricating lies, and (3) that material harm has been done to Mensa, said material harm being more than that a few people were offended.
Explanation: Even Jean Becker, as former head of the past NHC, has expressed concern about the definition of calumny. In particular, it is extremely difficult to prove that the calumnious statements were deliberate lies. This should be a difficult charge to substantiate. Members should have faith in our judicial procedures.
Financial impact: Possible fewer hearings.
Further Explanation: It is widely known that the BL case has caused even AMC members to have misgivings about how calumny was applied in this hearing. If AMC members have misgivings, it is no surprise that there is discontentment among some members as well. If new members are exposed to such discontent and learn distrust of AMC and its procedures, they will be less likely to remain members. Such discontented members may bother the local group ExComs for explantions; the discontentment IS a problem as we want a happy membership; risks are reduced as contented members will be less likely to cause problems.
Robin’s thoughts:
I have a bit of difficulty following the meaning of this motion, so I don’t have strong feelings about it. This is a case where I’m inclined to listen to others’ opinions before reaching my own conclusions.
It does seem to me that the Hearings Review Committee should be the ones to consider and incorporate this concept into its recommendations. I have no problem with just tossing the whole confusing concept of calumny from the list of acts inimical, which are not comprehensive of every nasty thing a member can do to cause harm to the society anyway.
I’m neutral on this motion as written; I need to learn more.
5 comments:
"calumnified" ????
This is one of our leaders, writing in the hope of publication?
If I were a lie-monger and had at least one ally, a rule like this would let us malign anyone with complete impunity. One of us would tell lies to the other, who would then publish them without examination.
And by the way, is it true what this motion implies, that a person who is not an officer has no cause of action within Mensa for calumny? Wow.
Destroying the calumny action would set us way back again! That is unacceptable.
Of course one cannot "prove" there was intent, especially from those who view reality from a bent angle. The proof has to be the comparison of reality and the statements. The harm is just as great or greater when it is a bent view as reasoning with the offendor is futile.
Thus who haven't suffered this -- are you wearing your blinders? Look that the harm that has been done!
I was skeptical of the calumny motion when it was first voted upon, and I'm still skeptical. I don't believe there's a need for, or ever can be a comprehensive list of every single thing that anyone could do to get themselves kicked out of Mensa.
I certainly do not believe that passing this motion will satisfy a single discontented member.
As it stands now, I'm planning to vote against this motion. I think it's a waste of space to even have it on the agenda. We should either keep calumny or dump it, not try to tweak and tweak and tweak on it to make it watertight. The reason these things have to go through both the hearings committee and the AMC is so that there are safeguards in place to avoid abuse of the system. This motion accomplishes nothing.
This is an over-reaction to one specific case. As such, it is the bureaucratic equivalent of throwing out the baby with the bath water. Like the man said, you can't please all of the people all of the time. Anyone who tries is doomed to failure.
As I've said in other fora, the entire "calumny" concept needs to be stricken as a delineated "act inimical" from our ASIEs.
Robin and Leah: You have both expressed views that indicate your willingness to remove calumny from the list of acts inimical. Is there a motion (moved and seconded) submitted for the upcoming November meeting to do so? If not, when do either/both of you plan on submitting/seconding such a motion?
It would be VERY instructive to see how the rest of the AMC feels on this, BEFORE the elections (or the end of the petition period, even). If it succeeds, wonderful. If it fails, we need to know who wants it staying and why (assuming they bother to state their rationale), and factor that into our decision-making for voting.
I agree that this motion of Ralph's should be defeated, but mostly because I think it would be MUCH more effective to do away with calumny from the ASIEs. That said, I *also* think that it deserves to be seconded so that the discussion about calumny's place in the ASIEs can be on the record. It's ESPECIALLY needed if there is no motion brought to the fore that deletes calumny from the ASIEs.
Post a Comment