[Peace-discuss] about the lawyer

[C. G. Estabrook]

On Tue, 27 Apr 2004, Lisa Chason wrote:

> ... It seems to me that if some of the people who have given an awful
> lot to the organization express such strong reservations, and say they
> find this man sexist and are personally offended as well as
> politically put off by him, it should be enough to have us all change
> gears and look for a mutually satisfying solution...

I agree entirely.  In fact, that's been my view from the beginning:
although I didn't agree with the objections to Marvin, the fact that
several members had strong objections meant that we should look elsewhere.

> ...There was an undertone to the meeting that if we were REALLY
> radical, we would see that his bad language is appropriate and the
> professional reprimands a badge of honor, considering the system in
> which we exist...

I don't agree at all. Marvin's language was hardly appropriate, and I
don't think anyone is defending it. My point was that Marvin agrees with
us politically (as his letter to the N-G last Friday shows) and that we're
going to have trouble finding anyone who'll work as cheap.

The important point is that we have some legal representation in place,
whoever it is -- first of all to deal with the police in regard to our
demonstrations, beginning this Saturday.  And we're dragging our feet.  
As someone pointed out, the irony will come when events occur suddenly
requiring a lawyer, we've made no arrangements -- and we find ourselves
calling Marvin...

---CGE