[Peace-discuss] driving away members

[Ricky Baldwin]

OK, folks.  Basic organizing.  Don’t drive away the
new folks.  This lawyer fight is shaping up to be a
real internal problem.  And before we start quoting
famous people who haven’t been party to these
discussions about “harmony” or some such nonsense that
does not and never has applied, let’s just get a grip.
 We need to move forward and not lose any more good
folks.

First of all, pretty much everybody agrees that we
need a lawyer, at least waiting in the wings and
hopefully to advise us.  We are looking for one. 
Sharon volunteered to find someone and produced a
name.  Carl and I met with that person, who offered
some decent advice.  Then we discovered new
information about that lawyer’s unsuitability for our
purposes.  Linda paid him and I informed him that we
do not need him to do anything for us at this time. 
We disagree about what to do if we get desperate, but
Carol and Al are looking for another lawyer.  We have
the Greens list and we have other suggestions  We do
not know what we will find, but an effort is underway.
 There is no point in pretending that any of us has a
crystal ball.

Second, the lawyer we met was found to be unsuitable
by almost everyone at the meetings, women and men,
because of his documented bad judgment in past cases
and his documented use of sexist language in official
communications to other attorneys *as part of cases*
he was working on -- and not just his own (at Kraft,
for example).  This is not some thought-police action
against someone for their personal failings.  It is,
as several people have pointed out, a strong feeling
that we do not want to be represented in this way. 
What if the next cop who tangles with one of us is a
woman?  Or the next pro-war nut?  Or an opposing
attorney?  We do not want to risk this guy losing his
cool and firing off some letter calling one of them
some sexist crap *in our name* any more than we would
want any attorney to engage in racist invective on our
behalf if s/he happened to face a person of color in
court, start calling people fat -- or, in fact, in any
way veer away from the principles that we as a group
hope to promote (making a pro-war argument as some
ill-conceived strategy to get someone off the hook,
etc.).  It’s really pretty simple.  He can use all the
profanity he wants, as we often do ourselves, and he
can even be as Neanderthal as he likes, but on
somebody else’s tab.

Third, I do not believe that *most* of the discussion
on this subject, or the related subject of abortion,
has gotten out of line.  “Free speech” has not been in
jeopardy.  We disagree, and that must always be
acceptable and encouraged.  Nobody should be ashamed
to express their opinion, particularly a new person. 
It’s not healthy to agree all the time, and sometimes
arguments become heated.  All fine.  I do think that
if we smirk and snicker while others are speaking, or
insult them, or ignore their arguments while repeating
our own previous comments, we shouldn’t be surprised
at all if they call us on it.  Also, if we are serious
about organizing for a “another world” we need to show
some restraint, particularly when a new person has
input, when white people are speaking to people of
color, men speaking to women, non-immigrants speaking
to immigrants, and so on.  Relatively privileged
people have a tendency to be rather thin-skinned on
the subject, but the reality is that groups that do
otherwise have a strong tendency to homogeneity. 
Basic organizing.

Ricky


	
		
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win a $20,000 Career Makeover at Yahoo! HotJobs  
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/careermakeover