Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Ethics and Fighting for Rights and Running Support/Issues/Discussion Websites

I want this post to be the starting point of a major and vital discussion. I welcome ALL pertinent commentors (only spam advertising will be deleted by me). This is i believe one of the most pertinent possible conversations.

Where is the line between Ethical and Unethical tactics when engaged in fighting for ones rights and when engaged in running websites that will involve supporting sections of the community, specific issues and general discussion?

Thats not a minor subject and cannot be solved quickly. I welcome long comments, i welcome examples, i welcome bringing in connections to other areas or raising parallels that other sites would often consider off-topic or derails but which are all too often vital to a deep understanding and can cut right to the heart of an issue. I am totally happy for people to quote this, to have it cross-posted, to engage in conversations across other sites etc. Theres a lot in this and it covers a panoply of varying issues and needs and perspectives.

Now I'll give some of my current starting thoughts:

* I think that as philosophically the foundation of Human Rights including Civil and Political Rights is one of an assumption that all rights are enjoyed equally, and that as they are not enjoyed equally that anyone fighting for their own rights does indeed have an obligation towards fighting for the rights of others, supporting others fight for rights and to ensure that they fight for their own rights in such a way that it does not interfere with the rights of others (in general, there WILL be an exception which I'll get to shortly).

* I conclude based off this also that anyone currently enjoying their rights while others do not enjoy theirs have in essence borrowed upon the future enjoyment of all on those rights and as such do literally owe those currently unable to enjoy their rights.

* I see that Equal Rights requires as a responsibility all claimers of those rights to be obligated to respect the equal rights of all others as well as to fight to defend and also to ensure the equal rights of all others. That this requires some compromise of rights to practically ensure but should be kept to the minimum required to do so. That this then results in, if failed to do so, a loss of valid claim to ones own rights. That this loss should still be as minimal as possible with the goal of rectifying the problem. This is an important but complex part. It justifies a legal system for example, road rules and other laws where compromises on free action when behind the wheel of a deadly machine to the lives of others etc.

* That when the state and appropriate systems fail in it's duties to the equal rights of all then the minimum required amount of law-breaking to change that is ethical. Now lets not take this one too lightly, because it does go all the way up to killing. Before you dissmiss that thought lets remember that the legal and Ethical validity of many modern democratic rights-principled states are based upon this because revolution, civil war etc was validated by the citizens literally being prepared to die or kill in order to assert their equal rights. Now i'm so not suggesting we reccomend wheel-chair bound or transgender suicide bombers or violent revolutionaries but we must consider the ethics of every aspect of fighting for equality including the riots and bloodshed of past fights for equality. The degree of usefullness and practicality must be weighed regarding such actions.. so it's not so neatly Ethical to use violence as it can sometimes seem.

* Redressing inequalities become everyone's responsibility. That actually validates Affirmative Action for example so long as, and this bit is important, so long as it's still required and is applied relative to need.

* Rights-organisations and activists need to develop full Ethics Standards to ensure that they do not harm the rights of others in their fight and in proposed legislative reforms except where it fits the exceptions discussed above.

* Websites have a Duty-Of-Care to the members of forums, to commentors, to the community they are targeted at and serve. That this includes troublesome members/commentors who may act from triggers and inner pain and refelxive defencive aggression as well as the community they are trying to create a safe stable place for and that while difficult to balance these policies regarding moderation, temp-bans and bans need to consider the realities of mental illness, vulnerability to suicide and the like all too often ignored.

These are not set-in-stone but open for reasoned debate. It's good to discuss them, test them, consider them carefully. There are all sorts of practical considerations like how one might ensure that a small minority populations needs and voice are not drowned out by a larger one when the rights of both need to be considered in order to find the answer to achieving equality. Or how to ensure a community that has been past hurt by another community can still ensure that it considers the rights of that community are not harmed inappropriatly when attempting to get legislative reform. (good examples here involve conflicts between parts of the gay community and transgender community as well as conflicts between the Transsexual and Crossdresser communities).

So please, think about these issues. Think about the principles that underly them, what you feel about them and why, what makes the right thing right and the wrong thing wrong. Consider examples of this and practical considerations. Look for problems and for ways around them.

Lets make this the start of a broad inclusive cogent and consistent conversation that needs to consider all the issues of all involved. The begininng of a deep consideration of some of the most important, contentious and vital issues effecting much of todays society. One that relates to every activist, every official, every democratic represenative, every system, every forum message list and website. It's a big subject and it's time we got started on it.

9 comments:

gaelige said...

yay (for the *only* really "Trans and Gender specific" site online!they do get us:)

http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2010/04/14/a-safer-space/

and

http://questioningtransphobia.wordpress.com/2010/04/12/commenting-and-such/comment-page-1/#comment-17004

gaelige said...

hey all,
speaking of community:
support T's in comments on this site:
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/is_glee_really_a_friend_of_the_lgbt_community.php

if so inclined
we're getting drowned out as usual....

gaelige said...

oops trying again:
http://www.bilerico.com/2010/04/is_glee_really_a_friend_of_the_
lgbt_community.php

gaelige said...

"Rights-organisations and activists need to develop full Ethics Standards to ensure that they do not harm the rights of others in their fight and in proposed legislative reforms except where it fits the exceptions discussed above.

* Websites have a Duty-Of-Care to the members of forums, to commentors, to the community they are targeted at and serve. That this includes troublesome members/commentors who may act from triggers and inner pain and refelxive defencive aggression as well as the community they are trying to create a safe stable place for and that while difficult to balance these policies regarding moderation, temp-bans and bans need to consider the realities of mental illness, vulnerability to suicide and the like all too often ignored"

Yes.

...unfortunatly,
so often disenfranchized minorities are not "lefty's" or "liberals" per say, but simply "i me mine" and would be tory or republican or rightist if not personally othered!
hence the current argument at bilerico (for example)
re "trans" people's take on slurs about them, etc, which i think my link-to failed to post correctly.....
that discussion/fight is ground zero for this discussion, at the moment.....

www.bilerico.com/2010/04/is_glee(etc)

our current contention is:
if cis glb people don't SEE
the slur, we say "oh well"
we don't need "your" approval to feel offended.

and i have to say that i'm just as stumped on this topic's over all resolution as i am on the question of "log cabin republicans"
and stuff like that.
what to do?

"minorities" are no more likely
to see themselves as "liberal"
as the next *guy*. ya know?
i guess this is up to activists, and to just say "F**k ya"
"if YOU don't support everyone,
i STILL do"....

and stop worrying about the "dieks"
of the world, unless they have some power.i am tuning the haters out, and "hearing" the allies, lately.
let 'em die for want of air-time.
don't feed the trolls, etc.

tho easier said then done, and only 1 part of the answer, i fear....
sigh

Battybattybats said...

Part of the problem is that the Right has turned Anti-Rights and Anti-Equality.

The Enlightenment was a very long time ago. Modern Western Democracy is itself founded on the notions!

So really Conservatism and the Right should actually be very much on-side. As should Religions whose own freedom of religion depends on the freedom of religion of others.

Instead they have chosen to bed down with arguments that in themselves run counter to the basic principles of the rise of modern rights-based democracy. Those who are on the right and the center (and many in the left damnit!) need to be reminded of these basic principles and what they fully mean.

We need these discussions and arguments to be carried through to the people with intellectual integrity on the right too.

gaelige said...

wow you are optomistic.
i'm at a "tune out the bigots"
place lately, and it is so hard to care what they think w/out getting disspirited.

to actually dialog with them seems hard.look at the people on bilerico, rallying AGAINST the Gender community, as opposed to supporters coming on-thread.
that always makes me sad/mad/aloof
to the people. but we Do need to fight, and ignore the naysayers.
there used to be people in wars on radio moral-busting the troups.
that is what naysayers are like.
how do we "make" people be "liberal"
or ethical?
i have been a
"one's own little patch of ground"
type activist(challenging wrongs in my space if i can, on all liberal fronts)
the larger picture is complicated.
i wonder what the numbers are really like on "glbt" harmony?
how many really care.
got any %?

gaelige said...

(damn i need "spell check")

Battybattybats said...

No worries about spelling and typing. I am useless at touch-typing, my long nails occassionally clip other nearby keys and of course theres occassional CFS related muscle issues too not to mention my CFS playing havoc with my memory of spelling too lol.

Spellings value is just to convey meaning, if i understand what your saying theres no problem with a missed comma, misstruck key or the wrong there/their etc and if i cant tell what your saying i'll just ask you to clarify. No worries.

As for needing to focus on the less hostile spaces i totally understand that. All activists and commentators can risk burnout, we have to care for our ourselves too to be able to make a difference.

As for caring proportions of GLB folk, i think its directly proportional to their internalisation. As societal views of sexuality are intrinsicly linked to sex-stereotypes and gender expression this means that most GLBT people (I don't know about the I in this case) will have both internalised Transphobia AND Homophobia. Many deal first with the one that seems most directly relevant to them and push issues they have into the other. Thus resulting in the scapegoating of T by some GLB for lack of societal acceptance and the same towards GLB by some T. Then add the whole aspect of sexism and internalised sexism and all the rest and we can see how these are all layers of problems within the commmunity which people can and do rise above as they face and heal their internal issues and improve self-acceptance.

There's also generational change in this too. So there's a lot of room for rational hope in this.

Exposure to those others people have issues with is powerful. The more people are around someone that runs counter to their negative stereotypes and fears the easier it is for them to change their views. There is a place for rage and direct action and a place for gradual (safety conscious of course) acclimatisation. And it's good for us all to regularly shift between the two in order to preserve our own capacity for action preventing burnout but also to see the positive side of growing community and societal acceptance which we otherwise would miss if we always focussed on the battles with the uber-phobes.

Like the taxi driver a couple days ago who apologised for calling me mate when he saw my lipstick and long pink nails and who after i said i wasn't offended he made very clear in that eager awkward way many have how open-minded he was. It was very uplifting.

P.S. I'll be heading down to spend time with my partner in days so will not be online much for couple weeks. I'll be plenty busy but i may try and make a youtube video like you've been suggesting if i get the chance.

gaelige said...

interesting points.....

and,cool.
i'd like to see you on trannystar or somewhere....& have fun traveling!

ps
i didn't know lisa was aussie(!)
she uses "no worries" too, it's local,i guess, to you.....
yanks say, like, "no problemo" lol
(sounds like A. swartzenegger.....)
also your apperance sounds so cool, i'd love to see you do you- tube, i think people would get into you
(there WILL be rednecks, tho....)
you have to have a thick hide....
G ^*^