[Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship

[Mary Higgins]

In the particular case in the EK there were several children over a long
period of time involved, as Charlotte states.  In my earlier post I cited a
single case of abuse from another kingdom (not MK or EK) to indicate that
child abuse within the SCA is not a new occurrence nor is it limited to the
rather well publicized case in the EK.  My apologies for any confusion that
may have caused.  The EK case is not the first or only occurrence of child
abuse in the SCA - only the most public.
Margarete



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charlotte Mayhew [mailto:crmayhew at comcast.net]
> Sent: Sunday, May 15, 2011 4:31 PM
> To: David Hoornstra; Mary Higgins; Cynnabar elist
> Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship
> 
> Dear Baron Daibhid--
> 
> I must respectfully disagree with this paragraph:
> 
> > I am sorry that there are two or more sets of victims in the case.
> The
> > child, the parents and all their close friends. The bigger victim is
> the SCA
> > and ultimately US and the larger Society.
> 
> The biggest victims are the children who were molested.
> 
> If you read the particulars of the lawsuits that have been brought, you
> will
> find that there were a number of incidents involving multiple children
> over
> a long period of time.
> 
> The Society's failure to remove the perpetrator from his position as
> the
> Dean of Pages of the East Kingdom, a position of trust, is why the
> Society
> is being sued.
> 
> The new rules the SCA is handing down to us are inconveniences that do
> not
> compare to what the children and their families are dealing with.
> 
> --Sunnifa Gunnarsdottir
> (Charlotte Mayhew)
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/14/11 11:09 AM, "David Hoornstra" <dhoorn123 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> > I like that this discussion is happening and I am very thankful to
> Margarete
> > for her insights. It is helpful to have a sense of the background.
> >
> > As for the inherent qualities of email communication, I fall back on
> a
> > fairly-well-accepted principle in advertising and marketing: The
> > responsibility for clarity is ENTIRELY on the person sending the
> message,
> > from the shape of the envelope on down to the puctuation.
> >
> > This stems from the incontrovertible FACT that a person sending
> ANYTHING is
> > responsible for all of it.
> >
> > I agree that subtlety does not often come across well in email, no
> matter
> > how crafted, because most people reading email are usually not in the
> > reflective sort of mood that subtlety (including sarcasm, satire,
> metaphor,
> > etc.) requires.
> >
> > I am sorry that there are two or more sets of victims in the case.
> The
> > child, the parents and all their close friends. The bigger victim is
> the SCA
> > and ultimately US and the larger Society.
> >
> > The unanswered question here is: who thought the SCA was equipped to
> play
> > the victim here, or that money could fix anything? I am not trying to
> place
> > values on the persons and entities and comparing them. I am trying to
> ask
> > what the best solution could have been other than bringing suit, and
> adding
> > to the list of damaged parties?
> >
> > Daibhid
> >
> >
> >
> >> From: Mary Higgins <rufquad at comcast.net>
> >> Date: Sat, 14 May 2011 08:56:43 -0400
> >> To: 'Barony of Cynnabar' <barony at cynnabar.org>
> >> Subject: Re: [Cynnabar] A "minor" bit of censorship
> >>
> >> All -
> >>
> >> There are two separate issues here.  First, the manner in which this
> >> discussion was started.  Second, the discussion itself.  I wish to
> speak to
> >> both issues.
> >>
> >> The first issue:
> >> 1) Sarcasm rarely comes across well in e-mail.
> >>
> >> 2) If it is your (generic "your" here) intent to get people
> >> thinking/talking/acting, there are perhaps better ways to do it than
> to vent
> >> frustration in a sarcastic manner and hope that people will see your
> real
> >> intent.  Why not simply state your concerns in a rational tone and
> ask for
> >> discussion?  Otherwise it can and will likely be interpreted as
> simply
> >> ranting with no constructive purpose - something for which I, for
> one, have
> >> little patience.  I fully support constructive discussion and
> completely
> >> support everyone's right to express their opinions.  What I do not
> respond
> >> well to or have much tolerance for is unconstructive, or worse,
> destructive
> >> tirades with no apparent purpose other than stirring the pot to see
> what
> >> happens.
> >>
> >> 3) Virtually every system out there, mundane and SCA, has channels
> for
> >> making change.  Using those channels, while it may be frustrating at
> times,
> >> is often the best approach.
> >>
> >> The second issue:
> >> 1) As the parents of a school age boy my hubby and I sign a lot of
> waivers.
> >> Waivers for photos, waivers for participation, etc. from the school,
> >> daycare, boy scouts, and virtually any other activity in which we
> wish our
> >> son to participate.  Do the waivers inherently provide protection
> for our
> >> son?  Of course not.  What they do is provide me with information
> and the
> >> opportunity to request that my child's image, name, work, whatever
> not be
> >> published.  We know that many waivers are intended to protect the
> entity
> >> providing the product or service.  I wish it were different and that
> more
> >> waivers actually did more than provide butt coverage.
> >>
> >> 2) As a parent and as someone who knows many of the key people
> (including
> >> Ben and many of the families) and the circumstances involved in the
> events
> >> that occurred in the EK which have lead to many of the new
> requirements
> >> associated with children's activities in the SCA, I have strong
> opinions
> >> about many of these policies.  I have also been directly associated
> with
> >> other families of minor children that have been molested in the SCA
> - long
> >> before these relatively recent events.  Would the policies in place
> today
> >> have prevented those particular situations?  Probably not.  In one
> case in
> >> another kingdom a girl under the age of 6 was molested by one of her
> >> supposed champions - a gentle who actually fought for the right to
> serve in
> >> this capacity who was well known and liked by her parents then took
> >> advantage of the access and trust that his position afforded him.
> The first
> >> tier of protection for our kids is being involved parents.  Knowing
> what
> >> they are doing, who they are doing it with, etc.  Unfortunately in
> today's
> >> world that is often not enough.  What many of the policies do is to
> provide
> >> an additional safety net for our kids that is modeled after what is
> >> considered standard in our modern society today.  I don't like that
> we have
> >> to do this - I would rather feel confident that I can trust the
> people that
> >> I chose to include in my son's life.  However, I don't have that
> option
> >> today because there are bad/sick people out there, both in the SCA
> and in
> >> the modern world.
> >>
> >> 3) So, what to do about a situation that I don't particularly like?
> I can
> >> figure out exactly what it is that I find unreasonable or
> unacceptable and
> >> work through appropriate channels to try to effect change.  In this
> >> particular case there is little that I find particularly
> unreasonable, given
> >> the world that we live in and my experience with how other
> institutions
> >> handle youth activities.  If I could change the world, I would, but
> life is
> >> short and I have better things to do.  Like spending time being the
> best
> >> parent I can be, enjoying spending time with my son and his friends,
> and
> >> enjoying the SCA, warts and all.
> >>
> >> Margarete
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Barony mailing list
> >> Barony at cynnabar.org
> >> http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Barony mailing list
> > Barony at cynnabar.org
> > http://lists.cynnabar.org/listinfo/barony