[governance] Re: What else is discrimination?

[parminder]

If some people here insist on treating the recent episode of first a 
warning and then suspension of the posting rights of a member as one of 
political bias by co-cos, then perhaps it is worth having a discussion 
on the subject of political biases on this list.

It is interesting to note how easily, and somewhat unceremoniously, such 
deep allegation have been made against the co-cos, and I understand that 
it is mostly Norbert who is being targeting. Being an avid supporter of 
democratic and accountability seeking processes I do not really have any 
major issues with these 'accusations'. If some people do feel this way 
well let them say it (although preferably substantiate it better). 
Norbert has responded to each of these accusatory points in good details 
also pointing to the avenues where further recourse lies. I also 
encourage the disaffected parties to pursue these avenues.

Meanwhile, let me  contribute my views on the proposition that has been 
put forward regarding 'two sides of a political spectrum' and 
corresponding political biases on this list. Yes, there is a strong 
political bias coming from an entrenched 'structure of power' on this 
list. That bias is in fact exactly the opposite direction to what has 
been made out by the recent accusations. Although anyone who has tried 
to pursue with any seriousness a counter-hegemonic view on this list 
knows only too well what this 'structure of power' here is and with what 
kind of devastating effectiveness it works, a few recent examples may 
still be useful because entrenched social power also has this thing 
about quickly getting invisible, although no less potent for that.

Taking again from the serious attacks against the integrity of Norbert - 
our duly elected co-coordinator -  one is reminded how very recently 
some questions were raised on this list about very important 
constitutive processes of multistakeholderism (MSiism) - with regard to 
definitions and selection processes of representatives of the so-called 
technical and academic community. In that case, the integrity of the 
concerned 'high officers' (as in holders of a public duty, somewhat like 
our co-cos) was never questioned by anyone. Simply some definition 
clarifications were sought, and some corresponding arguments made. And 
what happened? The concerned person gives one indirect response, which 
includes a gross personal accusation against Michael, which was 
confirmed later to be false, and refuses to engage from there on, even 
to withdraw the false accusation (of what has now come to be known as 
'double dipping'). Meanwhile, and see how the 'structure of power' 
operates on this list, numerous contributions came down harshly on those 
who had raised the process questions, attributing all kinds of personal 
motives to those who raised the questions (please note at which point a 
discussion is rendered ad hominen). Inter alia, I was accused repeatedly 
of having a 'gotcha mentality'. Now, I can assure you friends, that when 
a concerted 'shut up' attack of this kind is launched, using an 
elaborate rank and file arrangement, and often employing sophisticated 
English/ slang by native speakers, it is mostly enough to 'shut people 
up'. I still want to know from the 'right thinking' but perhaps silent 
people on this list why should such 'shutting up' tactics be accepted 
and condoned, /which is where the shift to ad hominem first takes 
place/, whereby political arguments are ascribed to personal 
characteristics of the dissenting people.

To continue with explicating examples, a little later, I asked for a 
discussion about the processes employed by civil society focal point for 
CSTD selection, and even before anything substantial could be said or 
discussed at all, words like 'gotcha thinking' and 'be careful' etc 
begun flowing on the list. (Compare this with the unguarded allegations 
against Norbert.) Rather amusing, but also very instructive of what are 
the 'structures of power' on this list, and what political biases have 
their way. (One member even asked me to be careful not to say anything 
that may 'irritate him' - what cheek! Can anyone from the other side of 
the 'political spectrum' ever aspire to such a high social standing 
whereby such smug pre-warnings can be issued !!) While I wanted a simple 
discussion, some process clarifications, and to contribute to codifying 
procedures for the future, the fact is that the discussion simply could 
not take place. Neither I have the clarifications I wanted, nor could we 
codify good processes for the future. Such multifarious pressures and 
tactics get brought into play, all of course based on the existing 
'structure of power'.  Now if this is the fate of an effort initiated by 
me who by any standard is rather hardened after all the skirmishes and 
battles on this list (no doubt very tough to survive) one can predict 
what may happen to any such move from other likely 'dissenters'. Well, 
they mostly dont speak up. People recognise and work within the 
'structure of power'. Not that they are necessary compromised thus, just 
that the cost in terms of time, personal exposure etc becomes too much 
for most.....

All this of course has a long and ongoing history. A few months back, 
some of us trying to discuss problematic practices of google were told 
to back off, and in rather harsh terms. This is the 'structure of 
power'. People learn to estimate the cost of opening up certain issues 
on this list, and that is what has the chilling effect. A list of taboo 
issues has thus been created - and the cost of breaking these taboos is 
clear. If a few hardier ones still persist, then they can be pulled into 
personalised exchanges (employing some people relatively good at such 
techniques) and the real options before those who seek to carry on doing 
the required political work become rather difficult. I wont elaborate, 
but one needs to be in such positions to know what it takes to persist 
with ones political convictions and political work in such a situation. 
It is rather too easy (and sometimes convenient) to take narrow 
moralistic positions from rarefied heights on these issues, in a manner 
that could be blind to the operation of the 'power structure' which 
seeks to control the nature of debate in this civil society group.

The fact that accusations of political bias on Norbert are being made so 
easily and repeatedly also follows the contours of such a power 
structure. Were it that a person from the 'other side of the political 
spectrum' had done but a fraction of what the 'offending member' did in 
the present instance, he would have been chased off the list months 
back. For the last many months almost anything I post on the list is 
responded to almost immediately by the concerned member in a most 
personalised ad hominem manner - of the kind ' you and/ or your 
organisations is like this or that'.....  For months now I never reply 
to his emails (please check archives). However, such a behaviour does 
considerably constrain my ability to do a meaningful discussion on this 
list. Still, neither did I seek his removal from the list or even 
suspension, nor I do so now. He can stay, and we would manage rather 
well despite him.

Our elected co-coordinator can so easily be subject to rather serious 
allegations, and he responds to all of them without taking offence. On 
the other hand, there are others from which even to ask clarificatory 
questions leads to volleys of personalised accusations against those who 
dare question, and other, often sophisticated, stonewalling tactics.... 
So if there indeed are political biases and power structures on this 
list, the nature of them is quite evident.

It may be difficult to judge who is right and who less so in a debate, 
or between two sides of a 'political spectrum'; however it is much 
easier to judge who resists some kind of discussions and debates and who 
and what kind of perspectives are victims of such resistance. Such an 
exploration may be the best way to begin understanding what is happening 
on the list, and what all the 'right thinking people' must stand up 
against. Norbert merely acted against the steep gradient of existing 
power structure in fulfilling his duty. The kind of allegations of 
political bias that are pouring in is just the minimum he has to face. 
He has also earned various kinds of black marks vis a vis the powerful 
of the IG comity, and he will have to contend with the negative 
consequences of concerning any kind of standing and growth in the global 
IG space. But some people just take the attitude - what the heck, simply 
stick to the principles, and ones political convictions. I congratulate 
Norbert for that.

parminder





On Wednesday 10 April 2013 12:36 PM, Riaz K Tayob wrote:
> Thanks for this clarification, and since we are in a phase about 
> turning over a new leaf:
>
> The allegations against the coordinators is indeed a serious one, of 
> bias (understanding of course your decision was made not on one 
> incident). On the one hand it may be the usual tenor of the list - for 
> instance calling ad hominem as in one instance with a post by 
> Gurstein, that was followed the allegation, then promptly onto 
> substantive discussion. On the other, it is an allegation posted on 
> the list for consumption.
>
> As this applies to the conduct of the co-co's as being biased against 
> a particular view on the political spectrum, this is very serious 
> indeed. As such I would like to know what you intend to do about these 
> serious allegations made against you that reflects not only on 
> yourselves but the IGC as well. IMHO a matter like this needs to be 
> escalated so that we all are comfortable with the process and 
> continued role of the co-co's. If an important constituency feels this 
> way, left unaddressed, it can only have a chilling effect.
>
> So outside of the particular case that spurred this allegation (its 
> merits being a separate matter, detached but not unlinked), could you 
> please now deal with this serious allegation as we simply cannot have 
> people on this list feeling this way. As one Third Worldist I know all 
> too often the effects of marginalisation, and hope these allegations 
> are dealt with seriously, in strict accordance with the Charter and 
> that it is not left to fester. If handled correctly, it will go a long 
> way to chilling what ought to be limited, spurious allegations, and 
> provide all with the comfort that these kinds of allegations will be 
> made in circumstances that have an objective probability of success in 
> 'prosecution'.
>
> I am sorry to put you on the spot about this, but needs must. Thank 
> you for making this attempt, it cannot be easy, but I am sure many on 
> this list would like decorum on this list that is comfortable...
>
> Riaz
>
>
> On 2013/04/10 12:03 AM, Norbert Bollow wrote:
>> [with IGC coordinator hat on]
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20130411/16566a0d/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
     http://www.igcaucus.org/

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t