deLurch wrote:d4m10n wrote:CaptainFluffyBunny wrote:Why don't you tell me why a 17 yo would be exempt, given that Carrier himself has not exempted them?
Camp Quest West is in California, age of consent is 18.
You seem to be imagining a possible world in which Carrier visits other camps and then violates their stated policies. That could happen, but it very probably won't.
Camp Quest has a policy to not fuck the campers? Personally I would think things like that should go without saying. But it appears that individuals such as Richard Carrier needs it spelled out for him (at least he did when it came to the SSA) if it isn't already written into law.
Nobody is saying, or should be saying that Carrier is running round trying to fuck Camp Quest attendees. That has never been an issue.
In fact this isn't really even about his sexual harassment. It is about the failure of two organisations Executive Directors to act appropriately over sexual harassment complaints involving an intimate friend, it is about Carrier repeatedly lying or fudging the truth as he always does.
SSA did the following:
1. had a policy as early as 2012 that stated: "speakers should not engage in sexual behavior with students with respect to Speakers Bureau events."
2. Received a complaint of sexual harassment, and removed the person who committed the sexual harassment from their speaker list. This suggests that they accepted the incident had taken place, that it was against their policy and acted accordingly.
3. Allowed the banned speaker (according to Carrier) to act as a volunteer at a national conference at which they knew the victim would be attending.
As far as I can see there are only 2 reasons why they might have done number 3.
1.Either they didn't think the complaint was really sexual harassment so it didn't matter that Carrier was around official events because he actually hadn't done anything, or,
2.they did think it was a proper complaint but continued to involve Carrier officially because they were personally intimate with him.
Both of which are equally bad in my opinion. In the first, you are only paying lip service to the movement wide hysteria over rape culture and sexual harassment when it suits you, and you don't appear to care about the feelings of the complainant and think that you can be judge and jury on what is appropriate with your friends. Or you place you personal wants above those of the young people you serve in your organisation, in which case you shouldn't be in that position.
If it is number 1 - they believe Carrier, and did all along, then they now have to come out swinging on the victim to clear themselves. And no one in the movement will respect them if they do that. Or they can stay silent and let Carrier do it for them, as is currently happening.
Personally I think the whole thing stinks. This moral authoritarian, holy-than-thou agenda has infested the world of atheism from America, and yet, just because these people 'do good work' or are nice and know everyone in the power positions, no one from either side, except Heina appears to have the guts to stand up and say something. The do good work thing is bullshit. The Pope does good work, but he still defends his child-abusing priests. Jimmy Saville did a load of 'good work' and we know where that went.
Justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done, and right now the entirety of the AS movement in the US are prepared to pretend that both those conditions have been met, because good reasons.
When Heina Dadabhoy is the stand-up shining example of doing the right thing, you know your movement is fucked.
