Loading ...
Political issues
Posted by Ben on March 28th, 2008
Dear All,
Neil and myself had exchanged a few comments following his posting of ‘Please sign this petition’, relating to the appropriateness of using the GLUG blog as a media for postings of political nature. For those interested please read the trail of comments posted on the website. I hope that we can have a discussion on this at the next monthly meeting.
As Neil mentioned, for those unable to make the meeting, further comments will be welcome. However, as per my last comment, I won’t say anymore here. I am mindful of the risks of causing misunderstanding and bad feelings by such postings. There has been a couple of incidences in the past as a result of exchanges of messages between GLUG members via this website.
Ben
March 28th, 2008 at 11:12 am
I believe that every member has a right to express their personal opinion on this web site as long as we do not offend anyone. As we are a diving GLBT group, therefore, any issues which affects either diving or GLBT community are appropriate to discuss here, as long as we make it clear that it is a personal view, not a Glug’s view.
March 29th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Hi Everyone,
I’m going to try to make a few points clearly here, ahead of a debate, because I’m not the best public speaker around.
Firstly I think Anna has already made some good points.
My main plea is that we all keep a sense of perspective over this. Please let’s not have a repeat of the deeply saddening and disappointing after effects of the ethics/carbon footprint debate.
Our group explicitly identifies itself as a gay diving club. In my opinion anything which relates to either or both of these themes (for want of a better word), either exclusively or in a significantly greater way than other is in the interest of the group and a member should therefore be able to draw attention to it, in a post, as an opinion.
I think there is a very important distinction to be drawn between a post from a single member and a static page on the website. Static pages are (semi)permanent and are clearly the club’s opinion and a post is transient and a member’s opinion.
We are all adults here and we all have free will. We can all choose to not have the site send us the posts, we can all choose whether to read a post or not and we most definitely are in a position to decide what, if any, action we take based on the posts we read.
Anyone forbidden from signing a petition should probably know that already and resist being lead astray by a member post, the Downing St website or any other mention of one.
The carbon offset stuff related to diving and homosexuals no more so than non-divers and heterosexuals, it was one sided and it was also positioned on the site such that it appeared to be the view of the club. I think that was wrong, the debate has taken place and the revised approach applied to the site. Issue closed I would suggest.
The relevance of the DLA post to the audience is both clear and has been subsequently backed up in the comments. It%u2019s not exclusively a gay issue but I think it is sufficiently relevant to the group to be allowed as a member%u2019s opinion.
I would also suggest that, despite being an opinion, the post goes to some effort to remain factual and unbiased. It also steers clear of the debate as to whether the rule change itself was right or wrong.
The call to march post came it seems, in part at least, from BSAC and MCS (Marine Conservation Society). The post simply passed on the message. Further, the club already links to the MCS site and a fair number of the members of GLUG are also BSAC members. The conservation and protection of the marine environment in which we dive has to be of the utmost relevance to GLUG’s membership? I don’t see any political motivation lurking here, simply a call for action on an issue of concern and relevance to what we (I assume) hold dear?
I think the decision to avoid potential hurt and/or misunderstandings by refraining from further exchanges on the site ahead of a debate is probably wise.
As a group, I would hope that we can all publicly express opinions via the posts in such a way as to minimize the risk of causing offence to others whilst considering the opinions of others as just that and without taking offence.
April 3rd, 2008 at 6:33 pm
Well put, Mark.