![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
xiphiasThe background, for those who have missed it:
(Note: the laws of lashon ha-ra might appear to prevent talking about things in this way. But there is a VERY IMPORTANT exception to those laws when it's necessary for the protection of the community. And these stories are necessary for the protection of the community. That said: I'm going to put this behind a cut-tag, for people who don't want to see it for whatever reason.)
The cast of characters:
Readercon -- a science fiction convention beloved by many fans and professionals, known for being a great place to actually socialize with people. It doesn't do as many fancy and flashy things as many other cons, but you can make friends and hang out with them. I've never been, but I keep intending to go.
The directors of Readercon: not actually a single person, actually five people, but if I'm counting Readercon as a character, I can count the directors as one character.
Rene Walling: a well-known Montreal fan, who's been a translator of science fiction into French, helped run a Worldcon, and otherwise done lots of cool stuff . . . but . . . ("Rene" is a male name, by the way. The fact that Rene is male is relevant.)
Genevieve Valentine: an author of various books and short stories; a Readercon attendee; and, sadly relevant to this story, a cute and not-particularly-physically-imposing woman
For historical purposes, I'm also going to include two more characters:
Aaron Agassi: a well-known jerk in the Science Fiction community.
Veronica Schanoes: a writer, academic, Readercon attendee, and, again sadly relevant, a cute and not-particularly-physically-imposing woman.
I'm starting the story in 2008.
Aaron Agassi is a tall, wide, big man, who smells bad. This is my personal opinion, based on direct observation, and even interaction, with him. He believes -- and has written pamphlets stating -- that if you stare at a woman long enough, and follow her around, and stand too close, she will EVENTUALLY have sex with you. And that the only reason this has never worked is that cons have always stopped him before it had time to work.
He has been known for this for YEARS.
At the 2008 Readercon, Aaron Agassi started using his technique on Shanoes, and, as you would expect, she felt threatened by him, and, as you would expect if you are female, didn't want to cause a problem by making a fuss and bothering people. Valentine, however, DID see Agassi's harassment, and supported Shanoes, helping her report the incident, and to get support from con and hotel security.
Readercon invoked their "zero tolerance for sexual harassment" policy, and banned Agassi from the con for life. (At some OTHER time, it might be useful to discuss why cons don't just ban him pre-emptively, since we KNOW he causes problems. Why does every con wait for him to cause specific problems at THEIR place, when they KNOW he's GOING to?)
That's background to show how the con has dealt with a sexual harassment in the past.
This takes us to the recently-past 2012 Readercon. Over the course of the con, Rene Walling sexually harassed Valentine a number of times. This was also reported to the concom. After Valentine posted about this, she began to hear about other cases where Walling did similar things to other women.
The result was that Walling has a two-year suspension from Readercon, after which his case will be reviewed.
So.
In one case, the perpetrator was banned for life. In the other case, the perpetrator was banned for two years, with a chance to come back after that.
Why are the results different in the two cases? In neither case did the perpetrator believe that he had done anything wrong. In neither case, did the victim sustain physical injury.
The only significant difference that I can see is that nobody likes Agassi, and a lot of people like Walling. Agassi is smelly, grating, annoying, and basically useless. Walling actually bathes, has a personality, and has done a lot of work that benefits the community.
Of COURSE that's why the results are different. But that's not a good reason. Most of us in the democratic world believe in "laws, not men" -- the idea that, for the most part, we ought to be judged on our actions, not on whether people like us.
Indeed, as it currently appears, Readercon has set up a hierarchy. Walling outranks Valentine; Shanoes, supported by Valentine, outranks Agassi.
I mean, I get it. Human beings believe that "bad things are done by 'them', not by 'us'." If a bad thing is done by an outsider like Agassi, it's easy to accept that he did it, and that it was bad. But if it was done by an insider, like Walling, it must not have happened. Except, in this case, there are enough witnesses that you can't deny that it happened. So, it must not have been all that bad, right?
Walling is our friend; we are good people, so our friends must be good people; good people might do SLIGHTLY bad things, by accident, but don't do REALLY bad things -- so therefore, what Walling did must have only been SLIGHTLY bad. And therefore, he ought to have a chance to redeem himself, right?
No. Not right. Readercon has a zero-tolerance policy, and has, in the past, used that policy. We can argue whether it was a good idea to have a zero-tolerance policy in the first place -- I can see both sides of that question. But the policy DOES exist. And enforcing it only on people you don't like is wrong.
Edited to Add: Comments from both ricevermicelli and also from palmwiz suggest rumors that the "zero-tolerance policy" was specifically designed to get Agassi. That they set up the policy, then watched him to violate him, to have an excuse to ban him: they'd already decided to do that, and were just waiting for an excuse. Which suggests that the board was completely unprepared for it to be relevant to anybody else, especially not someone they liked.
(Note: the laws of lashon ha-ra might appear to prevent talking about things in this way. But there is a VERY IMPORTANT exception to those laws when it's necessary for the protection of the community. And these stories are necessary for the protection of the community. That said: I'm going to put this behind a cut-tag, for people who don't want to see it for whatever reason.)
The cast of characters:
Readercon -- a science fiction convention beloved by many fans and professionals, known for being a great place to actually socialize with people. It doesn't do as many fancy and flashy things as many other cons, but you can make friends and hang out with them. I've never been, but I keep intending to go.
The directors of Readercon: not actually a single person, actually five people, but if I'm counting Readercon as a character, I can count the directors as one character.
Rene Walling: a well-known Montreal fan, who's been a translator of science fiction into French, helped run a Worldcon, and otherwise done lots of cool stuff . . . but . . . ("Rene" is a male name, by the way. The fact that Rene is male is relevant.)
Genevieve Valentine: an author of various books and short stories; a Readercon attendee; and, sadly relevant to this story, a cute and not-particularly-physically-imposing woman
For historical purposes, I'm also going to include two more characters:
Aaron Agassi: a well-known jerk in the Science Fiction community.
Veronica Schanoes: a writer, academic, Readercon attendee, and, again sadly relevant, a cute and not-particularly-physically-imposing woman.
I'm starting the story in 2008.
Aaron Agassi is a tall, wide, big man, who smells bad. This is my personal opinion, based on direct observation, and even interaction, with him. He believes -- and has written pamphlets stating -- that if you stare at a woman long enough, and follow her around, and stand too close, she will EVENTUALLY have sex with you. And that the only reason this has never worked is that cons have always stopped him before it had time to work.
He has been known for this for YEARS.
At the 2008 Readercon, Aaron Agassi started using his technique on Shanoes, and, as you would expect, she felt threatened by him, and, as you would expect if you are female, didn't want to cause a problem by making a fuss and bothering people. Valentine, however, DID see Agassi's harassment, and supported Shanoes, helping her report the incident, and to get support from con and hotel security.
Readercon invoked their "zero tolerance for sexual harassment" policy, and banned Agassi from the con for life. (At some OTHER time, it might be useful to discuss why cons don't just ban him pre-emptively, since we KNOW he causes problems. Why does every con wait for him to cause specific problems at THEIR place, when they KNOW he's GOING to?)
That's background to show how the con has dealt with a sexual harassment in the past.
This takes us to the recently-past 2012 Readercon. Over the course of the con, Rene Walling sexually harassed Valentine a number of times. This was also reported to the concom. After Valentine posted about this, she began to hear about other cases where Walling did similar things to other women.
The result was that Walling has a two-year suspension from Readercon, after which his case will be reviewed.
So.
In one case, the perpetrator was banned for life. In the other case, the perpetrator was banned for two years, with a chance to come back after that.
Why are the results different in the two cases? In neither case did the perpetrator believe that he had done anything wrong. In neither case, did the victim sustain physical injury.
The only significant difference that I can see is that nobody likes Agassi, and a lot of people like Walling. Agassi is smelly, grating, annoying, and basically useless. Walling actually bathes, has a personality, and has done a lot of work that benefits the community.
Of COURSE that's why the results are different. But that's not a good reason. Most of us in the democratic world believe in "laws, not men" -- the idea that, for the most part, we ought to be judged on our actions, not on whether people like us.
Indeed, as it currently appears, Readercon has set up a hierarchy. Walling outranks Valentine; Shanoes, supported by Valentine, outranks Agassi.
I mean, I get it. Human beings believe that "bad things are done by 'them', not by 'us'." If a bad thing is done by an outsider like Agassi, it's easy to accept that he did it, and that it was bad. But if it was done by an insider, like Walling, it must not have happened. Except, in this case, there are enough witnesses that you can't deny that it happened. So, it must not have been all that bad, right?
Walling is our friend; we are good people, so our friends must be good people; good people might do SLIGHTLY bad things, by accident, but don't do REALLY bad things -- so therefore, what Walling did must have only been SLIGHTLY bad. And therefore, he ought to have a chance to redeem himself, right?
No. Not right. Readercon has a zero-tolerance policy, and has, in the past, used that policy. We can argue whether it was a good idea to have a zero-tolerance policy in the first place -- I can see both sides of that question. But the policy DOES exist. And enforcing it only on people you don't like is wrong.
Edited to Add: Comments from both ricevermicelli and also from palmwiz suggest rumors that the "zero-tolerance policy" was specifically designed to get Agassi. That they set up the policy, then watched him to violate him, to have an excuse to ban him: they'd already decided to do that, and were just waiting for an excuse. Which suggests that the board was completely unprepared for it to be relevant to anybody else, especially not someone they liked.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-28 11:56 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-29 01:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2012-07-29 01:28 am (UTC)