[Lnc-business] P.S. – Re: Formal Complaint Against Mr. Arvin Vohra, Vice Chairman, per LNC Policy Manual Section 2.01 Subsection 4 Offensive Behavior Prohibition and Request for Removal as Vice Chair of the LNC

[Starchild]

	Oops, left a key word out of one line in my message below (added here in bold):

> I don't think I said anything about him merely promoting the abolition of age of consent laws...

Love & Liberty,
                                   ((( starchild )))

	


On Jan 14, 2018, at 5:31 AM, Starchild wrote:

> Merissa,
> 
> 	The Libertarian Party platform (https://www.lp.org/platform/) states (in Section 1.4, Personal Relationships) that "Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and personal relationships." 
> 
> 	I won't accuse you of purposefully misrepresenting our platform, but I think you are reading way too much into that statement. Please note that it does not say anything about at what age or under what conditions people should be considered adults, nor does it say that non-adults should never be able to make such choices. You refer to post-pubescent individuals as "children", and governments certainly often do apply that definition to many post-pubescent teens, but the platform clearly states (in that same plank) that "Government does not have the authority to define, license or restrict personal relationships" [emphasis added]. And many Libertarians, myself included, would disagree that someone is still a child after passing puberty.
> 
> 	I do agree with you that the Libertarian Party platform – without violating the Dallas Accord by presuming either the existence or non-existence of government in the free world that we seek – should boldly set forth what we believe, and that in many places it falls sadly short of doing so. Up until 2006, our platform was a lot bolder in stating our views on specific issues, but sadly it was gutted in convention that year and much of the detailed and unambiguous content it once contained has yet to be restored. For instance on the issue of abortion, we state only:
> 
>> 1.5 Abortion
>> 
>> Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.
>> 
> 	It's doubtful that this plank fully satisfies anyone. Yet it does have the virtue of frankly acknowledging the reality that how to apply the Non-Aggression Principle to the issue of abortion remains an ongoing debate. Unfortunately it doesn't really explain why we think libertarians can hold good-faith views on different sides of the issue. It would be much stronger, in my opinion, if it boldly explained that science has not definitively established when human personhood begins, and that the correct application of the N.A.P. is a difficult question because if you believe a fetus is a person then to abort it is an initiation of force, while if you believe a fetus is not a person, denying a woman the right to have an abortion is an initiation of force against her. 
> 
> 	It seems to me that we could do much worse than to adopt a similar perspective, and offer a similar explanation, regarding disagreement among Libertarians about when human beings gain the capacity to consent and thus about the proper application of the Non-Aggression Principle to the sensitive issue of young people and sex.
> 
> 	But returning to the immediate matter under discussion, I just don't see the evidence that Arvin's view is in opposition to the Libertarian Party Platform or to the Non-Aggression Principle. I'm also not sure what claim (by me? by someone else?) you are referring to as disingenuous – I don't think I said anything about him promoting the abolition of age of consent laws. Has he said somewhere that it was his intent to be offensive? If not, I'm not sure how you can claim to know that was his intent. I hear you saying that he "refused to modify his language", "turned it up a notch", "thoughtfully became worse", etc., but these all sound like subjective impressions. How many memes has Arvin posted during his tenure on the LNC? What percentage of these posts have been criticized as offensive, and has that percentage been increasing? I don't have even approximate answers to these factual questions, and suspect you probably don't either.
> 
> 	However I can say that as one of the colleagues you accuse Arvin of not respecting in his verbal communications, I do not recall ever feeling disrespected by anything he's said – and I am among other things a former soldier in the U.S. government's military, i.e. a member of one of the groups towards whom his comments were supposedly grossly offensive. Again so far as I can recall, Arvin's conduct during LNC meetings (including at times chairing those meetings) has been blameless, and on the occasions I've spoken with him personally, I've found him to be calm and considerate. Has he sometimes used bad judgement in his choices of what to post on social media? I think so! But I've never sensed that his motivation behind those choices has been anything other than to advance the cause of freedom.
> 
> 	You and I may as you say have some fundamental disagreements here, but I appreciate your efforts in that cause as an LP member and candidate too, and your taking the time to be engaged in the party's governance and seeking to hold LP leaders accountable to good behavior as you see it, even if I think you take it too far in this particular instance. Such engagement by LP members will help ours remain a grassroots, bottom-up party, and this in turn will help keep the Libertarian Party sustainably libertarian.
> 
> Love & Liberty,
> 
>                                   ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                        RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                 (415) 625-FREE
> 
> 
> On Jan 14, 2018, at 2:15 AM, Merissa Hamilton wrote:
> 
>> Starchild, 
>> 
>> Thank you for your reply. As I have stated hebephilia sex is defined as sex between an adult and post-pubescent children. Our LP Platform states that adults can consent -- NOT children. Consequently, per our platform hebephilia would be a violation of the NAP regardless of the feelings of the sympathizers including any members of the LNC Board. It doesn't matter if Arvin thinks children can consent to adults. Our Platform says otherwise.  
>> 
>> With all due respect to the Board, the Vice Chair nor anyone else on the LNC Board, has the right to redefine or misrepresent our Platform. If the Libertarian Party truly supports hebephilia as a legitimate form of consensual sex, then that should be stated boldly so those that joined Party precisely to protect people from violating children in such a way, would not have wasted our time, treasure and resources. 
>> 
>> As it stands now, per the Platform children cannot consent to sex with adults. I would ask Board members to represent this truthfully when posting publicly rather than trying to present their view as the "Libertarian" view. Arvin didn't clarify that his view was in opposition to our Platform. Is it fraudulent for a Board member to purposefully misrepresent our Platform to the public?  
>> 
>> Mr. Vohra did not merely promote abolishing age of consent laws. We wouldn't be in this situation if he had restrained himself at that point. It's disingenuous to make that claim when my letter includes the word for word posts that show he went far beyond and Ms. Caryn Ann Harlos posted communication to Arvin as such. 
>> 
>> Regardless of what Section 2.01, Subsection 4 of the LNC Policy was intended, it does not forbid the scenario I have utilized it for which is not to make a complaint because I "didn't like what Arvin said," but rather because he promoted violating the NAP, as our Platform defines it, in a manner that not only was highly offensive, but it was said with the INTENT to be highly offensive. If he had merely made statements that were unpopular but not with the intent to be offensive, then I agree, this policy doesn't apply. INTENT is why this Policy applies. 
>> 
>> The policy says it is "expected that libertarians treat each other with professional respect, thoughtful consideration, and fundamental decency". In contrast, Arvin, after being counseled for months with alternative ways to approach volatile subjects by a variety of people, refused to modify his language. Even after being told that the way he was presenting his ideas was patently offensive, he turned it up a notch and THOUGHTFULLY became worse. He demonstrates that he does not have respect for his colleagues in his verbal communication. It is for this reason -- his thoughtful and purposeful offensive behavior -- that creates the cause of his violation of the LNC Policy in addition to him promoting violation of the NAP as the Platform 1.4 defines consent. The Board does not get to redefine that Platform when the word "adult" is specifically what was used. 
>> 
>> I fundamentally disagree with your assertion and evaluation, but I thank you greatly for your reply.
>> 
>> In Liberty,
>> 
>> Merissa Hamilton 
>> 
>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 1:52 AM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Merissa, 
>> 	
>> 	Thank you for your detailed reply to my question. I believe I understand your points, but feel that such an interpretation would be a stretch of the Policy Manual language. I suspect that the term "offensive behavior" appears in the title of that section because "harassment" generally refers to a pattern of behavior occurring over a period of time (see e.g. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/harassment), whereas the authors presumably wanted to communicate that even a single instance of unreasonably offensive behavior toward another individual or individuals is unacceptable.
>> 
>> 	I could be wrong, but I do not believe that Section 2.01, Subsection 4, was intended to require party leaders to be punished for expressing sincerely held opinions on behalf of the party which simply happen to be unpopular, unless those views also violate the Non-Aggression Principle or contradict our Platform. With regard to the N.A.P., I see Arvin Vohra's post in question as falling into a grey area of party doctrine. Just as opinions vary among Libertarians about when personhood begins, such that the views of some Libertarians on abortion are seen by other Libertarians as condoning the initiation of force (even murder), so too do opinions in the party (and the movement) differ when it comes to the ability of young people to give consent. If one believes that hebephilia sex can be consensual, there would seem to be no reason to conclude that consensual sex of this kind is more offensive, or morally different, than consensual sex of any other kind (e.g. consensual homosexual sex).
>> 
>> 	The fact that there is honest disagreement among libertarians about when young people become capable of consenting to sex and whether this varies according to the individual, with the disagreement arising from conflicting but plausible interpretations of the Non-Aggression Principle based on different views or understandings of human development, suggests to me that as with abortion the question is not settled, and we should not simply pander to popular opinion on the matter. Appeals to what a "large majority of America agrees with" seem to me out of place when discussing whether an LP officer deserves to be punished for something he posted. We know that a "large majority of America" agrees with all kinds of unlibertarian views and is simply not a reliable authority in such matters.
>> 
>> 	I have not seen or heard anything from Arvin Vohra promoting sexual violence against children. That is a pretty ugly charge, and I do not believe it reflects the character of the person I know and have served with on the LNC. I understand that you and many others feel strongly about what he posted, and his defense of that action, but I would urge you to restrain your rhetoric and avoid saying things we might all regret (as I'm sure we all wish Arvin had when posting the meme in question). The idea that an LP chair taking a stance on age of consent laws that is unpopular among the general public would necessarily cause the Libertarian Party to cease to exist also seems to me extremely farfetched. If the issue is as serious as I believe you believe it to be, surely this kind of exaggeration is unnecessary to make your case. 
>> 
>> Love & Liberty,
>> 
>>                                   ((( starchild )))
>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>                        RealReform at earthlink.net
>>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>> 
>> 
>> On Jan 13, 2018, at 4:19 PM, Merissa Hamilton wrote:
>> 
>>> Thank you Starchild for your question. 
>>> 
>>> The section is specifically titled "Harassment and Offensive Behavior" prohibits offensive verbal behavior. Based on the many calls for censuring and removing Arvin during the Veteran and Military Service members fiasco, many members of the Party and America in general agreed his speech was grossly offensive. He continued to use grossly derogatory against teachers, police officers, etc. even after it was made clear to him by public outcries across the nation and other LNC Members that his was obscenely offensive. He continued without retribution. 
>>> 
>>> Recently, in his statements he compared consensual homosexual sex to hebephilia sex as morally equal. This is grossly offensive. The large majority of America considers no moral distinction between hebephilia and pedophilia. He also condoned hebephilia and in one statement inferred sex between an adult and any child under the age of 16 as a pro-liberty or pro-libertarian position. Whereas, our Platform statement specifically refers to the term "consensual" in reference to adults. Children cannot consent to sex in the context of our Platform. The large majority of America agrees with this. Consequently, Mr. Vohra is promoting sexual violence against children which is a violation of the NAP, SoP and our Platform. It's also obscene and grossly offensive. 
>>> 
>>> The Libertarian Party Youth Caucus and the FSU College Libertarians actually declared Mr. Vohra's statements as being pro-pedophilia. I find these accusations reasonable. See screenshots below. 
>>> 
>>> 1. He offended a class group of people, homosexuals, by comparing them to sexual predators against children. This is grossly offensive. 
>>> 
>>> 2. He promoted what is largely regarded as sexual violence against children as liberty. Per the test highlighted below in the last paragraph, this clearly offends a reasonable person. 
>>> 
>>> 3. In fact, it's been regarded as highly offensive to many State affiliates and Caucuses. He responded to many members in an offensive and derogatory manner and he has been doing it for months with no consequences. 
>>> 
>>> 4. A victim exists from Mr. Vohra's behavior. The Libertarian Party affiliates have lost many members and crucial financial support for our Party and candidates. Many candidates have lost volunteers and donors specifically because of Mr. Vohra's past statements and behavior. His latest is absolutely indefensible by any reasonable person. 
>>> 
>>> 5. While Libertarians do support free speech, we accept all of our liberties in conjunction with responsibility. Mr. Vohra agreed to uphold our LNC Policy and his behavior for months has been grossly unbecoming of an officer of the LNC. 
>>> 
>>> 6. The Vice Chair functions as having the same powers as Chair when delegated. At any time a situation could arise where Mr. Vohra becomes acting Chair. Mr. Vohra being allowed to remain as an Officer in good standing is morally equivalent as if our Chair said such statements condoning hebephilia considering the Bylaws leave this possibility open. What consequences would the National Party, our affiliates, our candidates and the members suffer if it had been our National Chair that made these statements instead of a Vice Chair? Our Party would necessarily cease to exist. We would not survive such a blow.  
>>> 
>>> Finally, I am not making this argument in the letter, but since you asked, I will add if the Party and members were considered a "person", Arvin's behavior would by definition be harassment in addition to grossly offensive behavior. I consider this viewpoint a stretch which is why I didn't include it in my letter. 
>>> 
>>> Starchild, let me know if this answers your question of if you need any additional information. Thank you for your consideration. 
>>> 
>>> In Liberty, 
>>> 
>>> Merissa Hamilton
>>> 
>>> <image.png>
>>> <image.png>
>>> <image.png>
>>> 
>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:32 PM, Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Merissa,
>>> 
>>> 	Thank you for writing to members of the Libertarian National Committee, and for citing the LNC Policy Manual in reference to your complaint – relatively few people take the time to do this. However, having reviewed Section 2.01, Subsection 4 of the manual, I am wondering which specific provision(s) you believe the vice-chair has violated, because although the section is fairly extensive, it is generally about harassment, and none of the provisions appear to me to apply to this situation.
>>> 
>>> Love & Liberty,
>>>   
>>>                                     ((( starchild )))
>>> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>>>                          RealReform at earthlink.net
>>>                                  (415) 625-FREE
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Jan 13, 2018, at 8:33 AM, Merissa Hamilton wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mr. Sarwark,
>>>> 
>>>> I fear you are unaware of the official response required by the Policy. Your reply doesn't just require for you to acknowledge receiving my complaint. It requires a response that you WILL complete an investigation. This is not an option per the Policy.
>>>> 
>>>> Failure to act is dereliction of duty as Chairman of the LNC Board.
>>>> 
>>>> Please advise as to the steps you will take with the LNC per the Policy. 
>>>> 
>>>> In Liberty,
>>>> 
>>>> Merissa Hamilton 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jan 13, 2018 7:39 AM, "Nicholas Sarwark" <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>>>> Dear Ms. Hamilton,
>>>> 
>>>> I have received your letter and it appears that the entire Libertarian
>>>> National Committee has also received a copy.
>>>> 
>>>> Yours in liberty,
>>>> 
>>>> Nicholas Sarwark
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 10:45 PM, Merissa Hamilton
>>>> <merissa at merissahamilton.com> wrote:
>>>> > To: LNC Committee, Regional Representative Region 1 Caryn Ann Harlos,
>>>> > Chairman Nicholas Sarwark, and the Judicial Committee Chairman of the LNC
>>>> >
>>>> > In reviewing the LNC Policy manual, it is clear Vice-Chair Arvin Vohra has
>>>> > violated LNC Policy Manual Section 2.01 Subsection 4. The Policy states that
>>>> > complaints against LNC Board Members should be brought to the LNC and
>>>> > Judicial Committee Chairman for review by the LNC. Please consider this
>>>> > letter as my formal complaint of violation of LNC Policy Section 2.01
>>>> > Subsection 4 by Vice Chairman Mr. Arvin Vohra.
>>>> >
>>>> > Please review the attached letter for the specifics of my complaint against
>>>> > Mr. Vohra. Thank you in advance for your review, appropriate action and
>>>> > response.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > In Liberty,
>>>> >
>>>> > Merissa Hamilton, Libertarian Party Member
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Merissa Hamilton, Libertarian Candidate for Governor
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Merissa Hamilton, Libertarian Candidate for Governor
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://hq.lp.org/pipermail/lnc-business/attachments/20180114/67293470/attachment-0002.html>