[Lnc-business] Age of Consent and Statutory Rape. WTF.

Caryn Ann Harlos caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
Sun Jan 14 14:38:07 EST 2018 

And a responsible leader knows how to answer that question.

Political action isn’t conducted in hypothetical rarities.

And no, you are begging the question - in Moore’s case it is presumed it
was non-consensual and abusive because of age right off the bat - there was
no question of the possibility of it being not.  And we jumped on that.
Are we just political hack job opportunists?

Of course there are power differentials in all relationships and that is
why age is not the only factor but a part of credible consent.  Arvin acts
as if it were irrelevant - that two 14 year olds in a youthful ill advised
relationship is no different than a 40 year old.

WTAF.  Can we imagine and twist and turn some hypothetical?  I can imagine
winning the lottery.  That doesn’t make it a responsible or viabile entry
in my budget nor is it a responsible “probably not” for a leader - an
educator for God’s sake - when asked about a 14 year old AND couple it with
“well others might choose differently.”  That is an utterly hamhanded way
to deal with the reality that there ARE predators.  It is a modern let them
eat cake.




On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 7:07 AM Starchild <starchild at lp.org> wrote:

> Caryn Ann,
>
> There's a huge difference between leaving open the possibility that one
> *might* do something in a non-specific hypothetical scenario, and
> actually *doing it*. Not to mention, Roy Moore stands credibly accused of
> committing sexual assault against young teens, i.e. acting in a manner that
> was clearly non-consensual even if you believe that someone that age is
> capable of consent.
>
> And in what relationship is there *not* a power differential of some
> kind, i.e. when is there *ever*  *no possibility* of power coercion?
>
> Love & Liberty,
>
>                                   ((( starchild )))
> At-Large Representative, Libertarian National Committee
>                        RealReform at earthlink.net
>                                 (415) 625-FREE
>
>
> On Jan 13, 2018, at 8:26 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>
> Also, if we say, nah, nothing wrong with our vice chair saying he PROBABLY
> would not have sex with a fourteen year old (with no qualification - I
> would hope it is obvious that today the RULE is that 14 year olds are not
> proper romantic interests for grown men - the theoretical fully competent
> individual in a 14 year old body with no possibility of power coercion is
> fantasy akin to me winning the lottery), then when will we issue an apology
> to Roy Moore?
>
>
> https://www.lp.org/sane-alternative-roy-moore-libertarian-ron-bishop-senate/
>
> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 9:12 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org
> > wrote:
>
>> I believe recall is an unalienable right of any voting body, Bylaws or
>> not, if not explicitly and knowingly waived.
>>
>> -Caryn Ann
>>
>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 9:10 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> I also want to correct something, I said 3/4 earlier when I meant 2/3.
>>> Got my fractions mixed up in my head.
>>>
>>> I have one state, Arizona, that asked to be left out of the decision and
>>> not be counted against any numbers needed due to the state chair being on
>>> the judicial committee and thus a conflict of issue, also with one of the
>>> main protoganists being in AZ, he felt it was better for the rest of the
>>> region to examine.  It doesn't change my numbers, it is still six votes
>>> needed.
>>>
>>> Or 2/3 of the region 1 delegates at last convention.
>>>
>>> I want to be perfectly clear - my anger and call for resignation has
>>> nothing to do with whether or not we should question age of consent laws.
>>> That has been an acceptable party position for decades.  I don't support
>>> them. The issue is consent, not age, though the two are very very related,
>>> but an individualistic system requires people to be treated as such.  That
>>> is not the issue.  The issue is his lack of judgment, accountability, and
>>> recklessness which to me, have disqualified him  IF that is what the
>>> members want.  It is more than enough cause.
>>>
>>> We have lost our minds if we don't see the issue here.  If principles
>>> mean we lose all of our sense and waste and piss away volunteer efforts and
>>> money, we should just give up now.
>>>
>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 9:00 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not directly but indirectly and it makes a certain justice sense.
>>>>
>>>> The indirect precedent is when there were issues in AZ and
>>>> disaffiliation occured - the national party members in that state were
>>>> asked which group they prefer the national party to affiliate with.  That
>>>> is a decision that belonged to the LNC but they asked the members.
>>>>
>>>> Also indirectly we have other things in our bylaws that are appealable
>>>> by a certain number of delegates who went to last convention.  Making that
>>>> the same target audience preserves member voices and give the option to
>>>> recall.
>>>>
>>>> The members can appeal bad resolutions, how can they not appeal
>>>> terrible behaviour by their elected representatives?
>>>>
>>>> I am now considering a bylaws amendment because this honestly is
>>>> binding the rights of members IMHO.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 7:01 PM, Whitney Bilyeu <whitneycb76 at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Recall survey sounds interesting. Is there a precedent?
>>>>>
>>>>> Whitney
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 13, 2018 4:42 PM, "Caryn Ann Harlos" <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> 9 states makes it really hard and I expect the same time issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Patrick or anyone intends on any motion I submit it is a futile
>>>>> gesture until regional states have time.
>>>>>
>>>>> BTW I know I have a minority opinion on this interpretation but I
>>>>> think the provision that allows 10% of the delegates of prior convention to
>>>>> appeal any LNC action includes any lack of action and I would encourage it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would ideally like to see a recall survey sent to the 2016 delegates.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 2:07 PM Elizabeth Van Horn <
>>>>> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, and as there's exactly four states in Region 3, it's a little
>>>>>> easier, but still not easy.  (Also, thanks, btw)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Just got an update from LPMI, and their bylaws prevent an email vote
>>>>>> (asynchronous voting).  They would need to meet in person or have a
>>>>>> conference call to pass a resolution. Their next scheduled meeting is is in
>>>>>> February.  (I have heard privately from some officers in LPMI, and they're
>>>>>> very unhappy with the Arvin situation and would like to be able to take
>>>>>> action.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still no word from LPKY.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All over social media is arguing and strife over this mess.  Some are
>>>>>> seizing this situation to grandstand and pot stir, furthering the
>>>>>> reach. This is the situation. Not a pleasant one.
>>>>>> ---
>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>>>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>>>>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>>>>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>>>>>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2018-01-13 14:55, Caryn Ann Harlos wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PS my requirements are similar
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3/4 of Region 1  Chairs
>>>>>>
>>>>>> or
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 3/4 petition by region 1 delegates from 2016
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:47 PM Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>>>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Elizabeth kudos for doing what a regional should.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I am having a similar discussion with Region 1.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They opposed action before.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -Caryn Ann
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, Jan 13, 2018 at 12:21 PM Elizabeth Van Horn <
>>>>>>> elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hello Patrick,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> As you're aware, I'm fairly new on the Libertarian National
>>>>>>>> Committee, as I was appointed to be LNC Region 3 Representative, a
>>>>>>>> little over a month ago.  It's an honor to be given their trust in
>>>>>>>> representing LP-Indiana, LP-Ohio, LP-Michigan and LP-Kentucky on the LNC.
>>>>>>>> I take my "representative" role seriously, and the LP state
>>>>>>>> affiliates within my Region are my constituency.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  1) On November 11, 2017, the Libertarian Party of Indiana (LPIN)
>>>>>>>> State Central Committee (SCC) unanimously passed a resolution which
>>>>>>>> culminated in, "...the immediate resignation of Mr. Vohra from his position
>>>>>>>> in party leadership."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Friday, January 12, 2018, the Indiana state chair wrote to me, "Indiana
>>>>>>>> does support and request that very action", regarding Bylaws Article 6.7, a
>>>>>>>> motion to suspend Arvin Vohra.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>  2) On January 12, 2018 the Libertarian Party of Ohio
>>>>>>>> (LPOH) Executive Committee passed a resolution which culminated in, "The
>>>>>>>> LPO calls for the IMMEDIATE resignation of Mr. Vohra from his positions in
>>>>>>>> party leadership. Failing that, the LPO calls on the LNC to remove (through
>>>>>>>> the formal suspension process) Mr. Vohra before more damage can be done."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 3) I've informed the state chairs of Region 3 that I'd need a clear
>>>>>>>> directive to make a motion per bylaws article 6.7 regarding suspending
>>>>>>>> Arvin Vohra. (With the understanding that the motion might not get to a
>>>>>>>> vote, or pass, if voted upon.)  Two of the four state affiliates in Region
>>>>>>>> 3 have told me they want this action taken.  Since attempting to suspend an
>>>>>>>> officer of the LP is a serious matter, I told the state chairs in Region 3
>>>>>>>> that I'd need at least 3 of the four states to agree on the action to be
>>>>>>>> taken.  At this time, I await direction from LPMI and/or LPKY.  (LPMI has
>>>>>>>> taken the issue into discussion and hopefully will let me know
>>>>>>>> their decision soon.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is why I've not made public comments regarding the controversy
>>>>>>>> surrounding Arvin Vohra.  I represent the four states in Region 3, which
>>>>>>>> means it's not my place to direct them, but it's the reverse, they direct
>>>>>>>> me.  If the consensus of Region 3 is to make a motion to the LNC, I shall
>>>>>>>> do so.  If that happens, it will be another opportunity for anyone on the
>>>>>>>> LNC to second such a motion.
>>>>>>>> ---
>>>>>>>> Elizabeth Van Horn
>>>>>>>> LNC Region 3 (IN, MI, OH, KY)
>>>>>>>> Secretary Libertarian Party of Madison Co, Indiana
>>>>>>>> Chair-LP Social Media Process Review Committee
>>>>>>>> Vice-Chair Libertarian Pragmatist Caucus
>>>>>>>> http://www.lpcaucus.org/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2018-01-13 09:46, Patrick McKnight wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Ken,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thank you for your hard work on behalf of the party and your
>>>>>>>> thoughtful comments on this latest embarrassment to our organization. As
>>>>>>>> you know, I made a motion to remove Arvin last year. Unfortunately, not one
>>>>>>>> member of the LNC felt comfortable supporting my motion at the time. I hope
>>>>>>>> that changes now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Patrick McKnight
>>>>>>>> LNC Region 8 Rep
>>>>>>>> Chair, New Jersey Libertarian Party
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Lnc-business mailing list
>>>>> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
>>>>> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Lnc-business mailing list
> Lnc-business at hq.lp.org
> http://hq.lp.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lnc-business
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180114/3c737f10/attachment-0002.html>

More information about the Lnc-business mailing list