[Lnc-business] Motion to suspend Arvin Vohra

[Alicia Mattson]

I am not in favor of the LNC becoming a circular firing squad.  There have
been situations in the past where someone somewhere has called for removal
of an LNC member or our presidential candidate over a philosophical
disagreement, and I didn't sponsor or vote for a motion to do that.  I do
think the subject matter here makes this an exceptional situation.  It is
toxic, and I think the LNC needs to protect the organization from being
associated with it.

This is not a circumstance where someone in an interview gave an
imperfectly worded answer on the fly.  We're talking about the net effect
of many, many follow-up explanations which have more extensively
illuminated the problem, rather than mitigated it.

This is not a factional dispute.

I know several people whose lives have been seriously damaged by naive
childhood experiences of sexual contact with adults, or even with other
older children.  The damage is real, and it is important that we take it
seriously.  It does not warrant Mr. Vohra's post, "Only government could
have resources to deal with statutory 'rape', but not actual rape."

The comments in question are not just about a 17.9999 year old and a
18.0001 year old, as some of Mr. Vohra's later posts tried to paint it.  He
talked about 14-year-olds having babies with adults who have jobs that can
support the baby.

Mr. Vohra argued ("Should a 25 year old date a 5 year old? No. Parents and
the 25 year old's common decency should stop it. Government shouldn't be
involved.") that family bonds are sufficient to stop children from
inappropriate sexual relationships with adults, but in many abuse cases,
the perpetrators are the immediate family members.  It often takes action
by non-family members to rescue the child from the situation.  Mr. Vohra
suggests that child trafficking by family members isn't really a
wide-spread problem that we have to worry about, though there are entire
cultures where very young girls are sold like property to older men as
brides.  These are real problems, not fiction, not something that just goes
away if we pretend it doesn't exist.

Mr. Vohra argues that the only sex worth stopping is that which produces
welfare-funded child care, and if that isn't the case, it's none of our
business.  I'm pretty sure that a 25-year-old having sex with a cooperative
5-year-old will not result in a pregnancy, but it ought to be stopped.
When that 5-year-old grows up, comes to understand the situation from a
different perspective, and develops feelings of shame and anger about it,
the psychological damage is real and life-long.

Even if Mr. Vohra doesn't understand that the child really is a victim of
force, and his only concern is whether tax money is involved, the child may
later seek tax-funded therapy, so perhaps Mr. Vohra could at least find it
in his heart to defend the child from a predator on those absurd grounds.

It is not acceptable for a 30-something-year-old(?) leader in this
organization to merely say "probably not" when asked if he would have sex
with a consenting 14-year-old.  It is not acceptable for him to say that an
adult in a position of power over a minor shouldn't have sex with them
merely because the market prefers that they not do it.

On and on and on it goes with similar comments from Mr. Vohra.  I'm not
willing to just whistle Dixie while Mr. Vohra damages our collective
reputation, our candidates, our affiliates, and our cause in this way.

-Alicia




On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 12:06 AM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
wrote:

> After spending time reading through the actual comments in question, I am
> willing to co-sponsor a motion for suspension.  I think this is a situation
> where it's a good idea to explain the cause in writing, since we wish to
> distance ourselves from a particular situation.  I've drafted the following
> language for consideration.  If there are ways to improve it, I'm open to
> hearing suggestions.
>
> -Alicia
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Whereas, Bylaw Article 6.7 states that the National Committee may, for
> cause, suspend any officer by a vote of 2/3 of the entire National
> Committee;
>
>
>
> Whereas, the Party’s platform plank on Personal Relationships states that,
> “Consenting adults should be free to choose their own sexual practices and
> personal relationships;”
>
>
>
> Whereas, the Party’s platform plank on Parental Rights states that,
> “Parents, or other guardians, have the right to raise their children
> according to their own standards and beliefs. This statement shall not be
> construed to condone child abuse or neglect;”
>
>
> Whereas, children are particularly vulnerable members of society;
>
>
>
> Whereas, Arvin Vohra, at times even using his title as LNC Vice Chair, has
> repeatedly made public statements downplaying the harm of sexual
> relationships between adults and children, and advocating allowing families
> (or “their culture”) to somehow grant sexual consent on behalf of children;
>
>
>
> Whereas, Mr. Vohra’s actions have the effect of damaging and dissuading
> the campaigns of Libertarians who do believe in the limitations embodied by
> these Party Platform planks;
>
>
>
> Whereas, this is merely the latest episode of Mr. Vohra making
> particularly inflammatory and insulting remarks, destructively stereotyping
> party members and large segments of the population – such as veterans and
> school teachers – a behavior completely at odds with our Party’s philosophy
> of recognizing and treating people as individuals; and
>
>
>
> Whereas, this pattern of behavior has caused such wide-spread offense that
> it makes it difficult for the LNC, its committees, and Party affiliates to
> focus on productive activities;
>
>
>
> Therefore, be it resolved, that the Libertarian National Committee
> suspends Arvin Vohra for cause from his position as LNC Vice Chair.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:21 PM, Alicia Mattson <alicia.mattson at lp.org>
> wrote:
>
>> I think merely including "for cause" in the motion would be sufficient,
>> and I haven't found a RONR provision which says the nature of the cause has
>> to be explained in the motion.
>>
>> It may, however, be a good idea to explain for the record what the cause
>> is, especially when an organization wants to distance itself from public
>> statements it disagrees with.
>>
>> Regarding Caryn Ann's question about whether RONR requires that we have a
>> trial under Chapter 20 procedures, I've heard this question come up before,
>> and I've seen a written opinion from a member of the RONR authorship team
>> which explained that the Chapter 20 protocol is the default, but when an
>> organization takes the step of writing a different bylaws provision about
>> removal, that serves to override the Chapter 20 default process.
>>
>> -Alicia
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 3:31 PM, Nicholas Sarwark <chair at lp.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On the parliamentary question:
>>>
>>> If there is going to be an email ballot, the motion would at least
>>> need to say "for cause" and would be better to state with clarity what
>>> the cause is, since there is only the option for members to vote for
>>> or against it without the potential for amendment.  Members should be
>>> aware that there is an appellate procedure in the case of a suspension
>>> and that an appellate body would generally be looking to whether the
>>> appropriate procedure has been followed in deciding whether to
>>> overturn a suspension.
>>>
>>> In the case of a call for an electronic meeting, the subject of
>>> suspension would be sufficient to call the meeting, with cause being
>>> able to be discussed, debated, and attached to any final motion before
>>> voting.  As a note, it requires 1/3 of the committee to request an
>>> electronic meeting, so it requires six members to request, not the
>>> four that are required for an email ballot.
>>>
>>> -Nick
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 12:54 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>> > I have several concerns here.
>>> >
>>> > And to point out one detail for party members reporting on this
>>> incident who
>>> > - inadvertantly I am sure - omitted the fact that I personally - a
>>> radical
>>> > anarchist - am willing to co-sponsor this motion, thus making four,
>>> but only
>>> > have not because I am awaiting the go ahead from my region.  I don't
>>> need a
>>> > 2/3 to just co-sponsor, and I am getting more comfortable with it now
>>> that
>>> > two of my states are in favour of removal.  CO and WA may have a
>>> decision
>>> > soon.  And in reflecting on this, I am seeing my way clear to
>>> co-sponsor as
>>> > long as some of my states believe it needs a hearing.  That protects
>>> > minority voices.
>>> >
>>> > This issue is being used factionally to tear us apart.  But then again,
>>> > Arvin said that was part of the goal, and though I don't like tit for
>>> tat, I
>>> > can't blame moderates who feel attacked for thinking turnabout is fair
>>> play.
>>> > We need to stop that culture.  Now.
>>> >
>>> > But to my concerns.  I have been reading more in RONR and I think the
>>> motion
>>> > is improper for the reasons I stated before.  It must state a cause.
>>> > Further, I do not think it CAN be handled by email, and I think it
>>> MUST (if
>>> > it has enough co-sponsors - or at a meeting - a second) take the form
>>> of a
>>> > trial - in executive session.  I don't like secret sessions but that
>>> is my
>>> > reading of RONR, and it doesn't seem like it can be suspended - though
>>> it
>>> > seems that the subject of the discipline could waive that.
>>> >
>>> > I would like the Chair to weigh in on my objection to this Motion as
>>> being
>>> > out of order without a stated cause.  That being said, I do have some
>>> > proposed cause language.
>>> >
>>> > Members reading this.  Do not allow anyone to put you into a mentality
>>> of
>>> > purging anyone.  Moderate, Radical, or otherwise.  Our binding factor
>>> is the
>>> > Statement of Principles.  Inciting a hate movement against Johnson
>>> > supporters is counterprodutive and just flat out wrong.  The same is
>>> true
>>> > for Party radicals and anarchists.  This is insane.
>>> >
>>> > -Caryn Ann
>>> >
>>> > On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 2:15 AM, Caryn Ann Harlos <
>>> caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> One of my states has requested the "cause" language for consideration.
>>> >>
>>> >> -Caryn Ann
>>> >>
>>> >> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 6:50 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> >> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I spoke with the Chair of HI.  She supports removal.  Region 1: Utah
>>> >>> (no); Arizona (recused entirely); Alaska (yes); Hawaii (yes).
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Some may object that I have influenced some with my personal
>>> opinion.  I
>>> >>> don't have that much power.  But this is where the issue of us being
>>> elected
>>> >>> for our insight and judgment comes into play - the Chairs want my
>>> advice.
>>> >>> They can take it or not, but they want it.  And I advise them on how
>>> to
>>> >>> protect their own state if the LNC does nothing.  That is my job.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> As promised, this is what Alaska wrote to me:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> After discussion with our state board, it is our view that Arvin
>>> Vohra
>>> >>> should be removed from the position of Vice Chair of the Libertarian
>>> Party.
>>> >>> On an intellectual level, some logic may exist in his arguments,
>>> however the
>>> >>> topics and conclusions he forwards repeatedly result in discredit to
>>> the LP.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> This cannot continue.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Our leaders must be ambassadors as well as philosophers.  One role
>>> cannot
>>> >>> exist at the expense of the other.  The LP is not a hermetic
>>> association for
>>> >>> the advanced study of arcane philosophical concepts, but a political
>>> >>> organization with the intent to guide and influence our government
>>> and
>>> >>> citizenry.  All political correctness aside, earning the credibility
>>> to do
>>> >>> this comes at the cost of tailoring our message to our audience, the
>>> >>> American people.  Mr. Vohra does not, or perhaps cannot understand
>>> this
>>> >>> fundamental constraint.
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -Caryn Ann
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:55 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> >>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> FYI - LPCO has an open email list.  Its time we heard the voices of
>>> our
>>> >>>> members - anyone can follow their discussion
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/lpco-open-business/k
>>> Pps5ugbr1A
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:53 PM, Caryn Ann Harlos
>>> >>>> <caryn.ann.harlos at lp.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Thank you Joshua, I am flattered that some of my words were
>>> persuasive.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Let me argue more in favour of a meeting.  If this motion got four
>>> >>>>> co-sponsors and went to email vote, I am not going to have full
>>> word from
>>> >>>>> region 1 in ten days.  Not gonna happen.  So even though I suspect
>>> they will
>>> >>>>> not favour, this guarantees that there will be no region 1
>>> support.  A
>>> >>>>> meeting can give more time and can allow me to let the region know
>>> they can
>>> >>>>> attend for public comment.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> (states have told me that they have to wait for a board meeting).
>>> I
>>> >>>>> have three definite responses.  AZ asked to be recused.  AK is in
>>> favour of
>>> >>>>> suspension (and I will be forwarding their missive to me here).
>>> UT opposes.
>>> >>>>> The CO chair supports but the rest of the Board has not weighed in
>>> (FYI I
>>> >>>>> recused myself from the LPCO Board discussion).
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jan 15, 2018 at 3:35 PM, Joshua Katz
>>> >>>>> <planning4liberty at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I have stated my preference for an electronic meeting.  I also
>>> said in
>>> >>>>>> that email that this is the second time this has come up, and it
>>> needs a
>>> >>>>>> full hearing.  Since then, I have read emails from Ms. Harlos and
>>> from Mr.
>>> >>>>>> Sharpe which have called some of my beliefs on this topic into
>>> question.  I
>>> >>>>>> still am strongly inclined to vote no, but I have been convinced
>>> that
>>> >>>>>> consideration is due.  I believe motions get clearer and better
>>> >>>>>> consideration when they are actually pending - there is a
>>> difference,
>>> >>>>>> psychologically, between speaking in general, and speaking on a
>>> precise
>>> >>>>>> motion.  (On a side note, I agree with Ms. Harlos that this
>>> motion would be
>>> >>>>>> better if it specified the cause, although I do not think this is
>>> >>>>>> necessary.)  Therefore, I will cosponsor.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> However, I am cosponsoring on the following understanding, and I
>>> ask
>>> >>>>>> the Secretary to correct me if my understanding is incorrect.
>>> According to
>>> >>>>>> RONR, the maker of a motion may not speak against it in debate
>>> (but may vote
>>> >>>>>> against it), but the seconder may speak against it in debate.
>>> Our email
>>> >>>>>> ballots generally list everyone who wished to see the motion, the
>>> original
>>> >>>>>> maker and the cosponsors, as "cosponsors."  That notwithstanding,
>>> it is my
>>> >>>>>> understanding that a cosponsor is in the position of a seconder
>>> and may
>>> >>>>>> speak in debate against the motion.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Joshua A. Katz
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Sun, Jan 14, 2018 at 4:52 AM, Elizabeth Van Horn
>>> >>>>>> <elizabeth.vanhorn at lp.org> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I make a motion to suspend Arvin Vohra from his position as Vice
>>> >>>>>>> Chair under Article 6, Section 7 of our Bylaws.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________
>>> _______________________________
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Three of the four state affiliate chairs in Region 3 are now
>>> backing
>>> >>>>>>> this motion. I told Region 3 that I'd need at least 3/4 of the
>>> region in
>>> >>>>>>> accord to make the motion to suspend Arvin.  That percent was
>>> reached last
>>> >>>>>>> night.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> When I volunteered my time and energy to be a Regional Rep on the
>>> >>>>>>> LNC, I didn't do it under the circumstances of, "only if
>>> convenient".
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I'm doing this because I care about giving a voice to the many LP
>>> >>>>>>> members who are running for office, getting out the vote, and
>>> spending their
>>> >>>>>>> hard-earned money working toward electing libertarians.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> These are the people that make up the Libertarian Party. It is
>>> their
>>> >>>>>>> voice that I represent.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> So, it is with calm resolve that I make this 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/
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>> 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/20180117/d49b5e97/attachment-0002.html>