Thanks for engaging in this discussion Julia. I’m writing replies that are a bit harsh, but I recognize that I’m likely missing some information about these things, which may even be public and I just don’t know where to look for it yet.
Jacy and I agreed three years ago what each of us would say publicly about this, and I think it would be difficult and not particularly helpful to revisit the specifics now.
However, this sounds… not good, as if the decision on current action is based on Jacy’s interests and on honoring a deal with him. I could think of a few possible good reasons for more information to be bad, e.g. that the victims prefer nothing more is said, or that it would harm CEA’s ability to act in future cases. But readers can only speculate on what the real reason is and whether they agree with it.
Both here and regarding what I asked in my other comment, the reasoning is very opaque. This is a problem, because it means there’s no way to scrutinize the decisions, or to know what to expect from the current situation. This is not only important for community organizers, but also for ordinary members of the community.
For example, it’s not clear to me if CEA has relevant written-out policies regarding this, and what they are. Or who can check if they’re followed, and how.
I have a general objection to this, but I want to avoid getting entirely off topic. So I’ll just say, this seems to me to only shift the problem further away from the people affected.
Thanks for engaging in this discussion Julia. I’m writing replies that are a bit harsh, but I recognize that I’m likely missing some information about these things, which may even be public and I just don’t know where to look for it yet.
However, this sounds… not good, as if the decision on current action is based on Jacy’s interests and on honoring a deal with him. I could think of a few possible good reasons for more information to be bad, e.g. that the victims prefer nothing more is said, or that it would harm CEA’s ability to act in future cases. But readers can only speculate on what the real reason is and whether they agree with it.
Both here and regarding what I asked in my other comment, the reasoning is very opaque. This is a problem, because it means there’s no way to scrutinize the decisions, or to know what to expect from the current situation. This is not only important for community organizers, but also for ordinary members of the community.
For example, it’s not clear to me if CEA has relevant written-out policies regarding this, and what they are. Or who can check if they’re followed, and how.
I would expect CEA’s trustees to be scrutinizing how decisions like this are made.
I have a general objection to this, but I want to avoid getting entirely off topic. So I’ll just say, this seems to me to only shift the problem further away from the people affected.