(no subject)

For those of you who are here in this personal-trust-relationship, here is the context. This is not public information for official bodies.

This CFS meeting was by far, the worst to date.

Sadly, we did not have enough time to discuss membership issues (i.e. so why are SFU and Kwantlen students angry?). Funny how we always seem to run out of time before this occurs.

When we arrived on Saturday, we were presented with loyalty oaths which, it was decided, we would have to sign as a condition of our prior ratifications to the committee being honoured. I believe that this was an intimidation tactic, and it may be illegal. A multiple-hour session of veiled accusations against myself (and, to a lesser extent Capilano's representative) ensued. Titus avoided a nasty confrontation by, at the last minute, pointing out that I'd been appointed in February for a one-year term.

On Sunday, without any kind of warning or discussion, the Treasurer of the BC-CFS printed up a screenshot showing the three prior entries of my journal (too bad this didn't include the equinox greetings!) and handed them around the meeting. I became very angry at him in public. He then relied only on the most recent entry (as opposed to the other cfs-related entries?) as a pretense to have me barred (very likely illegally) from the financial portion of the meeting, and likely future confidential sessions as well. Enough of the Executive Committee and Staff cooperated with this to make this the case. The Chair of the meeting did nothing to stop him. No-one objected to publicly airing my personal gender/sexuality/emotional information in an act of alleged oversight.

I refused to leave, so they took the meeting elsewhere.

I think that this shows a step across the line separating professional conduct from personal attack. I am not happy about this. I don't know how to respond, or whether it's worth my time and thought. I could go on, but I don't feel the need to defend myself or further illustrate.

Still, I felt, and to an extent still feel, helpless, humiliated, intruded-upon, shocked/disappointed, and disgusted. I don't know what other personal information they will go through. I am very angry.

Now. Food.

(no subject)

PUBLIC ENTRY
Revised for clarity

(this is primarily directed at those from the CFS)

First off, this agreement is subject to change on Amy Fox's authourity alone.

Outside of the information already distributed in hardcopy at CFS meetings, linked to as of September 30th, 2007, or labeled "PUBLIC ENTRY" the Livejournal  "hundun," as well as entries and comments within it are as follows:

1. Confidential, to accessed by and circulated between only people friendly or indifferent towards Amy Fox, and only through interpersonal (i.e. non-professional or volunteer) circles.
2. To be used, linked to or relayed only in an interpersonal (i.e. non-professional) and non-hostile fashion.

Furthermore, regardless of whether an entry or comment is labelled "public entry" it is:

1. not to be used as a news or academic source, nor as part of any other document unless abiding by points 1 and 2.
2. likely to contain the intellectual property of Miss Amy Fox
3. subject to deletion, screening and/or modification without notice.
4. a partial perspective, which may be facetious, offensive, inaccurate, false and/or shockingly incisive

The conditions of this agreement may be waived in whole or in part by Miss Amy Fox.

By reading further, you are agreeing to abide by this entry in its entirety.


Thank you.

(no subject)

PUBLIC ENTRY

I didn't anticipate that this would ever be necessary.

A lot of the people from the CFS executive meeting should be getting home soon, and some will be turning on their computers. Given this, I feel the need to relay the following.

This journal is not written in my capacity as a member of any official outside body. It is thus, part of my personal life.

The bulk of my journal is available to people whether or not they have a password. Thus, although this journal is located in public internet-space, it has never been my intention that it is "public." This journal is being similar to a personal conversation or gathering held in a park, library, coffee-shop or other common space. The space is public, and so long as participants are willing to agree to certain tacit rules, they are welcome to enter.

I do this for several reasons:

o    I think that people should be able to express their personal, and often intimately emotional, opinions publicly with the understanding that they will not be punished or attacked for their honesty. The alternative is to fear genuine communication.

o    I think that relying on computers to screen people is a way of delegating the decision of whether or not to trust people away from humans and to machines. Since computers are devices designed to carry out our will, automated screening easily becomes a way of blaming an inert object (thus cultivating the myth of objectivity) while cultivating our own shortcomings.

o    I think that people are smart enough to know when a comment is directed to everyone, and when it is directed to friends, acquaintances and not to the whole world. And I think that, by and large, most people are honourable enough to respect that.

o    I don't think that people should have to subscribe to Livejournal to communicate with me.

o    I have in the past made it clear that this journal is personal and not professional. As a director of the SFSS, and as a worker in other non-profits, I do not relay co-workers to it unless it is through our role as friends. In the past when people have linked to it through a Student Society function, I have requested that they cease. When I write about my relationship with the CFS, I do it so that my friends can know what I'm going through. When seeking employment, I do not use this as a portfolio for creative work.

o     It was very difficult for me to decide to make the Queer-related information public. I did so because I went through the coming out process without access to writings by other people who have had to deal with similar intersections of identity and social forces. I don't want other people to have to go through the same thing without that. I want people to be able to access this without having to identify themselves, thus keeping the strongest sense of security possible that their identity will be protected until they want to disclose it. The response I have received to date indicates that this has made a difference in peoples' lives.

o   Our society tends to believe that people are liable for whatever harm befalls them should they not go out of their way to protect themselves. I want to show to at least myself that this is a bad way to live. Not locking up your bike does not make it public property or justify its theft. Dressing in a low-cut shirt does not make your body public-access or justify getting groped. Leaving your door unlocked does not make your house public space and justify another's intrusion. Leaving my journal open does not make it public information, nor does it justify exploiting it to publicly berate me.

In short, I think that society can function through trust, not rules and restricted information. I believe in hospitality, personal discretion and politeness. I enjoy showing faith in people. This is not going to change.


So.

This is my journal.

It is open to people only on an interpersonal non-professional level. That is to say, it is open only to friends and those willing to comport themselves in a friendly manner.

Unless noted otherwise, entries within it are not intended to be in any way "public."

These rules-of-trust are not up for debate.

If you wish to stay, I take it that you then shall abide by these principles and so will give me the space I need to feel safe.

If you can't stay, I thank you for being considerate, and would remind you that there's a whole Internet out there, and there should be something entertaining and/or useful on it. If you're curious about me, you can also ask me for information in person, and I will usually oblige. If it falls within my professional duty to tell you something, I will do so.

If, however, you want to read this as a means to breach this trust and hurt me, I can't stop you. I can only ask you not to do so, and hope that you will honour this (and the following agreement).

If you are here in your role as a member of an outside official body, I insist that, if you are to read any other entry, you begin with the next (regarding confidentiality).

- Amy

In grade six, I learned that the mind/body is fallible

Years after the sustained bullying at the hands of my classmates, I have still not acquired the knack of putting up with a room full of people intent on tearing me down.

No wait.

What I lack is the ability to try to do productive work in a room where a fair number of people are intent on giving me shit, a few blame me for the fact that others are giving me shit, and the remainder are split between just letting it happen so long as it's to someone else, or just don't know how to stop it.

I think that very few people have this knack.

"Just ignore them."

It's hard to do. It's hard to watch my body shake from hours of sustained attack.

But I pulled it off during the renaming! What was different?

The renaming was a mix of rational debate and blatant unfairness, while the CFS meeting deliberately blurred the lines. Considering that past CFS meeting rhetoric borders on the Orwellian (to paraphrase only slightly: "when the bylaws say that elections are in 'Fall,' they mean that they should be held in the Spring.'") you can see how this could occur.


Good. Good. Another tough lesson.

What does help is knowing that there is a world outside of CFS meetings, where the people I know are supportive, rational and kind, even when (or especially when) they disagree with me.

You know who you are. Thanks.



That reminds me. I've got to finish off the renaming. I'm tired of my supernature/religious narrative telling me that I'm still "dead." Conveniently, spending time at the CFS meeting will allow me to take a day or two off sometime this month.