From: "Laframboise, Donna" <DLaframboise@nationalpost.com>

To: 'David Shackleton' <editor@everyman.org>

Subject: RE: Clarification

Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 10:47:07 -0400

[This was the person to whom she e-mailed that 'preyed on' accusation, recall.]

What you don't seem to understand is that I have been a sympathizer, =

for

some time, of the men's movement and have thus given organizations such =

as

yours positive coverage.

The fact that you - and many other activists in the movement - fail to =

see a

problem here means that I can no longer give you sympathetic coverage. =

[As can be seen from the rest of their correspondence, Mr. Shackleton was offering his concerns in a respectful way.] [Back]

To be

blunt, the risk to my professional reputation is too high. There are =

certain

minimum standards to which people must subscribe. A failure to do so

translates into poor judgment. People with poor judgment are not people =

I

want to be giving good press too because, next week, they could be =

doing

something totally beyond the pale and I end up looking like a fool for

having led the public to believe they were a solid organization.=20

That's the bottom line.

D.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Donna Laframboise

The National Post

1450 Don Mills Road, Suite 300

Toronto, Ontario

M3B 3R5

phone: 416-383-2374

fax: 416-383-2439

dlaframboise@nationalpost.com

> ----------

> From: David Shackleton

> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 2:43

> To: Donna Laframboise

> Subject: Clarification

>=20

> Donna,

>=20

> I realize that I didn't make myself very clear about one of my major

> issues with your article, in my response to your response. =A0I =

apologise

> for that. =A0Let me try again.

>=20

> I have noticed that a kind of hysteria pervades the atmosphere around

> gender issues. =A0Feminists use it all the time to disrupt due =

process, to

> introduce a kind of presumption of guilt. =A0Ontario Bill 117 is the =

best

> example so far, but the pattern is endemic. =A0The thinking goes like =

this.

> =A0The risk of X (X can be whatever has emotional currency for moving =

us

> into panic mode: child abuse, violence against women, sexual assault,

> etc.) is so great, and the damage that it would cause so bad, that we =

need

> to undermine people's rights to due process in order to protect =

against

> this horror that could happen if we don't.

>=20

> Thus women's advocates seek to undermine the reasonable request for a

> presumption of joint custody by raising the spectre of abuse and =

violence

> within relationships, as a kind of trump card, which stops us from

> thinking reasonably about the issue. =A0John Fekete named the problem

> correctly when he called it moral panic.

>=20

> It seems to me that you are doing something similar, in your argument

> about what the men who come to ECMAS "don't need". =A0You wrote, "The =

men

> who go to ECMAS Edmonton's support group have more than enough

> problems already. They do not need to be associating with people =

whose

> views/pasts will complicate their lives. And they certainly do not =

need to

> be preyed on by people urging them to fire their lawyers and hire a

> discredited, disbarred individual."

>=20

> Well, you may be right that they don't need these things. =A0But the

> important issue is actually whether their need not to have these =

things

> happen at ECMAS meetings should trump the due process rights of Mr.

> Christensen and Mr. Adams, whether these individuals should be =

removed

> from the organization in service to their comfort. =A0I say that due =

process

> is VERY important, and is, in the end, our main defense against moral

> panic and loss of social protections. =A0In this case, due process =

would

> have four steps. =A0If people had complained to ECMAS about Mr. =

Christensen,

> and if the executive had decided that his activities in recommending =

Mr.

> Adams were inappropriate, and if they had asked him to stop, and if =

he had

> refused to comply with their instructions, THEN a case could be made =

that

> he should be expelled from ECMAS. =A0However, you presented no =

evidence that

> ANY of these four steps of due process had been followed. =

=A0Simiilarly, if

> Mr. Adams' solicitations for business had been the subject of =

complaints

> to the organization, and if the executive had decided that it was

> inappropriate, and if they had asked him to stop, and if he had not =

done

> so, THEN he might reasonably be rejected from the organization. =

=A0Again, it

> didn't seem to occur to you to suggest that such a process should be =

a

> precursor to publicly discrediting him. =A0UNTIL ALL THESE FOUR STEPS =

HAVE

> BEEN FOLLOWED, THEN NO 'CRIME' HAS BEEN COMMITTED. =A0I really think =

that

> you have erred here, Donna.

>=20

> Instead, what you did was a kind of character assassination of these

> individuals, based on allegations about their conduct that some =

people

> found inappropriate. =A0Well, the problem is that this kind of thing =

is

> happening all the time: people take offense at various things, some =

of

> them innocent and harmless, some of them not. =A0The defense, the =

only real

> defense I know of against people's lives being harmed by =

inappropriate

> offense-taking, is to have due process in place, where people's =

actions

> are eva.uated by a reasonably independent body against some =

pre-announced

> standard such as a law, or in this case an instruction to desist from =

the

> ECMAS executive. =A0This did not take place here, so these =

individuals

> remain under the presumption of innocence. =A0

>=20

> Whether it is the protection of women or men or children or society =

or

> whatever, if we start doing away with due process, we are undermining =

the

> very protections that we need. =A0I have seen you as a fellow warrior =

in

> this battle so far, decrying the moral panic hysteria and the actions =

that

> have resulted from it by feminists. =A0So I am surprised to see you =

seeming

> to slip into the panic mode when it comes to protecting MEN who are

> healing. =A0I suggest that the very same principles apply, and the =

need for

> due process is primary among them. =A0I do NOT want to follow the =

path that

> the feminists have gone down, despite the benefits and power that =

have

> seemed to flow to them from following it.

>=20

> Donna, let me end again by saying how much I appreciate your work. =

=A0As a

> fellow fighter for justice and equality between men and women, I see =

it as

> important that I be able to say to you, and you be able to say to me,

> "Hey, I think you slipped up there." =A0This is lonely and =

frustrating and

> difficult work, and it is easy to get tired and lose sight of the

> principles that underlie our fight. =A0When that happens, we can help =

each

> other, with dignity and respect, by simply dialoguing about it. =

=A0That is

> what I seek with you. =A0I hope that, if the situation were reversed, =

you

> would do the same for me.

>=20

> In respect,

>=20

> David Shackleton, Editor and Publisher

> Everyman: A Men's Journal

> PO Box 4617, Station E, Ottawa, ON =A0K1S 5H8, CANADA

> http://www.everyman.org

> "The World Changes When We Do"

>=20

>=20