On Expelling People From the SCA
Sep. 9th, 2019 08:51 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jamesqA friend of mine set the local SCA Facebook group on fire a few months ago. He did so with a simple question: If the SCA knowingly allows a sexual predator to events, are they opening themselves up to a lawsuit if the predator reoffends at an event?
Now my friend posted this as a hypothetical, but it's a little more than that. A few years back someone was banned for a reign. The ban did not mention why, but the rumour mill suggested that they were arrested and charged with rape. (Aside: I'm going to use layman's terms and IANAL. People who object to my descriptions based on pedantic grounds are on thin ice - if I was talking gun violence and use "clip" when I should have said "magazine", trying to use that to invalidate unrelated points is just going to piss me off) Anyway, I am in no way close to this situation, but I have talked to several of the victims, and I believe them. Realistically, there's still a high chance he'll get away with it. I don't say this based on the merits of the case, but only because I can read statistics. Last I heard it hadn't gone to trial.
But again, this person was banned for one reign, several years ago, and reigns average six months in length, so they've been back in the fold for longer than they were banned. From what was described to me, they were welcomed back into their clique as though nothing had happened. That fucking baffled me. Though it probably shouldn't.
So that's the background. I think my friend made one mistake, and that was addressing this in a legal way, rather than a moral one. Doing so let everyone fall back on legalistic language (and for the most part they're not lawyers either), which I think lets them off the hook.
Do you feel the SCA has a moral obligation to protect its members? Never mind the legalistic things that might handicap that for now. Do you think it has (or should have) that obligation? Do you believe that you have that obligation yourself? It doesn't mean you have to arrest/try/punish the person as though you were the government, but do you at least side with the victims over the (alleged) predator?
If the answer is yes, what should the SCA do? What should you do?
Many years ago, I was the Seneschal of the local barony. Someone was harassing a woman in the local group and I decided that his behaviour was bad enough that he didn't get to attend events. I instructed the event coordinator that if he showed up to the next event, not to let him in, and that, if there was heat for that decision, I would take it. I told my superiors that I was going to do this (based on an obscure rule that allowed us to eject people from events if they were a danger to themselves or others - since there was a non-trivial chance someone would decide to take-it-outside, I figured this qualified). As it turns out this was all unnecessary as he never showed up, and to my knowledge he's never gone to another SCA event again.
Sexual assault happen. They happen a lot more than people (especially when those people are men) like to admit. There was (an unrelated) attempt at a camping event a few years ago. I don't think charges were ever laid, but the (different) predator in question was suddenly persona non grata. I remember him coming up to me and starting a conversation at Tavern, and I just walked away without speaking to him. A lot of people did that. After a few months, he got the hint. I haven't seen him again.
I tell these two stories to illustrate that organizational and individual action are both possible, if the will to do so is there.
But here's the thing - both those guys were unknown/unpopular to start with, and their victims were popular. And I think that's where a lot of the unspoken objections come from. I can't be expected to do something like that when it's my friend. Why are you making me think about this stuff. You're bringing up this stuff means you're the real problem. And my friend from above who made the legal argument on Facebook? He's taken a lot of heat for asking these questions. It's even broken some significant relationships in his life, because to some people, the SCA is their life, and they don't want people pointing out its inadequacies. I'd say he's gotten a worse backlash than the (alleged) predator he was talking about.
Mostly I think this illustrates, that for all its talk of chivalry and being better than the real world, the SCA isn't any better. Oh, I don't think it's any worse either - I just think it's a human organization with normal human failings. With 20K members worldwide, we're going to see some truly wonderful people, and also some monsters. But people still protect the ones in their cliques, monster or not. When some noob assaults a well-liked person in the group, it's easy to eject them. When it's the person you've publicly announced is your squire/protege/cadet/arcarius/apprentice/brother-in-arms/household-member, it's considerably harder.
I also think it's worth remembering that keeping someone like that away isn't necessarily a punishment against that person; it's protection for their potential victims. We're not in a position to be able to investigate crime or render legal judgement. But we are in a position where we can protect our members. We don't make everyone sign waivers because we think it's a given they're going to get clobbered by a loose chunk or rattan, we do so because we acknowledge that it's possible. And we take precautions against that despite the waiver - we have marshals, and inspections, and keep people out of the erics. What we don't do is whine that these rules are punishing the participants. Similarly, we have rules in place to protect people from social predators too. We demand background checks for some positions. We have the "two deep leadership" rule for children's activities . And it's why there's a rule allowing us to expel people for pending criminal investigations. Maybe we should use it more often.
Now my friend posted this as a hypothetical, but it's a little more than that. A few years back someone was banned for a reign. The ban did not mention why, but the rumour mill suggested that they were arrested and charged with rape. (Aside: I'm going to use layman's terms and IANAL. People who object to my descriptions based on pedantic grounds are on thin ice - if I was talking gun violence and use "clip" when I should have said "magazine", trying to use that to invalidate unrelated points is just going to piss me off) Anyway, I am in no way close to this situation, but I have talked to several of the victims, and I believe them. Realistically, there's still a high chance he'll get away with it. I don't say this based on the merits of the case, but only because I can read statistics. Last I heard it hadn't gone to trial.
But again, this person was banned for one reign, several years ago, and reigns average six months in length, so they've been back in the fold for longer than they were banned. From what was described to me, they were welcomed back into their clique as though nothing had happened. That fucking baffled me. Though it probably shouldn't.
So that's the background. I think my friend made one mistake, and that was addressing this in a legal way, rather than a moral one. Doing so let everyone fall back on legalistic language (and for the most part they're not lawyers either), which I think lets them off the hook.
Do you feel the SCA has a moral obligation to protect its members? Never mind the legalistic things that might handicap that for now. Do you think it has (or should have) that obligation? Do you believe that you have that obligation yourself? It doesn't mean you have to arrest/try/punish the person as though you were the government, but do you at least side with the victims over the (alleged) predator?
If the answer is yes, what should the SCA do? What should you do?
Many years ago, I was the Seneschal of the local barony. Someone was harassing a woman in the local group and I decided that his behaviour was bad enough that he didn't get to attend events. I instructed the event coordinator that if he showed up to the next event, not to let him in, and that, if there was heat for that decision, I would take it. I told my superiors that I was going to do this (based on an obscure rule that allowed us to eject people from events if they were a danger to themselves or others - since there was a non-trivial chance someone would decide to take-it-outside, I figured this qualified). As it turns out this was all unnecessary as he never showed up, and to my knowledge he's never gone to another SCA event again.
Sexual assault happen. They happen a lot more than people (especially when those people are men) like to admit. There was (an unrelated) attempt at a camping event a few years ago. I don't think charges were ever laid, but the (different) predator in question was suddenly persona non grata. I remember him coming up to me and starting a conversation at Tavern, and I just walked away without speaking to him. A lot of people did that. After a few months, he got the hint. I haven't seen him again.
I tell these two stories to illustrate that organizational and individual action are both possible, if the will to do so is there.
But here's the thing - both those guys were unknown/unpopular to start with, and their victims were popular. And I think that's where a lot of the unspoken objections come from. I can't be expected to do something like that when it's my friend. Why are you making me think about this stuff. You're bringing up this stuff means you're the real problem. And my friend from above who made the legal argument on Facebook? He's taken a lot of heat for asking these questions. It's even broken some significant relationships in his life, because to some people, the SCA is their life, and they don't want people pointing out its inadequacies. I'd say he's gotten a worse backlash than the (alleged) predator he was talking about.
Mostly I think this illustrates, that for all its talk of chivalry and being better than the real world, the SCA isn't any better. Oh, I don't think it's any worse either - I just think it's a human organization with normal human failings. With 20K members worldwide, we're going to see some truly wonderful people, and also some monsters. But people still protect the ones in their cliques, monster or not. When some noob assaults a well-liked person in the group, it's easy to eject them. When it's the person you've publicly announced is your squire/protege/cadet/arcarius/apprentice/brother-in-arms/household-member, it's considerably harder.
I also think it's worth remembering that keeping someone like that away isn't necessarily a punishment against that person; it's protection for their potential victims. We're not in a position to be able to investigate crime or render legal judgement. But we are in a position where we can protect our members. We don't make everyone sign waivers because we think it's a given they're going to get clobbered by a loose chunk or rattan, we do so because we acknowledge that it's possible. And we take precautions against that despite the waiver - we have marshals, and inspections, and keep people out of the erics. What we don't do is whine that these rules are punishing the participants. Similarly, we have rules in place to protect people from social predators too. We demand background checks for some positions. We have the "two deep leadership" rule for children's activities . And it's why there's a rule allowing us to expel people for pending criminal investigations. Maybe we should use it more often.
