GLR Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Read "Sixteen Propositions" by Michael Denneny in our online-Library!
 http://library.gayhomeland.org/0003/EN/index.htm

Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: Central Issues  (Read 7098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

donClark

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 36
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #8 on: Sun, May 01, 2005, 18:45 »

Viktor,

you are right in everything that you have said. I was one of the members threatned with "arrest" if we did not stop.  The investigation commitiee was more then just looking into the fake pictures we wanted answers about where the money people were sending in was going, who had access to it, and what it was spent on, we wanted answers about wheter there was a "dale" because some of us had a phone number for him that was sent to us by him "supposedly" but the phone number did not work and the  country code was not even a real country code, so you see I think this was the real reason for Bill and other members of the privy to get uncomfortable.  After this every member except Enrigue and Dan Fowler were put on moderate, when we complained we were told it was a mistake but it was never rectified. This is why I left the group and resigned because we were'nt going to get anything done, and we were called treasonist and other choice words, yet thepublic never knew because it was done by private email and any postings that we tried to do that showed this were not approved by themoderatorswho were bill and members of the privy.





Well, to my knowledge, the specific escalation in the GLK during the March 2005 was caused by installation of an "investigation comitee" about the "fake pictures". Bill and Dale were not amused and were pressing the Assembly (illegally) to stop the questioning. Finally they prohibited the Assembly members to call for any official meetings by themselves. Lord Protector Jon Matlick appointed instead the next meeting to take place on 2. April 2005 (if memory serves), causing frustration and hostility among the Assembly members. As the Privy Council gained intelligence that members of the Assembly were preparing a legislation act, restricting the power position of the PC, several members of the Assembly were threatened by "warrant orders" against them. Everything in a private way, just to intimidate them without causing the mass of the citizens to even realize what is going on.

To prevent the Assembly from taking steps against the PC, few days before the 2. April a law act and a declaration was issued by Dale, were he admitted his mistakes and declared his FULL support to the PC members, as well as issued a financial report/ budget without taking ANY consultation with the Assembly. This action was clearly prepared by Bill and violated the competency of the Assembly in an outrageous extent, urging Jaix Brooks to illegal steps in turn and declaring Dale and the PC to be out of their legal power. As Bil had the full control over the yahoo group, the outcome of the whole conflict was pre-destined. In my personal judgement, the provocation was elaboratedly planned by Bill to get rid of the unconvenient legislators and make place for new, more loyal fellows.

Of course, would Jaix and others be experienced politicians, the outcome would be different. They would have prepared a law act, pass it with majority in the Assembly and wait for Dale's consent. This was the way I advised Jaix and others to do, but obviously they were to much eager to prove Bill and Joe that they can play hard as well. As whole, the GLK's ruling elites have proven a serious lack of allegiance to its constitution and other laws, the Chief Justice giving them more than once a good example in bending and trespassing laws.

The main problem is still, that many offices are existing but in name, the real competences are concentrated in hands of very few individuals and this people are absolutely unwilling to give something away and listen to advice of others. In the real world, a judge would NEVER interfere into the work of the parliament (OK, in Iran they do!), instead he would wait until the decision is made and then declare it unconstitutional because of this and that paragraph. From similiar understanding of the law were all prior intentions to declare some candidates as not suitable because of some artificial reasons (being journalist etc.) just before the voters could make their choice. The generall unwillingness to follow the rules, however they are imperfect, would cause serious problems in any group of people. Especially if people supposed to be the "laws guardians" give others a bad example.

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #7 on: Sun, May 01, 2005, 18:43 »

To summarize my previous posting: the unclear definition of responsibilities and the unwillingness to let others act within their ressorts on their own pre-destine the failure of the enterprise as such. One shall be able to accept unpleasant decisions, as long as they are made by majority in consense with the established rules.
« Last Edit: Sun, May 01, 2005, 18:46 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #6 on: Sun, May 01, 2005, 18:06 »

Well, to my knowledge, the specific escalation in the GLK during the March 2005 was caused by installation of an "investigation comitee" about the "fake pictures". Bill and Dale were not amused and were pressing the Assembly (illegally) to stop the questioning. Finally they prohibited the Assembly members to call for any official meetings by themselves. Lord Protector Jon Matlick appointed instead the next meeting to take place on 2. April 2005 (if memory serves), causing frustration and hostility among the Assembly members. As the Privy Council gained intelligence that members of the Assembly were preparing a legislation act, restricting the power position of the PC, several members of the Assembly were threatened by "warrant orders" against them. Everything in a private way, just to intimidate them without causing the mass of the citizens to even realize what is going on.

To prevent the Assembly from taking steps against the PC, few days before the 2. April a law act and a declaration was issued by Dale, were he admitted his mistakes and declared his FULL support to the PC members, as well as issued a financial report/ budget without taking ANY consultation with the Assembly. This action was clearly prepared by Bill and violated the competency of the Assembly in an outrageous extent, urging Jaix Brooks to illegal steps in turn and declaring Dale and the PC to be out of their legal power. As Bil had the full control over the yahoo group, the outcome of the whole conflict was pre-destined. In my personal judgement, the provocation was elaboratedly planned by Bill to get rid of the unconvenient legislators and make place for new, more loyal fellows.

Of course, would Jaix and others be experienced politicians, the outcome would be different. They would have prepared a law act, pass it with majority in the Assembly and wait for Dale's consent. This was the way I advised Jaix and others to do, but obviously they were to much eager to prove Bill and Joe that they can play hard as well. As whole, the GLK's ruling elites have proven a serious lack of allegiance to its constitution and other laws, the Chief Justice giving them more than once a good example in bending and trespassing laws.

The main problem is still, that many offices are existing but in name, the real competences are concentrated in hands of very few individuals and this people are absolutely unwilling to give something away and listen to advice of others. In the real world, a judge would NEVER interfere into the work of the parliament (OK, in Iran they do!), instead he would wait until the decision is made and then declare it unconstitutional because of this and that paragraph. From similiar understanding of the law were all prior intentions to declare some candidates as not suitable because of some artificial reasons (being journalist etc.) just before the voters could make their choice. The generall unwillingness to follow the rules, however they are imperfect, would cause serious problems in any group of people. Especially if people supposed to be the "laws guardians" give others a bad example.
« Last Edit: Sun, May 01, 2005, 18:29 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Vizier

  • Vizier, Your WebMaster
  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 65
  • Bok-bok-bok!
    • Vizier's Homepage
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #5 on: Sun, May 01, 2005, 07:30 »

Hello all. First off, a warm welcome to Ron and thank you for joining our forum.

Secondly, after reading all of the posts in this topic and having only been "involved" in/with the GLK for a fleeting moment before I was very rudely bashed for an opinion I "dared" to voice in their forum by one Enrique (questioning the GLK's viability), I'd just like to say that one of the reasons why I feel the GLR will be more of a success is that we will be "attacking" the entire scenario from the solid viewpoint of taking the steps to establishment and independence in a far more logical sequence.  Before any need for any type of government arises, there has to be some place, some one and some reason to govern at all.

It would appear to me from the outside looking in that the GLK set things up backwards, which smacks of "let's play Kings & Queens" and then grew into "why not try this and see if it works," which is a very shakey foundation for what could truly become a viable state/homeland/nation some day.

Another point which irked me to no end about the GLK was the chronic misuse of title - if you are going to establish yourself as a kingdom, you cannot, by any stretch of the imagination and within any perceiveable bending of the rules of nobility, rank, title and heraldry, be governed by an emperor. Further, if you are going to rule as a consititutional monarch, you simply don't issue imperial decrees. It would seem that some of the folks in the GLK went "cherry picking" and took the parts of the former British Empire, some items from the modern day United Kingdom, along with some elements of absolute and sheer fantasy and threw them all into a pot, stirred once or twice, and said, "Ooooh, goody, the GLK is born!"

(Then again, I am on the outside looking in. I humbly accede, I may be wrong!  I thought I was mistaken once, but found out later I was wrong about it.  :D)

One of the reasons I have been dedicating much time, energy and making in-kind contributions to GLR is because I, as a German (living in the U.S.) feel that logic is the rational basis for all actions and dealings. (Thank you Messrs. Hegel and Kant for those -genetically-predisposed?- traits ;) ) I feel that if we start over, from the ground up as proposed on our website, and follow the steps - first discuss and grow membership while soliciting input and proceeding logically, then start actively looking for a place and soliciting input and forming an idea of how our membership (i.e., the future citizens) wish to be governed, and then from there make the necessary arrangements, take the steps and actions needed - success is bound to be the result.

To me, as I said, the GLK seemed to be putting the cart before the horse...

By the way, posting real estate choices over in the other board (geographical) does not mean we are looking to do the same, these serve merely to inspire to what "might be" some day. None of this will happen overnight. Nothing will come easily. It will all be hard fought and won, which will make it worthwhile and inspire people someday to say "Are you a German?" or "Are you Hungarian?" - "No, I'm a citizen of the Gay Republic!" and mean it and be proud to say so.
« Last Edit: Sun, May 01, 2005, 07:32 by Vizier »
Having recently escaped the bowels of East Germany, I remain

VIZIER, your exalted yet most humble WebMaster

Feral

  • Official Flying Monkey Smiter
  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 262
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #4 on: Sun, May 01, 2005, 06:52 »

I stand corrected, Don. Naturally, I have access only to public information. I freely admit that I have no idea what was attempted—no one outside the Assembly does. I have heard rumors, both from members of the Assembly and from the Privy Council of some of the difficulties presented by both sides. There is obviously a serious difference of opinion there. There are text records of only a few Assembly meetings and none of them are especially informative on this score. There have, no doubt, been many meetings and conversations that have not been recorded or, if they have been recorded, not made public. I, of course, am not privy to this information.

According to the public record, there is not now any person serving as Prime Minister, Minister of Tourism and Community Services, Foreign Minister, or Finance Minister in the kingdom, nor has there been since December 21, 2004 (I have reason to believe that the position of Finance Minister was created on September 25 of that year and that no one has ever been appointed to that position). More importantly, there is no mention in the public record of any attempt to fill these positions. I could, with some effort, compile a list of members of the Assembly who have refused consideration of some of these posts, but I can find no mention of even one nomination. This is unfortunate, since I have been waiting since January to discuss a number of matters which I consider important with both the Prime Minister and the Minister of Tourism and Community Services. It is my understanding that at one time there was considerable interest in the kingdom’s financial dealings—these questions could have all been quite easily answered had there been a Finance Minister. While I understand there are some discussions currently going on regarding a revision of potential future ministries, these discussions do not outweigh the constitutional requirement for the currently existing positions to be filled in the interim.

In any event, I do not blame either the current Assembly or the Privy Council for what I view as the failure of the GLK—that particular moment happened in September, when the Assembly insisted upon an entirely illegal ‘war’ for an illusory paper legal advantage and subsequently revised the Gay Kingdom Act into an incomprehensible accumulation of mumbo-jumbo.

That the current Assembly has managed to enact nothing actually stands to their credit. Consider the legislative legacy left them by the first assembly: they created a handful of official holidays that no one has since troubled themselves to observe, they created a marine park of truly monumental proportions without any regulations whatsoever governing it (despite the fact that the Sydney/Hong Kong shipping route passes directly through it), they outlawed fluorescent lighting, and permitted on and all to walk naked on the kingdom’s beaches. Noble efforts, all—I do not doubt that Gay people everywhere breathed a sigh of relief each time the official publication of the kingdom produced yet another of these gems. For myself, I would have been satisfied with just a Finance Minister to inform me which account in which bank the kingdom’s money resided so that I might forward them the funds for a digital camera (they have always had, it seems, some difficulty in that regard).

The GLK was never intended to be a grade-school model UN where earnest students parrot the nostrums of their favorite foreign political parties for a day or so and then pack their books and get on with their real lives. The GLK was supposed to be a government. As a government it was never successful. The Privy Council did not exist at all before January, so they can hardly be blamed for the actions of the first Assembly. Bill’s involvement is not so ancient that he can bear much fault either. Although there are plenty of bitter feelings all the way around, I honestly do not believe that any individual personalities can be credited with what has come of Cato Island. I believe there are other factors at work here, factors that ought to be identified.
Stonewall was a riot.

donClark

  • Forum member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 36
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #3 on: Sun, May 01, 2005, 04:04 »

Ron I as a former member of the GLK government disagree with your statment that we never tried to fill positions within the government.  we did try, but at every turn we were blocked by Bill and his lakeys, anything  that we tried to do was never granted assention.  I believe that Bill never wanted the government to do anything.  I truly hope that this does not happen here, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that what ever type of government we have succeds.  I will talk with you soon, have a great day


The GLK was an interesting experiment.

"content cut"
Many people are too willing to blame the governmental model for the Gay Kingdom’s continued failure. I am not sure that this criticism is accurate. It is a constitutional monarchy to be sure, but this is not an entirely untried system, nor is it particularly antiquated. The problem with the Gay Kingdom was not that its governmental system was flawed. On the contrary, the problem was that the system was never implemented. It is a representational democracy. To this day, not one of the governmental positions that are to be filled by the parliament has been filled, and not one of the functions performed by those empty positions is being executed. If the people’s representatives will not comply with their obligations to govern, why then is it a surprise that Bill and his associates step in to fill the void?


Ron

Mogul

  • Viktor Zimmermann
  • Administrator
  • Guru
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 691
Re: Central Issues
« Reply #2 on: Sat, Apr 30, 2005, 22:33 »

Dear Ron,

you rise some very important questions, which I was also thinking not only once about. I agree, the central question is still not answered: does the GLBT community need a state on its own, and if "Yes", why?

There are many reasons to say "No". If one looks to the so-called "Western World", one will admitt that the gay emancipation has taken enormous progress and in several countries gay people can marry and adopt children. The cultural diversity within gay communities in big cities is amazing and one should be a fool to seek his hail on a desert island, be it Cato, Clipperton or some other place. It can be assumed, that in the next future the rights of gay and lesbian citizens of USA and Australia will make steps forward, despite of certain developements in the last 5 years. In the western world the situation will improve due to the political work of many NGO's like ILGA, Amnesty and Human Rights Watch.

On the other hand, in many countries (with the bigger part of world's population) the situation becomes even worse day by day. Many countries in Africa and Asia are increasing the measures of penalty for gay sex, indeed in Sansibar (Tansania) the usual penalty is told to be 25 years of prison, in Iran people usually are stoned to death.

Regarding these facts, and the uncertainty of the long-term future developement even in the "civilized" parts of this world, my final judgement about the necessity of a gay-lesbian state is "Yes". The history of this mankind tells us, that there are certain groups, which by some weird reasons often provoke strong negative emotions from the rest of the population, even to that extent that their lives become endangered. And, put the hand upon your heart, you will admitt that gays/lesbians belong to the said groups as well as jewish people. No matter what we do or how we act, at least 20% of our neighbours (in distant villages up to 90%) would agree that our place is in a concentration camp or at least in a clinicum. Some more percents are of a solid belief, that some electroshokes and maybe good medicaments could cure us and make us "normal".

Indeed, if we understand the GLBT community as a "nation", we can see many similarities to the jewish people. Of course, the immense grief caused to jews by the holocaust is unique and cannot be compared with our cause to full extent, but the specific nature of our peoples trouble is the same: we are hated from out of guts just because we were born as we are. No bad or good character, no good or bad deeds can change the feelings of true homophobes, they HATE us even if they are well-educated und can put on their friendly artificial smile on their face. They cannot change their feelings, as they were told during their whole life that gays are evel and belong to be EXTINGUISHED. Especially the catholic charch and the islamic theology has loaded much of the guilt on their shoulders.

I am well aware, that we would be fools to believe, we can save every or even most of our brothers and sisters in the next decades from the claws of the outraged homophobes. But if we can save some of them, maybe thousands or millions (added together over the future centuries), it is woth it. I am as well aware, that the way to a really independant state could take more than 3 or 4 decades, with a possibility of a failure. But I firmly believe, that the idea is worth it and that step by step we could manage this project. Beginning with one or more settlements, establishing functioning social and economic life and within an appropriate period of time begin to think about self-administration and de-facto independency. This is a process, which one repeatedly has met in history, namely the natural developement of any society which becomes a real nation. Vatican and Israel prove us, that a state, based on an idea, can become reality.

To catch one of your further questions: do we need a "gay government" as such? Well, the need of a government usually arises from the necessity to govern things: rise taxes, build streets, schools and hospitals, entertain police and military as well as supply the people with food, water and houses. These are things, which become important only in the case that we actually would posess a peace of land to be populated. As long as there other governments which are regulating all the matters mentioned above on a territory where someone lives, is is just grotesque to talk about a "gay government".

As at the very beginning of the "Gay Kingdom of the Coral Sea" it seemed that the leaders seriously considered to establish any, however small population on the said territory, it was absolutely legitime to talk about the "government" of the GLK. As it is absolutely clear now, that Cato is to small to be populated by anyone, and even the leaders of the GLK show not the slightest intention to move there, the idea became just a role game. A virtual "all-gay-government", especially based on anti-democratic principles, has no legitimation and saves not a single gay man or a lesbian woman from homophobic attacs and is even not able to provede them with such simple things as food, water and medicaments, should they live in a poor part of the globus.

One of the cardial mistakes of the GLK, in my eys, still remains the unclear structure of the powers. The modern world knows 3 powers: the legislative, the executive and the legislative. No matter, whether the country is a monarchy, parliamentary or a presidial republic: everywhere you will find this 3 elements. They should be segregated from eachother and there shall be a cross- control of each of them. Of course, the best laws fail, if the people on power purposefully violate the laws or are just unwilling to work together in a productive way. On contrary, the simple council of eldest can rule wise and to the best of the people, when formed of responsible and sound individuals. But, still a bad legal frame makes the violation of law much easier. One further serious problem of the GLK (and many modern democraties as well) is, that most citizens see no direct use for them, derived out of their participation. The citizens, lead by common sense, understand very well that the amont of time and health they would invest into communal service stands in no relashionship to what they get back. And if few, who are ready to serve others, get frustrated as well (because the "oligarchy" blocks their constraints), well, then of course only individuals will participate in politics, which character is usually making an disgusting impression on us.

Fortunately, if citizens recognize serious problems for their live and comforts, they tend to participate in politics very well: they go to demonstrations, write angry letters and sometimes ride the presidential palasts in order to gain their rights back. As GLK is not much more than an organization, even one without proper registration and standing somewhat outside any law, citizens do not have physical and legal possibilities to take influence and, to be fair, they even do not have real interest to participate. I am sure, though, that shall we ever establish a physical settlement somewhere, its inhabitants would be well-aware to secure their rights by loud protest and maybe violent actions against anybody, who would try to take their money and give nothing in return.

As I said on other place, the future gay state would probably have a core population of refugees from oppressing countries and an "seasonal" population of gays/lesbians from the western world. Surelly, there will be some idealists who will stay forever, but it is unlikely that many well-situated, wealthy gays from western metropols would change their living place to the said rather poor, less than developing country. Again, the example of Israel teches us, that within some decades a pretty good economical developement is possible even on a rather unfruitfull landscape.

As you probably may have noticed, the primary aim of this group is to discuss the possibilities and the sense and nonsence of such a project and find ways to make it possible, if the answer will be positive. The name of the group is currently "Free Gay and Lesbian Republic", but it is for certain that no one pretends us to be a state or a "government in exil". We rather understand us as a back-ground supporting organization, and if the said settlement should ever become a reality, the people themselve would form their representations and administrativ institutions. For sure, some of us would join the said settlement, but the organization as such has no intention to govern or rule anyone. That's why we are carefull to make elaborate by-laws for this assotiation, and that's why we understand us just as the founding members. Once things will become official, the rules are clear and everyone will have the usual rights of any full member, including the right to be kicked out of his office, if he/she does not suit the majority of members anymore. The organization as such will survive and flourish independently from the particular persons in charge.

I hope that heated emotions, arising from recent developement within the GLK will cool down and we turn our efforts to our primary issue, the analysis of the need and possibilities of creation of a gay and lesbian self-administrated territory. Thank you very much for your contribution, hopefully a vivid discussion will follow.

Warm hugs, Vicky
« Last Edit: Fri, May 20, 2005, 02:00 by Mogul »
"Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right!" Salvor Hardin

Feral

  • Official Flying Monkey Smiter
  • Administrator
  • Hero member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Gender: Male
  • Posts: 262
Central Issues
« Reply #1 on: Sat, Apr 30, 2005, 19:16 »

The GLK was an interesting experiment. In my view, it has clearly failed, but that does not lessen its value as an experiment. Experiments that succeed only tell you that you are correct in what you think you know. Experiments that fail are much more useful: they show you what you do not know. A failed experiment is not a reason to quit, it is a reason to conduct another experiment, but not before some reasoned research on why the previous experiment failed.

Many people are too willing to blame the governmental model for the Gay Kingdom’s continued failure. I am not sure that this criticism is accurate. It is a constitutional monarchy to be sure, but this is not an entirely untried system, nor is it particularly antiquated. Australia has been served by this form of government for all of its history. It does not surprise me that a group of Australians setting up a new government would copy something familiar to them. A group of Americans doing the same would surely copy large sections of the US constitution (if not the entire document). Since the US system has served the American people reasonably well for many years, there is every reason to presume that it would also work well if transplanted elsewhere. I believe, however, that if an American system had been chosen the end results would have been very much the same.

The problem with the Gay Kingdom was not that its governmental system was flawed. On the contrary, the problem was that the system was never implemented. It is a representational democracy. To this day, not one of the governmental positions that are to be filled by the parliament has been filled, and not one of the functions performed by those empty positions is being executed. If the people’s representatives will not comply with their obligations to govern, why then is it a surprise that Bill and his associates step in to fill the void?

I suspect in the instance of the Gay Kingdom the people as a whole (not any one person or any group of persons, but all of them) did not understand the governmental system they were to be participating in. I also think the people in that kingdom do not understand the uses and functions of a government in the first place. There is a difference between a government and an organization, but this difference (which seems very clear to me) seems to be quite blurred in lmany people's imaginations. Most importantly, I do not believe that the people in that group have any idea about why they are there.

I think we must step back several paces. We can argue for many years over how we should be governed. Once a government is decided upon, we shall no doubt argue for many more years over whether the correct choice has been made. The more pressing question at the moment seems to be if we shall be governed. For what purpose do the Gay people seek self-determination? What is the point of this exercise? To many it may seem that the answers to these questions are obvious, so obvious that they do not merit discussion. Still, I have gained the impression that these obvious answers are quite different depending on who you talk to. If three cooks decide to bake a cake, but one of them thinks a ‘cake’ involves wrapping a pastry crust around roast beef, there will be problems.

Ron
Stonewall was a riot.
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up