22-08-2013, 03:36 PM
These comments are simply my thoughts on some of the issues that have been aired recently on this noticeboard. The arguments are spread over several threads, which makes following them (or, if that is any reader’s wish, avoiding them) a bit of a chore. So I’ve put my views in this separate heading – so much easier to find, ignore or delete. I don’t claim to have greater wisdom or more knowledge than anyone else, but I’ve been around for a long time; I haven’t done much in my life, but I’ve seen a lot, and I’ve read a lot. I hope therefore that these remarks may achieve some good.
A lot of heat appears to have been generated by an incident involving a Scottish junior and a Chess Scotland official at an international tournament in Slovenia last autumn. From what I have heard or read of the incident, the official’s action was totally unjustified and totally unacceptable. The official himself knows that, and acknowledges it. But it also appears to be the case that no physical harm was done – and that the official had no intention of doing harm and no desire to do harm. The matter was subsequently referred to Chess Scotland’s Standards Committee, whose eventual decision was that the official should be removed from the list of registered coaches, but should be allowed to apply for reinstatement after six months (note: not “reinstated” but “allowed to apply for reinstatement”; there is no suggestion that reinstatement will be in any way automatic or a mere formality – and unlike at least one person who has posted on this board I rather suspect that considerably more than the six months will elapse before any such application is made).
The “sentence” or, more properly, ruling by the Standards Committee may or may not have been appropriate, but unless there is hard evidence to the contrary (which nobody has produced) we should accept that the Committee examined the case placed before them and came to their decision in good faith without interference from outside.
This was the first big case handled by the Standards Committee, and nobody should be the least bit surprised that it exposed gaps and weaknesses in the Committee’s workings. (No new construct, from jet engines to computer programs, works perfectly first time; testing, failing, tweaking, retesting, reworking – it’s a constant process, and sometimes it seems to go on forever; but that process does not invalidate the original idea.) Flaws have been identified and are being addressed, and we can hope that the system will work more smoothly the next time it is called into action. At any rate, it is absurd for anybody to assume that because the “sentence” wasn’t as severe as they wanted there must be corruption or other dirty tricks involved – and not just absurd, but probably libellous as well if such accusations are made in print (as they have been).
I’m quite sure I don’t know the full facts of what happened in Slovenia, nor do I know what evidence and testimony was presented to the Standards Committee, and therefore I cannot presume to claim that their decision was wrong. And I strongly suspect that the people who are up in arms about that decision also do not know everything – but then, who has ever needed knowledge of the facts to justify a witch hunt?
(I have no doubt that the current attempts to get the Committee’s decision changed, i.e. made far more severe, are driven more by personal animosity than by any desire to see a just outcome or to protect children – there was open animosity long before the incident; and I don’t recall any mention in the first six months after the incident of alcohol playing any part in it, but now, in some people’s view, that’s the big issue that requires a reopening of the case.)
The word “assault” has been used (not, I believe, in any post visible on this board, but certainly in a widely circulated email) as a description of the action of the CS official involved in the incident. There is a case to be made for the use of that word, but it should be remembered that assault is a crime – on this occasion, an alleged crime which has not been reported to the police, and for which nobody has been charged, tried or convicted. In short, anybody who says in writing that the official carried out an assault is leaving himself wide open to legal action. Only a court of law can determine whether the official assaulted the junior – “innocent until proved guilty” applies.
A recent post on this board referred to the junior as a victim – although that term is often misused, I have no doubt that it is a legitimate term to use on this occasion. However, the writer then goes on to say that the junior’s mother, who was present, was also a victim. I’m sure that she was, at the very least, alarmed, offended, angered and deeply upset by what happened. But does that make her a victim? I understand the reasoning behind that assertion, but the logic is dangerous: there is a clear line that can be drawn between persons on whom hands are laid and persons on whom they are not, but there is no clear line that can be drawn between close observers, not-so-close observers, distant observers, and ultimately people who aren’t present but hear about the incident. Are we to consider that people who like or admire the junior in question (and I count myself in both categories) and who were dismayed to learn of the incident (again, that applies to me) were also victims of the official’s act? And if they were, why should that matter? If I were to kill somebody who had no friends, would that be any less of a crime than to kill somebody who had many friends?
Finally, there has been a lot of talk about censorship and freedom of speech. Now I’m opposed to censorship, and strongly in favour of freedom of speech – without it, most of us would be slaves toiling in the fields for a political/religious elite. But freedom is inseparable from responsibility – in the case of freedom of speech, that’s the responsibility not to tell lies, especially about other people. If we believe that so-and-so is a liar or a tyrant, of course we must be willing to say so – but we must also present our evidence, and if that evidence turns out to be false we must be ready to accept the possible consequences.
Footnote:
I have been working on this posting for a large part of the past two days, and was contemplating what I was going to say for a good few days before I started writing. I have read over the paragraphs above repeatedly, and changed them more than once to try to ensure that they express my intent as clearly and unambiguously as possible. I would ask readers to read (and maybe even re-read) them with similar care, and not to find more there than I have written.
I have not named names, because my intent is not to attack or defend individual people, but to oppose or support ideas and opinions.
If I have an ulterior aim, it is to see peace and harmony within the chess community in Scotland – our limited energies should be directed to promoting chess and supporting each other in achieving that goal, not in fighting among ourselves.
A lot of heat appears to have been generated by an incident involving a Scottish junior and a Chess Scotland official at an international tournament in Slovenia last autumn. From what I have heard or read of the incident, the official’s action was totally unjustified and totally unacceptable. The official himself knows that, and acknowledges it. But it also appears to be the case that no physical harm was done – and that the official had no intention of doing harm and no desire to do harm. The matter was subsequently referred to Chess Scotland’s Standards Committee, whose eventual decision was that the official should be removed from the list of registered coaches, but should be allowed to apply for reinstatement after six months (note: not “reinstated” but “allowed to apply for reinstatement”; there is no suggestion that reinstatement will be in any way automatic or a mere formality – and unlike at least one person who has posted on this board I rather suspect that considerably more than the six months will elapse before any such application is made).
The “sentence” or, more properly, ruling by the Standards Committee may or may not have been appropriate, but unless there is hard evidence to the contrary (which nobody has produced) we should accept that the Committee examined the case placed before them and came to their decision in good faith without interference from outside.
This was the first big case handled by the Standards Committee, and nobody should be the least bit surprised that it exposed gaps and weaknesses in the Committee’s workings. (No new construct, from jet engines to computer programs, works perfectly first time; testing, failing, tweaking, retesting, reworking – it’s a constant process, and sometimes it seems to go on forever; but that process does not invalidate the original idea.) Flaws have been identified and are being addressed, and we can hope that the system will work more smoothly the next time it is called into action. At any rate, it is absurd for anybody to assume that because the “sentence” wasn’t as severe as they wanted there must be corruption or other dirty tricks involved – and not just absurd, but probably libellous as well if such accusations are made in print (as they have been).
I’m quite sure I don’t know the full facts of what happened in Slovenia, nor do I know what evidence and testimony was presented to the Standards Committee, and therefore I cannot presume to claim that their decision was wrong. And I strongly suspect that the people who are up in arms about that decision also do not know everything – but then, who has ever needed knowledge of the facts to justify a witch hunt?
(I have no doubt that the current attempts to get the Committee’s decision changed, i.e. made far more severe, are driven more by personal animosity than by any desire to see a just outcome or to protect children – there was open animosity long before the incident; and I don’t recall any mention in the first six months after the incident of alcohol playing any part in it, but now, in some people’s view, that’s the big issue that requires a reopening of the case.)
The word “assault” has been used (not, I believe, in any post visible on this board, but certainly in a widely circulated email) as a description of the action of the CS official involved in the incident. There is a case to be made for the use of that word, but it should be remembered that assault is a crime – on this occasion, an alleged crime which has not been reported to the police, and for which nobody has been charged, tried or convicted. In short, anybody who says in writing that the official carried out an assault is leaving himself wide open to legal action. Only a court of law can determine whether the official assaulted the junior – “innocent until proved guilty” applies.
A recent post on this board referred to the junior as a victim – although that term is often misused, I have no doubt that it is a legitimate term to use on this occasion. However, the writer then goes on to say that the junior’s mother, who was present, was also a victim. I’m sure that she was, at the very least, alarmed, offended, angered and deeply upset by what happened. But does that make her a victim? I understand the reasoning behind that assertion, but the logic is dangerous: there is a clear line that can be drawn between persons on whom hands are laid and persons on whom they are not, but there is no clear line that can be drawn between close observers, not-so-close observers, distant observers, and ultimately people who aren’t present but hear about the incident. Are we to consider that people who like or admire the junior in question (and I count myself in both categories) and who were dismayed to learn of the incident (again, that applies to me) were also victims of the official’s act? And if they were, why should that matter? If I were to kill somebody who had no friends, would that be any less of a crime than to kill somebody who had many friends?
Finally, there has been a lot of talk about censorship and freedom of speech. Now I’m opposed to censorship, and strongly in favour of freedom of speech – without it, most of us would be slaves toiling in the fields for a political/religious elite. But freedom is inseparable from responsibility – in the case of freedom of speech, that’s the responsibility not to tell lies, especially about other people. If we believe that so-and-so is a liar or a tyrant, of course we must be willing to say so – but we must also present our evidence, and if that evidence turns out to be false we must be ready to accept the possible consequences.
Footnote:
I have been working on this posting for a large part of the past two days, and was contemplating what I was going to say for a good few days before I started writing. I have read over the paragraphs above repeatedly, and changed them more than once to try to ensure that they express my intent as clearly and unambiguously as possible. I would ask readers to read (and maybe even re-read) them with similar care, and not to find more there than I have written.
I have not named names, because my intent is not to attack or defend individual people, but to oppose or support ideas and opinions.
If I have an ulterior aim, it is to see peace and harmony within the chess community in Scotland – our limited energies should be directed to promoting chess and supporting each other in achieving that goal, not in fighting among ourselves.