Policy consultations: going interactive

May 8th, 2010 | By | Category: Announcement

The CPAA is creating policy statements, and we need to hear from the polyamorous community.

We know Canada’s polyamorists don’t want to be criminalized. We don’t know what else they believe. We need to create a “platform” for the CPAA: positions beyond the Section 293 litigation, as well as positions that my influence how we conduct that case.

We’ve just activated our new forum system. There are forums for several policy concerns. Some of them are subjects we discuss a lot among ourselves. To get everybody else talking, too, we’ve put up some preliminary draft position statements. To keep everybody focused, we’ll open them for discussion one by one.

We’re starting with our “fundamental position”. We believe it should probably be along the lines that monogamy and polyamory should be treated equally. Tell us what you think!

The statements in the forums are very early drafts, not adopted by the CPAA, sometimes controversial among our volunteers, possibly full of mistakes, and definitely subject to change. We’re inviting comment now, early in the process, because we’re committed to hearing from those we represent. To do that, we have to give you raw drafts; if we had polished, finished statements, it would be a show, not a consultation. Please remember that these are not our positions; they’re just suggestions from some of our volunteers.

It’s possible we’ve missed some issues. If so, let us know. The best way to do that is to post in one of the forums we’ve set up for feedback about the CPAA. By the way, we’ve set up forums for feedback about the CPAA.

Ground rules:

  1. Be civil, relevant, and constructive.
  2. Don’t deliberately try to derail the discussion or make it unproductive.
  3. Don’t harass people. Don’t make personal attacks, threats, or the like.
  4. Don’t be unnecessarily offensive.
  5. You can be anonymous, and you can use a pseudonym… but don’t pretend to be somebody you’re not.

We intend to moderate with a very light hand, but will act against any poster who endangers the goals of the discussion by abusing the forum.

Edit May 11: The forum on the definition of polyamory is now open.

Edit May 14: All forums are now open

On peut répondre en français! Nous pouvons lire bien plus que nous pouvons écrire.

2 Comments to “Policy consultations: going interactive”

  1. glen says:

    but don’t pretend to be somebody you’re not.

    Is it okay to pretend to be somebody you’re not, after one clearly states that they are pretending to be somebody that they’re not. And what not pretending, but actually being somebody you’re not.
    Can any of this be a privacy issue?
    With a pretense that does not result in harm, perhaps it is just a given , don’t pretend to be somebody that is hurting.

  2. jbash says:

    I’m sorry, but I’m not sure I understand that, and I’m not entirely sure it’s a serious question.

    “Don’t pretend to be somebody you’re not” means that you can use a pseudonym, but you can’t impersonate a real person or falsely claim to be in some class of people. You don’t have to disclose who you are, but you can’t try to mislead people about who’s speaking.

    • You can call yourself “John Doe” (unless there’s already somebody else in the discussion using that name).
    • You can’t call yourself, say, “Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Ottawa”, unless you really are.
    • You can’t call yourself “The Unnamed Person Mentioned in News Story X”, unless you really are that person.
    • You can’t say “I have 13 PhDs in X, Y, and Z, and blah blah blah experience”, unless you do.

    If you “clearly state” that you’re not person X, then you are not pretending to be person X.

    I don’t know how you could actually be somebody you’re not.

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.