-----Original Message-----
From:
Graham Young <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
RecOzNet2 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Friday, April 07, 2000 2:16 AM
Subject: [recoznet2] Conflicts
of Interest
In light of some of Laurie's posts, and those
of others, I think a new string is warranted on this question.
When Laurie asked me whether I was employed by
the Liberal Party, or ever had been, I quite willingly gave you all a fairly
thorough run down of my Liberal Party acitivities. I do not have
a problem with the legitimacy of Laurie asking me this, and I don't think it
should be limited to whether I have ever been paid by the Party or
not. The relevance of my Liberal Party membership is whether it
creates a conflict of interest that members of this group ought to be aware
of. Given that this list is one that goes to political activists, and
also given that some of those activists are likely to be acting in
opposition to government policies, which at the moment is a Liberal Party
government, you need to know my political affiliations, so that you can
allow for the possibility of my views being corporate rather than
individual.
I disagree with Laurie that it only matters if
I am paid by the party. Pay only buys one's allegiance during work
hours (however long they might be), whereas membership buys it at all
times.
I disagree with you on this ,Graham.
Surely ,in a democracy,we are all free to be members of or to support any
political Party or group we choose to. We can cancel membership or withdraw
support at any time.
In my opinion, this is vastly different to the situation
where a remunerated individual undertakes to perform a function with a view
to achieving an end on behalf of a party or group, without informing the
target audience of that undertaking.
Those of you who have gone across and looked at
On Line Opinion will see that I make a point of declaring my
political affiliation at the end of anything that I write. As these
are works of political analysis I think that it is important that I be
upfront about it so that readers can allow for potential bias. No cash
for comment on that site!
It follows from what I have just said that I
think that others ought to be upfront about their political
affiliations. I would be shocked if I were the only member of a
political party on this list and think that the others should be equally
open about their allegiances, and I would extend that to people who have
significant commitments to other, non-political organisations as
well. For example, I have always appreciated the fact that Don
Clark carries a signature block on his messages which includes the fact that
he is President of the Indigenous Social Justice Association.
The internet can be delightfully ambiguous and
anonymous, which is part of its charm. But on a list like this I
think some of the ambiguity and anonymity needs to be stripped
away.
Perhaps Laurie would be prepared to detail his
political involvement.
Certainly ,Graham. I receive no remuneration or reward
from any political party or group. I earn my living as a furniture
retailer.
Laurie
But it does concern me that having spelled out
my political background so that those who had missed it know exactly where I
have come from, some posts have attacked my arguments by reference to my
political allegiance rather than the arguments themselves. By
all means, take the allegiance into account, but I would like to be given
the benefit of the doubt that I am honestly expressing these opinions.
If they are wrong, then I want to understand why they are wrong, and I
cannot do that if the argument against
them is mounted on the basis of my presumed beliefs as a Liberal Party
member, rather than what I have actually said.
Graham Young
