Engaged Neutrality suggests that no action or lack of action can be interpreted as bias; however, for an organization to deliberately select to create a circumstance that will arguably demonstrate a strong bias can only be construed as supporting bias and actions and tenets.
Moreover, any suggestion that this conference is a means to “building bridges” of understanding concurrently suggests that the mission of the conference is, conversely, to address a political stance.
In this case, the message rings something like “Can’t we all just get along?” In fact, it seems to call for a willingness for members to comply with and encourage individuals to give up their civil liberties, to be good sports and reasonable folks who can certainly compromise and give away just a little bit of their rights to personal autonomy and freedom. Where is that line?
The only relevant point on which everyone might agree is that the Summit is not an appropriate platform for such diliberance, and this is exactly the speak that isn’t wanted. Other industries are boycotting Georgia. Aren’t we crossing a “picket-line” here? Isn’t that a big statement?
The sheer act of having to ask this question is an acknowledgement of its weight and its perceived potential consequences. Thus, it irrevocably removes the organization from qualifying as a neutral entity participating in “engaged neutrality”.
I can certainly elaborate further, but this rationale is the most unbiased, apolitical argument that I can muster. For me, the personal is the political. Politics is about people and their connection to the world, the community. To abstain from the political, is to turn away from the plight of people, a sin of omission.
- This reply was modified 2 years ago by Denise McCormack.