NCSG-DISCUSS Archives

NCSG-Discuss

NCSG-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show HTML Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Evan Leibovitch <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Evan Leibovitch <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Wed, 16 Nov 2011 04:48:53 -0500
Content-Type:
multipart/alternative
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (997 bytes) , text/html (1299 bytes)
Hi Nicolas,

I appreciate the thoughtful response.

Going back to the points (a little further up the thread) made by Evan, the
> ALAC liaison, on whether or not policy perspective has, should have, or
> could have an appropriate role to play in such a discriminating scheme. In
> principle, most working sets of political groupings form around *both* 1) a
> recognized set of functionally equivalent entities AND 2) an admitted
> *perspective* on (good) policy positions in a policy area or set of policy
> areas. Think political parties. So, on the merits, it is in no way
> objectively undemocratic nor otherwise reprehensible to discriminate on the
> basis of some article of political faith of a given grouping. Could be
> basic human rights, could be anything.
>


For what it's worth, I don't like purity tests applied within political
parties, either.

There are other points to make .... but, as a mere liaison, I really should
step back from a debate that isn't mine. Apologies to anyone who took
offence.

- Evan


ATOM RSS1 RSS2