Labels

For Chalica 2012 Day Two I Publicly Demanded Genuine Justice, Equity & Compassion For ALL UU Clergy Misconduct Victims

On the second day of Chalica 2012, a day dedicated to celebrating Unitarian Universalism's Second Principle which ostensibly affirms and promotes "justice, equity, and compassion in human relations", The Emerson Avenger gave UUA President Rev. Peter Morales a heaping helping of his U*U World famous "Eat Your Words" Diet by recycling words gleaned from Rev. Morales' 'Fear Of The Fiscal Cliff' Op/Ed in the Huffington Post to once again very publicly demand that the Unitarian Universalist Association finally get around to providing some long promised, and long overdue. . . restorative justice for ALL UU clergy misconduct victims.

Without further ado here is my comment as it was posted in two parts to the HuffPost website -

HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robin Edgar
68 Fans
08:04 AM on 12/04/2012
Peter,

How about if you and the UUA finally get around to providing some real and tangible restorative justice to people who have been have been cheated and abused by *your* religious institution? Victims of all manner of clergy misconduct ache under a burden of shame, humiliation and fading hope for any of the restorative justice for ALL that the UUA promised over a decade ago now. This isn't about numbers; this is about human dignity and hope. Your system is broken, but it can be fixed. But you and other UUA leaders need to let UUism's greatest hopes and aspirations steer your course instead of your denial and fear.

Unitarian Universalists claim to believe in the inherent worth and dignity of every person, to strive for justice, equity and compassion in our relationships, and to work for social policies that reflect U*U moral values. So why is it that UUA leaders and implicated U*U "churches" have done so very little to restore the dignity of victims of U*U clergy misconduct? Why do the UUA and implicated U*U "churches" not only obstinately refuse to practice genuine justice, equity and compassion in their relationships with victims of clergy misconduct but even actively strive to delay and deny justice? Why do the UUA and implicated UU "churches" engage in highly questionable legal bullying that misuses and abuses the criminal justice system in deeply misguided and outrageously hypocritical efforts to silence clergy misconduct whistleblowers?
Flag as Abusive
Edit  | Permalink  |
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Robin Edgar
68 Fans
01:43 PM on 12/04/2012
As President of the UUA, it is high time for you to throw in the proverbial towel and work with other U*Us to let the common good, not the interests of "powerful" U*Us, guide you toward practicing genuine justice, equity and compassion in human relations, instead of repeatedly making a total mockery of U*Uism's Second Principle. I call upon you and other U*Us to stand up for those people who have been most marginalized in *your* religious community, i.e victims of U*U clergy misconduct of ALL kinds.

How about if Unitarian Universalist "churches" across the so-called "U*U World" joined together to provide some long overdue just and compassionate restorative justice for ALL victims of U*U clergy misconduct? After all, at least 400 out of 1000 or so U*U "churches" have been negatively affected by clergy sexual misconduct. God knows how many U*U congregations have been affected by non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct, but I believe that it is most of them, especially in light of the fact that non-sexual forms of clergy misconduct often go hand in hand with clergy sexual misconduct.

The urgency is real, the time is long overdue. . . to make a difference for ALL Unitarian Universalists who work, worship and believe in UUism. I urge you and other UUA leaders to let genuine justice, equity, and compassion shape a better future for ALL victims of ALL forms of U*U clergy abuse.
Flag as Abusive
Edit  | Permalink  |
Email Post
Labels:

Comments

Anonymous said…
That was really nicely put, Robin. I see that you really embrace the principles :-)
~Lucy
Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:06:00 pm
Anonymous said…
I really recommend that you look into getting in contact with legal advocate Roch Longueepee of Restoring Dignity http://www.restoringdignity.org/.

He has a focus on institutional child abuse, but I think that many of your broader goals are the same and he would be very interested to hear your story.
Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:16:00 pm
Robin Edgar said…
Well all I did was feed UUA President Peter Morales' "really nicely put" words right back to him with a few changes to make his words apply to UU clergy misconduct, and how UU clergy misconduct victims have been been cheated and abused by the UUA for decades. . .

And yes, I do believe that I am doing a far better job of honoring and upholding The Seven Principles than many other Unitarian Universalists are. OTOH Because U*U hypocrites have repeatedly and quite continuously broken covenant with me by flagrantly disregarding The Seven Principles, I do not feel obliged to hold myself to these 7 principles when dealing with outrageously hypocritical U*Us. For example Unitarian Universalist hypocrites at the Unitarian Church of Montreal, the UUA, and elsewhere throughout the U*U World have repeatedly allowed U*Us, including verbally and psychologically U*U clergy, to publicly humiliate me and other people so I have few qualms about returning the favor. . . UUA President Peter Morales is numbered amongst those UUA leaders who has not only failed miserably to honor and uphold The Seven Principles, but has knowingly and willfully disregarded them, hence my "less than respectful" behavior towards him.
Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:26:00 pm
Robin Edgar said…
Thanks for the tip. I will look into Restoring Dignity.
Thursday, December 06, 2012 12:28:00 pm
Anonymous said…
Re. restoring dignity: you're welcome. His contact is founder (at) restoringdignity (dot) org

Re. breaking covenant. I understand. As a sidenote, would you consider upholding the 7 principles in your dealings with difficult people just as a way of leading by example? who knows, it might work :-)

On another note, as a UU I'd like to thank you for keeping us accountable. It's great to have a whistleblower on the team. I know that you are not a member of the UUCM, but I guess I consider you a kind of 'unchurched UU' since you accepted the principles, and work very intentionally wanting the good of the UU community.

While I sympathize with your personal experience, I also like that you have moved into discussing wider issues. For example, as an atheist/agnostic, I never actually considered that I should be sensitive to the beliefs of those among us who do believe in God. Since you've brought this up, I have been much more sensitive to and respectful of the diversity of beliefs in our community. That has actually made me grow spiritually and become a more considerate person. So thank you for helping me become a better UU :-)
Friday, December 07, 2012 1:17:00 pm
Robin Edgar said…
You're welcome Lucy,

The whole point of what I am doing is to try to persuade Unitarian Universalists to be better UUs. Sadly there are rather too many UUs who obstinately refuse to be better UUs by genuinely honoring and upholding The Seven Principles and other claimed UU ideals.

As a rule I do uphold the 7 principles in my dealings with difficult UUs however I believe that it is sometimes necessary to deliberately refuse to conform to the 7 principles when dealing with difficult UUs who have clearly broken covenant in a harmful and damaging manner and who obstinately refuse to make amends in any way. I do so primarily as a tactic to persuade such difficult U*Us to change their ways. More often than not I just throw their own words (or words they have condoned) right back at them so that they cry foul and I can then point out that I am not doing anything all that different than they themselves have previously deemed to be acceptable behavior. . . I almost always give such difficult UUs plenty of opportunity to make amends before responding to their unacceptable behavior in a manner that is not in alignment with the UU principles that they themselves have disregarded and violated. Most recently I have given the UUA and Stikeman Elliott attorney Marc-André Coulombe plenty of opportunity to formally withdraw their ludicrous accusations against me and to properly and publicly apologize to me but, being difficult as ever. . . UUA leaders have so far refused to do so. So I guess I will be twisting more U*U tail in the near future. ;-)
Friday, December 07, 2012 1:42:00 pm
Anonymous said…
I see. It's great that you have so much patience :-)

Sometimes criticism can result in people getting defensive, oppositional, and digging their heels in. As a teacher, it's something I've noticed with students.

Just wondering about the Blasphemous Libel saga...if you haven't heard from them in a while, could one conclude that it's over?
Friday, December 07, 2012 4:55:00 pm
Robin Edgar said…
I am sure that the UUA and Unitarian Church of Montreal are thrilled to bits over how much patience I have. . . :-)

:Sometimes criticism can result in people getting defensive, oppositional, and digging their heels in. As a teacher, it's something I've noticed with students.

No kidding, however I have noticed a very high degree of psychological denial in U*Us as well. The institutional stonewalling and denial that I, and indeed other clergy misconduct complainants, have experienced is rather disturbing. It seems that the UUA and Unitarian Church of Montreal are pathologically allergic to acknowledging the slightest wrongdoing on their part while busily and shamefully trying to outright criminalize my legitimate dissent.

The Blasphemous Libel saga won't begin to be over until the proverbial "Fat Lady" sings, and the UUA formally withdraws that allegation, officially and publicly acknowledges that there have been a certain number of UU clergy who have engaged in "such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape" and that the few allegations that I have made to that effect are by no means "unfounded and vicious" as the UUA falsely and just a tad perjuriously claimed in the cease and desist demand letter that they had Stikeman Elliott attorney Marc-André Coulombe send me. The UUA must of course formally and publicly apologize to me for bringing that ludicrous allegation against me. That being said, in light of the fact that neither the UUA, nor Stikeman Elliott attorney Marc-André Coulombe, have responded to a single one of the several follow-up emails that I have sent them since June 4th, including an email that I sent to them a week ago Thursday which recommended that they "shit or get of the pot", I am reasonably confident that their Big Fat U*U Legal Action is corpse-cold Unitarian dead in the water as it were. Sorry I just couldn't help myself there. Gotta have some fun with this. ;-)
Friday, December 07, 2012 6:42:00 pm
Anonymous said…
LOL ;-)

I think that you are safe from any further missives from Stikeman Elliott again, and here's why I think so:

Lawyers fees are exorbitant. A lengthy court battle can demolish both opponents financially. Lawyers charge around $150-300 per hour, even for simple things like phone calls and correspondence. Reading and responding to your emails, which are likely lengthy and voluminous, would cost the client (the UUA) more than it could afford. They likely exhausted their budget just getting Coulombe to prepare and serve you with the missive you received in June.

Lawyers don't work for free. Unless the client is going to pay, Coulombe won't even read your emails, let alone respond in any detail, if at all. He'll just file them away in case an opportunity to follow up comes later. If the UUA was paying Coulombe to engage you in correspondence, they'd be bankrupt by now :-)

So, in effect, you've won.
Saturday, December 08, 2012 10:00:00 am
Robin Edgar said…
Good morning Lucy,

I am glad to see that you got a LOL out of my somewhat "in your face" parting shot which of course was directed at the UUA and Stikeman Elliott rather than you or other individual UUs. It is good to be chatting with someone who actually "gets" it. To be honest I actually had second thoughts about having my bit of fun above since I did not want to offend you. So I am not only glad that you got a LOL out of it but even relieved that you did not take offence. :-)

It looks like you too are having a bit of tongue in cheek fun with your comment about the UUA having "exhausted their budget" just getting one of Canada's top litigation lawyers to prepare and serve me with the Big Fat U*U *Miss*ive that I received in June. Presumably I do not need to explain the two aste*risks* emphasizing the "miss" in the word "missive". In fact I am wondering if it's possible that you deliberately chose to use the word "missive" to describe Maitre Coulombe's "less than accurate" cease and desist demand letter precisely because it contains the word "miss"? ;-)

I am of course quite aware of what you say above, and agree with you that it is almost certain that the UUA, not two mention two "less than perfect" U*U ministers, will not take any further legal action with respect to the accusations they made in Maitre Coulombe's *miss*ive. In fact I made pretty much the same assessment months ago. On *that* level I have most likely "won" but, as I have already made clear to both the UUA & Maitre Coulombe, I will not *really* have won in this particular matter until they formally withdraw their foolish accusations and apologize for them, or take them to a court of law so that I or my lawyer can ask all kinds of questions that they *really* don't want to have to provide answers to, such as exactly how many Unitarian Universalist ministers actually have engaged in such despicable crimes as pedophilia and rape. . . I am not suggesting that many UU clergy are guilty of these despicable crimes, and have actually only blogged about one very well documented case of a UU minister raping vulnerable teenage Tibetan refugees, which makes the UUA's blasphemous libel accusations all the more foolish. . . but there are some other cases that I have not yet blogged about.

BTW my emails are not as "lengthy and voluminous" as you might think, certainly nowhere near as "lengthy and voluminous" as my original highly detailed complaint against Rev. Ray Drennan which contained a quite complete history of his interactions with me, most are already posted publicly to this blog. This blog post reproduces two recent emails to Stikeman Elliott Solicitor Marc-André Coulombe and provides a link to a previous blog which reproduces most of my previous "electronic communications" to Maitre Coulombe and UUA leaders. I will probably post my most recent "shit or get off the pot" email that I sent to Maitre Coulombe and the UUA over the weekend. I expect that you and other people with a good sense of humour will find it to be both educational and entertaining. :-)

Have a great weekend!

Mine got off to a very good start with your comment(s). :-)
Saturday, December 08, 2012 11:07:00 am
Anonymous said…
It's ok, I giggled :-)
While I generally prefer to maintain a cordial tone, I am not too easily offended. But it is considerate of you to have been concerned :-)

No, I did not think of the 'miss' in 'missive'...that one's all yours :-) I just used it as a term for a long official letter.

I'm glad your weekend was off to a good start. Mine wasn't so fun...report cards are due in Wednesday and I'm going to be doing nothing else but preparing them until then :-s

I'm sorry you didn't have a good dynamic with Rev. Drennan. I went to his spring UU retreats in Bouctouche for a couple of years and he was kind to me. However, our interactions were quite brief.
Sunday, December 09, 2012 8:22:00 pm
Robin Edgar said…
I can assure you that I am not the only person to have been treated in an inconsiderate, intolerant, rude and indeed abusive manner by Rev. Ray Drennan. I know of several other persons of inherent worth and dignity who Raymond has personally mistreated. On October 9th, 2000, Rev. Drennan deeply offended a great many people with an opinion editorial published in The Gazette in which he intolerantly attacked, and to some degree "trashed", the state funeral of former Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. In this Op Ed Drennan offensively argued that Pierre Trudeau's state funeral should have been a secular funeral rather than a Roman Catholic church service. I guess his Irish Orangeman DNA came inton play a bit. He offensively wrote of the funeral as a "sham state funeral" and even went so far as to assert that most religious rituals, implicitly including the funeral ritual, are "meaningless". His publicly expressed intolerance closely paralleled my earlier experience with him. Drennan's dismissal of most religious rituals as "meaningless" echoed his intolerant and offensive dismissal of my monotheistic religious beliefs as being nothing but "silliness and fantasy."

I wrote a "lengthy and voluminous" ;-) letter to the editors of The Gazette pointing out the various ways in which Rev. Ray Drennan's highly "opinionated" and ironically titled 'Wrong Message' Opinion Editorial sent several wrong messages of its own. . . I later called The Gazette's letters editor to see if they were planning to publish an edited version of my letter, or if they might publish the whole thing as an Op Ed. When I asked the editor about my letter he said, "You've got competition Mr. Edgar" and proceeded to inform met that The Gazette had received about 50 letters to the editor about Rev. Ray Drennan's 'Wrong Message' and that ALL of them were critical, not one supported it. He said that the only previous occasion that The Gazette had received so many letters to the editor was when it had published a story about Karla Homolka enjoying a birthday party in prison. Talk about the interconnected web of all existence eh?;-) The Gazette did not publish my letter but it did publish ten percent of the letters it received. You can read them here.

I thought that the Unitarian Church of Montreal would come to its senses after that incident and responsibly hold Rev. Raymond Drennan accountable for his intolerance and even bigotry that had now seriously tarnished the image of the UCM on at least two separate occasions. But no. . . My protest had been in progress for over two years at that point in time and I made a point of creating some brand spanking new picket sign slogans that referenced Rev. Ray Drennan's 'Wrong Message' Op-Ed, most notably -

A "CHURCH" THAT DESERVES A TRUDEAU SALUTE

and

UNE "ÉGLISE" QUI N'EST PAS TRÈS CATHOLIQUE

Rather than do anything to hold Rev. Drennan accountable for his intolerance and offensiveness, and responsibly acknowledge their "less than just" errors in dealing with my previous complaints about his anti-religious bad attitude, Montreal Unitarians had me falsely arrested on trumped up charges of disrupting the order and solemnity of a religious service a few months later on Sunday December 3rd, 2000. I had LOTS of fun defending myself in court against that totally bogus criminal charge before I was rightly acquitted a few years later. Regrettably, thanks to the prosecutor moving for an acquittal in order to avoid any further Big Fat U*U Embarrassment* in court. . . I did not even get to present a "full and complete defense", as I had clearly stated that I wanted to and as the judge had agreed to and set a date for.
Monday, December 10, 2012 8:05:00 am
Robin Edgar said…
Needless to say the bad "dynamic" is by no means limited to Rev. Ray Drennan alone, well before his arrival as minister at the Unitarian Church of Montreal the clique of anti-religious "fundamentalist atheists" at the Unitarian Church of Montreal was doing there best to make me feel "less than welcome" and actively attempting to sabotage my religious initiatives. Thankfully Rev. David B. Parke was very supportive and able to keep this "wolf pack" of intolerant atheists at bay. No the "dynamic" extends to this clique that largely controlled the Board, the complacent and complicit congregation that allowed Rev. Ray Drennan to get away with the "murder" of character assassination and punished me for daring to complain about it. The "dynamic" extends to 25 Beacon Street in Boston where three successive UUA Presidents and a variety of UUA staff and Board members have not only done nothing to practice justice, equity, and compassion in their human relations with me but, on a few occasions, have actively sought to deny justice and even pervert justice. That Big Fat U*U *Miss*ive the UUA had Stikeman Elliott serve me is full of outrageously hypocritical double standards along with a number of extremely dubious or outright false accusations against me. My few (to date) allegations about U*U rapists are by no means "unfounded" as the UUA pretends. The only U*U person of inherent worth and dignity who I had quite justifiably described as a "pedophile rapist" was not even a "less than perfect" U*U "pastor" but rather a lay person who had been convicted of raping preteen girls who ranged between the ages of 9-12 at the times of the rapes. Ergo, prior to that Stikeman Elliott legalistic BS being set to writing on May 29th of this year I had not actually accused one single Unitarian Universalist minister of engaging in the despicable crime known as pedophilia. Doh! 

When I received the cease and desist demand letter I knew little about the crime of "blasphemous libel", so I entered into a free and *responsible* search for the Truth and meaning of Canada's blasphemous libel law. What I discovered was that, even if it could be proven beyond any reasonable doubt that I was actually making "unfounded and vicious" allegations about U*U clergy engaging in pedophilia and-or rape, this would probably not amount to the criminal act of blasphemous libel which is publishing words "calculated and intended to insult the feelings and the deepest religious convictions of the great majority of the persons amongst whom we live".
Monday, December 10, 2012 8:20:00 am
Robin Edgar said…
* Of course those events took place a few years before I could even conceive of the phrase Big Fat U*U (Fill In The Blank) thanks to CUC Executive Director Mary Bennett's Big Fat U*U Blunder of ever so U*Unilaterally inserting Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s "picture of an asshole" between the two Big Fat U*U Buttocks of what *was* "UUism" in a deeply misguided effort to symbolize the self-vaunted inclusiveness of what she and other U*Us went on to call "The U*U Movement". . . I *could* be mistaken but "inclusive U*U Movement" would appear to be something of an oxymoron.

Now *there*'s some Big Fat U*U Blasphemous Libel for U*Us courtesy of that Big Fat U*U Transcendentalist Super Hero known U*U World-wide as The Emerson Avenger. If I ever need a U*U defense witness to testify that *that* and similar "blasphemous libel" against "The U*U Movement" aka "The U*U eh?" isn't all *that* offensive to them, and even causes them to giggle (as it is of course intended to do), in order to introduce some Big Fat U*U Reasonable Doubt that my Big Fat U*U Mockery of hypocritical U*Us is "calculated and intended to insult the feelings and the deepest religious convictions of the great majority of the U*Us amongst whom we Soviet Canuckistanis live", so that I may be rightly acquitted of that Big Fat U*U Crime Against U*Umanity, I will give you a shout. ;-)
Monday, December 10, 2012 8:34:00 am
Robin Edgar said…
P.S. I hope that this "lengthy and voluminous" response to your comment does not distract you *too* much from the task at hand of grading report cards. Please forgive me for the few typos and spelling errors and bad grammar that I have decided not to correct.
Monday, December 10, 2012 8:49:00 am
Post a Comment