ANST - Banishment

[Merrik Viltar Har]

What I think is not being considered here are the instances in which banishments have been imposed in the past.  Banishing individuals who are darn close to crossing mundane lines between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors is not "out-and-out personal, arbitrary discrimination."  Not letting someone play because you don't like their skin color, race or religious affiliation is certainly against 'mundane' law.  However,  telling someone they can't play because they verbally or physically threaten someone or because they proposition small children is not the same thing.  There have to be some guidelines for acceptable and unacceptable behavior in any instance where large groups of individuals interact with each other.  It's a sociological necessity.  Ignoring "bad" people  and "bad" actions will not make either of them go away.

Lady Rowan
rebecca-luehrs at utulsa.edu 
(posting from her husband's account....)  
    The problem you run into with the temporary banishment is that it is, under the rules of our country, straight out-and-out personal, arbitrary discrimination; which is against the law.  Subscribing to the theory that it is "period" won't hold up in court.  So, unless you are going to banish each and every person throughout the SCA who does the same things, without regard to family affiliation, whether they are accepted members of a household, or whatever, then it falls under the definition of discrimination.  Ergo, to remove the possibility of a legal problem because some particular person or group may not "like" someone else, remove the rule, and the problem goes away.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ansteorra.org/pipermail/ansteorra-ansteorra.org/attachments/19981031/e82d1804/attachment-0002.htm>