Theos-Talk Archives (January 1997 Message tl00587)

>>JHE
>>Doss, what specific questions do you feel have not yet been
>>answered concerning the expulsions of the Canadian and Danish
>>sections?  Please list them.  Maybe we can find the answers. 
>> 

MKR
>        Question is very simple. 
>        What is *the* real reason for expulsions? 
>
>Not the simplistic legal or other reasons usually given (or not
>given) for public consumption. When cancellation/expulsion is
>done, I believe *no* reason or *justification* is required to be
>given.
>
>        I will give you an example. I believe when Adyar group
>sued (I believe the Danish Section for recovery of assets) and
>lost, the allegation by Adyar attorneys was that there was some
>question about the appropriation/misappropriation of funds,
>while everyone knew that the key members in the Section were all
>extremely honest and spotless in their reputation and would not
>misuse even a single penny. So the real reason is not what is
>seen in public domain papers.

JHE
Right.  The "public domain papers" just show the process, the
legal arguments, and the determination of the court.  As for the
"real reason"  I don't think it is so hard to divine.  It always
boils down to power and control issues.  In such cases, "official
reasons" don't really mean much.  


JHE 
>>Cancellation of a National Section Charter is a decision made
>>by the International President with the approval of the General
>>Council.  However, I have never heard of the General Council
>>opposing any decision of the President.  Considering the fact
>>that Radha has canceled the charters of three sections since
>>she has become president, I would suggest that such
>>cancellations are indeed a "simple or easy decision at the
>>highest level" (at least for Radha)  regardless of whether the
>>worldwide membership is shrinking or not. 
>>

MKR
>While this may be true in general, I am aware of an instance in
>which when Annie Besant was at the height of popularity and
>power, her suggestion to modify the Object of TS was turned down
>by the General Council.

JHE
Yes, you wrote about this before.  But I don't see that instance
as relevant to this one.  If the issue with Radha today was to
modify the objects, I suspect she would run into the same
problems as Besant.  After all, all the General Council Members
know about the three objects, and have opinions concerning them. 
But more to the point of this case, and of present times, most
members of the General Council never attend those meetings in the
first place.  Those that do, have go by Radha's agenda and don't
really know much about what is going on in most cases.  For
instance, what were the General Council members who attend going
to do when Radha presented all of the "facts" concerning why the
Canadian section's or the Danish Section's charter should be
pulled, and no one else but Radha has any first hand information
about the subject?  If you were a Council member and trusted
Radha's judgement, wouldn't you have supported her decision on
the matter?  Perhaps you wouldn't have, but most did.  

More basic to all of this is the argument I have raised over and
over again: the TS is only superficially a democratic
organization.  Ordinary members might occasionally get elected to
one or another office, but the control of the TS is with a tight
group and the ES is over that.  


------------------------------------------                        
   |Jerry Hejka-Ekins,                      |                     
      |Member TI, TSA, TSP, ULT                |                  
         |Please reply to: jhe@toto.csustan.edu   |               
            |and CC to jhejkaekins@igc.apc.org       |            
               ------------------------------------------