(no subject)

[sythyry]

Aggrivated Agrimony [22 Oix 4261]

The Charges:

1. That Agrimony threatened Dustweed with indistinct woe if zie continued to be a both-female
2. That Agrimony hated Dustweed for being a both-female.
3. That Agrimony knocked a plate of plue and tarrissy out of Dustweed's hands at dinner. (I didn't know this before, exactly, but it's quite a serious charge. Plue and tarrissy is just about how you say "food" for Herethroy: a meal is plue, tarrissy, and maybe some other things. An assault on someone's plue and tarrissy is tantamount to an assault on their right to eat, and, thus, to live.)
4. That Agrimony calls Dustweed as "her" rather than "zir", and generally treats zir as a female.
5. That Agrimony is frequently and loudly disparaging of Dustweed's involvement with Tethezai.

And of course Ghirbis and I were chosen to investigate and judge Agrimony for his alleged crimes against Dustweed. The Cani would have been the right choice, but the Cani were off at a wedding or something.

So I was made the Master of Ceremonies and the mediator, and Ghirbis the dismediator. (For those of you with barbaric codes of law: everyone in the room gets to speak in turn, three times 'round for a usual case in a real court, two times for us. I, as Master of Ceremonies, get to shut people up if they're being long-windede and such. When it's the mediator's turn, zie proposes some compromise which zie thinks will be agreeable to everyone and settle the matter, and, if the parties all accept it, it is done. When it's the dismediator's turn, she proposes some punishment of some or all of the people involved. If, by the end of the trial, not everyone has accepted the mediation, then the dismediation is imposed on everyone.)

The First Time 'Round

Dismediator:"I propose that Agrimony find lodging outside of Quelldrie House, if he finds their lives and loves so vilesome."

Dustweed and Tethezai:A brief statement of the points above.

Agrimony:

1. What I really said was, I wouldn't consider a romantic involvement with her while she continues to be a both-female. It's a rather different thing.
2. I don't precisely hate her. [Lit: "the girl", emphasizing his opinion of Dustweed's gender in a way that is not quite natural in Ketherian. -bb] No, not "zir", "her". "Her" is the proper pronoun. I don't want to be associated with her, which is not, precisely, hate.
3. I also knocked a pitcher of water out Anoof's hands in the same incident, but nobody accuses me of denying him hydration! I tripped, I fell, I nearly knocked the breakfast table over and nearly cracked my chitin at it. If that's an assault on Dustweed's right to live, it's nearly as much of one on mine own.
4. Yes, I call both-females "her", because that is the gender which everyone of any intellect and tradition assigns to both-females. I know she doesn't like it, but ... tough. She might as well wish to be Rassimel.
5. Yes, I do not approve of such blatant and romantic transaffection between Herethroy and mammals. If you're going to do it, do it like Sythyry and zir Orren, just for the sex without any pretense of caring or intention of getting married or any such thing.

It was the mediator's turn to go next. The mediator took a moment to recover from Agrimony's verbal belly-kick. Finding a compromise here was rather a challenge.

Mediator: The mediation is that both sides should write a detailed apology to the other, showing appreciation of the other's point of view and of the other's essential needs. And that both sides should endeavour to arrange their schedules so that they don't meet very often. Since a majority of the residents of the house (counting by rooms, that's three out of five) are traff, and since his objection is in part to transaffection, Agrimony is obliged to work harder than Dustweed and Tethezai.

Dustweed:"I'm not traff. I just love a Rassimel."

Tethezai:"I'm not traff. I'm a libertine."

Ghirbis:[sung]"I am not traff any-the-either-more! I am just sleeping with Cani street vendors to distract attention from my actual and more insidious crimes!" This sort of thing is how I know my Evil Roommate is actually Evil.

Mediator:"Does everyone accept the mediation? Does anyone accept the mediation?"

And, much to my surprise, they did.

Comments

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

It is certainly indistinct to me why not having a relationship with Agrimony would be considered 'woe'.

[cattitude.livejournal.com]

I think the emphasis should have landed on the "indistinct" part, rather than the "woe" part.

[goodluckfox.livejournal.com]

It is interesting that you mention a case where a plate of food was knocked out of the hands of one party by another party. Just such a case is used as an illustration in our law schools. Likewise, it was a case of prejudice against someone who was Different In Some Supposedly Different Way. The law HAD been that a harmful or offensive contact would have to touch the BODY of the intended victim. The judges changed the law so that anything held in the hands or otherwise intimately and personally associated with the person would be a legal extension of their body for purposes of the law against perpetrating an offensive or harmful contact against another. Hats, walking sticks, pets on a leash, or even, er, the horse you were riding that suffered attacks were legally the same as an attack on your person.

That's an interesting legal system you have there. I especially like the DISmediator. I shall have to bring that one up with my law professors to see what they think.

I could talk a hair more about how the situation would be resolved under OUR laws (in my opinion), but that isn't called for here, because I'm probably the only person who cares. :)

Loxley

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

I am curious, actually. This wasn't a matter of law, just of trying to come to some sort of agreement that everyone found sort of acceptable.

[goodluckfox.livejournal.com]

Wow... in our culture, situations like this (petty disagreements) are settled outside of any kind of formal mediation. Due to the expense and amount of trouble involved, only the most egregious of cases actually get litigated. Since you asked...

1. Threatening Dustweed with Indistinct Woe: This is ALMOST a cause of action in my part of the world. If the woe was actually certain, and if the woe was about to be imminently inflicted upon Dustweed and Dustweed was apprehensive about it, and if said woe involved any sort of offensive or harmful contact, AND if Agrimony actually intended this, THEN Dustweed would have a case for what we call "assault". However, on the facts given,
Agrimony's alleged conduct doesn't rise to the level of assault.

2. Hating someone for ANY reason is just fine with us. We generally don't police people's thoughts and desires; it's actions that we try to prevent.

3. Now this could very well be a battery. Since the plate was personally and intimately associated with Dustweed, any attack on it is the same as an attack on her person. (I'm playing a bit loose with the language for your benefit, Sythyry). However, if Agrimony truly didn't intend for any such thing to happen, it is simply an accident.

4 and 5. Generally in our society, one can say almost anything about anyone with no fear of legal consequences. There are exceptions, such as deliberately spreading lies about someone, and not endangering public safety, etc, but as far as hating someone, and being vocal about it, not only is that not wrong, it's one of our most cherished rights. :)

Are you sorry you asked, now? :)

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

Not at all sorry!

Are 2, 4, and 5 still true if the people are actually sharing a house?

(This wasn't a matter of law -- I don't know what a real court would do. Have us all whipped, I imagine, for being too petty.)

[goodluckfox.livejournal.com]

The fact that they're sharing a house isn't relevant under our laws. There aren't many situations where parties status with regards to each other is important.

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

Isn't that, well, insane? Or at least, doesn't it mean that laws which make sense for strangers are applied to husbands, and laws which make sense for husbands are applied to strangers?

[goodluckfox.livejournal.com]

Well, I thought about pointing out how at common law it was impossible for a husband to rape his wife, even though a stranger would be sent to prison for a very long time for doing exactly the same thing. I didn't want to confuse you, but there are some exceptions (marraige). It would still be illegal for either a stranger or a husband to beat the wife. Often, localities have modified the rules to eliminate counterintuitive effects like husbands-can't-rape-wives laws. But for the most part, who you live with isn't relevant.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

What about harassment? I know it's illegal to make disparaging or offensive remarks about the people you work with; does that not extend to people you live with?

[goodluckfox.livejournal.com]

Oh, it's not ILLEGAL to make disparaging comments about your coworkers. But it is usually against company policy.

[terrycloth.livejournal.com]

Well, the reason it's against company policy is because people can and do sue over it. Or do civil matters not count as 'illegal'?

[goodluckfox.livejournal.com]

NO they don't count as illegal. There's two totally seperate bodies and theories of law; criminal law and civil law (not to be confused with "civil law" which is also the word for placs like Louisiana and most of the rest of the world where everything is defined by statute, rather than precedents at common law). The burdens of proof are different, too; the government has to prove you're guilty of a crime "beyond a reasonable doubt," but in order to win in a civil suit, you only have to prove your case "on a preponderance of the evidence" which means "more likely than not" or "51 percent probable." That is why OJ wasn't convicted of murder, but was found liable for wrongful death, because the burdens of proof are lower for civil matters.

The only reason it's possible to sue somebody over something like a wolf-whistle or a picture of your own wife in a bikini on your desk is that special laws have been enacted that are specific to the workplace. I forgot about that last night because it's late. But most of the things that might be actionable

[sythyry.livejournal.com]

I think I understand. Which, with monsters, is usually wrong, but not wrong enough to keep me from being an ambassador to one.

So you do have situational laws? Just not ones for housemates?

I wonder -- you must not live in crowded cities, then?

[goodluckfox.livejournal.com]

Yes, we have SOME situational laws. But they're exceptions to general rules, and the exceptions were made for policy reasons. "Policy" is what our judges invoke when the general rule says one thing, but reason and the need to avoid injustice in a particular sort of situation demand that a modification be made. "If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If they're both against you, argue policy."

And oh my but yes we have some densely populated cities. There are cities here that have 5, 10, 20, to 40 THOUSAND people per square kilometer (hope that translates). That is an INSANE population density, and I hope never to have to enter such a hive of activity. My own city is the capitol of my state, so is one of the larger cities in the state... and it only has a density of 600 people per square mile or so.

Of course, comparing World Tree demographics with Earth demographics doesn't make a lot of sense, as there are such fundamental differences in the way things work in each place. Our systems of agriculture and transportation and other infrastructure are wildly different.

[redbird]

We have situational laws, but they don't cope well with housemates who aren't related to each other. They're better at parents living with children, or people married to each other, or siblings, than students sharing a home.

If A owns a home and B and C live there without being related to zir, our law probably treats it as a contract relationship: there are laws about whether A can make B or C leave, and how they behave to each other might affect that, but insulting a housemate is not treated differently from insulting some other friend or acquaintance.

"While she continues to be..."

[allessindra.livejournal.com]

Ok, I think I'm slightly confused. "While she continues to be both-female." Is there a way that Herethroy can modify their gender?

Re: "While she continues to be..."

[esory.livejournal.com]

Not really in any practical sense. I believe that Agrimony means not so much "while Dustweed continues to be both-female" as "while Dustweed refuses to be utterly ashamed of being a both-female and pretend that zie is female instead". I gather that Herethroy both-females usually masquerade as females and that this is the most "respectable" option for them. Dustweed refuses to masquerade as female and is generally despised by other Herethroy as a result.