EmmaJan 4, 2024

Here's the Decision that my abuser and I got from Schiedsstelle in June 2022. His name is censored.

I'd like to emphasize once more that I'm thankful for the voluntary work that Schiedsstelle has put in. The process as a whole has been empowering and healing.

However:
- As you can see the misconduct of the abuser is ongoing. This is confirmed by all parties. Yet he is allowed back to congress.
- I expected to get one abuser-free congress, but I was denied this.

Show threadEmmaJan 4, 2024

Regarding "exclusive areas" offered to me:

For a gaslighting survivor this is an inappropriate safety measure. I already wrote that I declined the offer and decided to dress in High Visibility instead.

What's not in the decision is that Schiedsstelle also offered an exclusive area TO HIM. They told me he also declined. But by telling me this, Schiedsstelle meta-communicated to me that _he would need protection from me_. This contributed to my pre-congress agony.

Show threadEmmaJan 5, 2024

Before there was a Schiedstelle, the congress would not exclude anyone, because the congress wouldn't allow survivors to open a case.

Nowadays we can open a case, and we can get a decision in our favor, if our case is good.

But as a result, congress now _explicitly welcomes abusers_. To me as a survivor this becomes a mindfuck: YES we believe you, and YES the abuser's freedom to do almost anything takes precedence over the survivor's well-founded fear.

I'm not sure that's an improvement.

Show threadChristian Berger DECT 2763Jan 3, 2025
@Emalstm One thing I don't understand is how being able to exclude people through the Schiedsstelle is "explicitly welcoming abusers". Could you elaborate on that. It seems like somewhere one important logical step was lost on me.
Show threadTanja Travnicek
@casandro @Emalstm never been to a CCC but from reading the thread I get the following: Before, when there was no Schiedsstelle, abusers were welcome implicitly, because there was no official way to make their actions known. Now that you can open a case, at least the Schiedsstelle is informed about certain people being abusers. If those people are still allowed to attend, their welcome is therefore explicit.
Jan 3, 2025 at 3:07pmWeb
Show threadChristian Berger DECT 2763Jan 3, 2025
@trav_tan @Emalstm Yes, but wouldn't the Schiedsstelle ban them for the event?
Show threadTanja TravnicekJan 3, 2025

@casandro
The screenshot in this toot would suggest otherwise: https://chaos.social/@Emalstm/111697019997367637

@Emalstm

Emma (@[email protected])

Attached: 1 image Here's the Decision that my abuser and I got from Schiedsstelle in June 2022. His name is censored. I'd like to emphasize once more that I'm thankful for the voluntary work that Schiedsstelle has put in. The process as a whole has been empowering and healing. However: - As you can see the misconduct of the abuser is ongoing. This is confirmed by all parties. Yet he is allowed back to congress. - I expected to get one abuser-free congress, but I was denied this.

chaos.social
Show threadEmmaJan 6, 2025

@trav_tan @casandro thank you Tania for stepping in an giving a good clarification based on what I have written  

The current status is that Schiedsstelle has concluded that my story is believable and his is not.

The Schiedsstelle then decides that a person they believe to have done very serious crimes should have the freedom to roam the Congress essentially in full freedom, including in "hard to police areas" (exact quote), such as the dance floor...

1/2

Show threadEmmaJan 6, 2025
@trav_tan @casandro this means that there is now an explicit decision that people who have admitted that they abused someone are explicitly allowed to roam free. Before there was a Schiedsstelle there was only an implicit allowance to so, because they refused to look into the evidence.