Lerwick Up Helly Aa

[Rasmie]

There might not be a written constitution? Someone mentioned in the media it is a charitable organisation? I wonder if that’s right. If so they would probably have to submit a constitution.

[Muckle Oxters]

@EM seemed to be da fellow that knows about the legalities aroond UHA. EM, is du oot dare?!

[EM]

On 14/02/2022 at 15:12, Muckle Oxters said:

EM, is du oot dare?!

I am indeed.

Over the past few years I have tried many times to explain the fundamentals of UHA governance, but the attackers choose to pay no attention and continue spouting nonsense.  Denying the basic facts achieves nothing other than to stir up bitterness and unpleasantness.

If people refuse to recognise the most evident of facts, is there any point in discussing wider issues? I am inclined to keep explaining, but I expect it is a waste of effort.  

[Muckle Oxters]

I'm on da fence re: female guizers in da respect dat I dunna hae a particularly strong opinion, but it does seem lik a thankless task tae try to spaek aboot realities and legalities when folk are bein swept along we emotions and a desire fur equalities above onything idder. I feel dat da debate has gotten mair divisive ower da past few years as da folk demanding change ir increasingly drawing parallels atween Lerrick UHA and domestic violence, misogyny, sexism etc which has left da many 'traditionalists' feelin bemused and under attack. 

It also seems to me dat ower da past decade or so Lerrick UHA has been promoted as a 'community' event in da widest sense o da word, but I feel dat da community is da 'Lerrick UHA community' and tae a large extent you hae to earn your place in it. If da 'Lerrick UHA community' want change den I'm sure it'll come. But if dey dunna, I doot dirs plenty o folk in da 'wider community' who simply winna accept it and we're doomed for dis divisiveness tae run on and on.

[Spinner72]

22 hours ago, EM said:

Over the past few years I have tried many times to explain the fundamentals of UHA governance, but the attackers choose to pay no attention and continue spouting nonsense.  Denying the basic facts achieves nothing other than to stir up bitterness and unpleasantness.

If people refuse to recognise the most evident of facts, is there any point in discussing wider issues? I am inclined to keep explaining, but I expect it is a waste of effort.  

Thanks for replying. I'm not looking for a "deep dive" into anything, it's really just a simple yes/no question.

Is there a statement in the current constitution (or whatever guidance document applies) that says squad members can only be male?

[Bluemire]

Does onybudy else feel that it's inevitable its going to change but not by choice of the majority. The debate has turned cruel over the last few years and I feel sorry for the committee men, they must be suffering terribly with this. Up Helly Aa is something that takes so much commitment and the squads, guizers and committee should not be bullied into making this decision. 

[Muckle Oxters]

3 hours ago, Bluemire said:

Up Helly Aa is something that takes so much commitment and the squads, guizers and committee should not be bullied into making this decision. 

And dunna forget da hosts and hostesses! Efter da last torch has been fired intae da galley, it's dem dat run da show - da rest o wis are joost dir guests!

As I'm sure ony overexcited guizer whaa his been reprimanded by a hostess can testify, dey're no da put-upon subservient serving wenches some folk wid lik tae portray dem as! I wance got datn a stonesin for wirkin dirt dat I wis nearly greetin  

[Evil Inky]

13 hours ago, Bluemire said:

Does onybudy else feel that it's inevitable its going to change but not by choice of the majority. The debate has turned cruel over the last few years and I feel sorry for the committee men, they must be suffering terribly with this. Up Helly Aa is something that takes so much commitment and the squads, guizers and committee should not be bullied into making this decision. 

If this is your idea of bullying, you've led a very sheltered life.

[Wheelsup]

Der haes ta be a middle grund.  Furyat da past and look ahead.  Dey could just affirm dat dey er nae gender discrimantion, but laeve da squad system da wye it is.  Dat wye you laeve da squads responsible for der ain members. Da likelihood o' a new squad bein admitted is no likely in da current  levels.  Whit goes an i da halls is doon tae da hosts.  Wir hed fok greeting dey couldna win i wir squad becase wi tak in wir ain faimilies an freends! Dat's juist da wye o' it!  I tink dat da jarls squads  could start be takkin in der ain weemin and lasses, I lippen dat a lok o dem wish dey could. Lik a lok o idder places wi traditions you hae ta be axed in, you manna demand.

[EM]

On 16/02/2022 at 18:08, Spinner72 said:

Is there a statement in the current constitution (or whatever guidance document applies) that says squad members can only be male?

The Guizer's Committee does not have a written constitution. This is one of the aspects of its governance structure which has made it so effective over the years. Rather than have a huge number of explicit rules which can be gamed, permitted behaviour is mostly implicitly defined. I explained about the particular wording on page 80 of this thread.

[EM]

4 hours ago, Wheelsup said:

Der haes ta be a middle grund. 

When we established SMUHA we opted for a non-gendered format.  Membership of the Lerwick UHA guizers association is restricted to males. Both of these UHA formats function very well, but I can not identify any middle ground between these which is legally feasible.

[Evil Inky]

8 hours ago, EM said:

When we established SMUHA we opted for a non-gendered format.  Membership of the Lerwick UHA guizers association is restricted to males. Both of these UHA formats function very well, but I can not identify any middle ground between these which is legally feasible.

What about (in rough order from the status quo to full equality):

1) Allowing the Jarl's wife and daughters to take part in the procession only

2) Allowing females into the Jarl's squad only

3) Allowing females into squads but only to a set maximum number

4) Allowing female-only squads, but no mixed squads

5) Allowing mixed squads, but with a set minimum of males

[EM]

8 hours ago, Evil Inky said:

What about (in rough order from the status quo to full equality):

1) Allowing the Jarl's wife and daughters to take part in the procession only

2) Allowing females into the Jarl's squad only

3) Allowing females into squads but only to a set maximum number

4) Allowing female-only squads, but no mixed squads

5) Allowing mixed squads, but with a set minimum of males

Each of those proposals are illegal. Options 1, 2, 3 and 5 are blatantly illegal, whereas option 4 isn't sufficiently specified to judge completely. For it to be legal the number of such male and female squads would have to be identical, something I presume is not being proposed.

As it is essential for the Lerwick UHA to continue to follow the law, none of those ideas are feasible.

[Evil Inky]

I'm not a lawyer; could you explain in simple terms why it would be illegal for the Jarl's wife or daughters to take part in the procession?

[EM]

The issue would not be young daughters, but the presence of female guizers, and a wife would be interpreted as such.  The law is absolutely clear that associations can be either gendered or non-gendered, but if non-gendered it must be total. If an association has male and female members then it is completely unlawful for it to have different rights for each. It is all or nothing.