Kishkumen wrote:
There is a difference, I think, between fighting for a good cause, like protecting children, and fighting against the LDS Church. Mike Norton is someone who has fought against the LDS Church and Mormonism, and has found validation and support when his work has had ancillary (but important) benefits for some people. But his primary motivation is his hatred of Mormonism.
I think Sam Young started out fighting for a good cause. Likewise with Bill Reel. Involving Mike Norton was a mistake because that muddied motivations and aims. I deeply disagree with the idea that the ends justify the means. If Mike Norton gets attention, the attention does not whitewash his religious bigotry. If one can achieve similar results without resorting to bigots and bigotry, then that is what one should do. If one must use Norton to get attention, then forego the attention, because buddying up to bigots is not worth the perceived benefit.
I know I'm acting as a broken record here but, we don't know that Norton's involvement was invited. We don't know if his services were enlisted or if he simply showed up earlier in the day to show us that he could get in the building or what he did later. People here say he has skill in surveillance techniques. We don't know what kind of recording device was used, if a person in the room was directly miked or if he planted a mike somewhere in the room. If a person in the room was miked we don't know if that was Mr. Reel or another person. For all we know (which is nothing but our imagination and conjecture at this point) a mike was planted on
one of the facilitators of the DC or a family member such as Mrs. Reel who may have decided not to confirm anything with her husband as to keep him out of it.
Again, imagination and conjecture. That's all we have and likely all we'll ever have. I think it's wrong to make assumptions.
Back to the presence of Norton in general. We
think we see him as an affiliate of both Reel and Young.
Is he? Is he a welcomed affiliate? If he is not a welcomed affiliate, do we honestly expect any of these men to tell him to stay the hell out and away from their individual causes so that folks can claim that the cause-movements (new phrase, I just invented it) are imploding on account of internal unrest from within their ranks?
In Sam's case (I know little to nothing about Reel) his movement embraces and acts as voice for the victims of child sexual abuse. Now, think like a Jersey Girl/child advocate here for a minute.
I have watched every single video recording and read every single statement I could get my eyes and hands on since I became aware of the Protect movement. I have witnessed Sam Young making himself hospitable to folks from what we might call the fringes (on account of the impact of their abuse and isolation) of LDS society and society at large, embracing them, welcoming them, willing to hear their expressions and learning from those folks, and valuing them when perhaps almost no one else in their lives does. They are his focus, his teachers and it is on their behalf that he presses forward in an effort to validate them and prevent these very same conditions from developing in the lives of potential child victims.
And you think that Sam Young who is invested in child advocacy in terms of reporting and preventing childhood sexual abuse in the LDS church should shy away from welcoming the presence of Mike Norton into his circle of people (victims and support people) who is
exactly representative of the victims of the Protect movement because he IS one. As I stated previously, I just recently learned this about Norton and having learned it, it's changed the way that I think about him. It likewise makes sense that he is welcomed and embraced by Sam Young.
Mike Norton belongs in and to the Protect movement. He is one of the people being
represented by it.