Personal Attacks in Debate

[Guest Marcella]

My question concerns "personal attacks" in debate. In the assembly to which I belong, one member frequently uses disrespectful and demeaning analogies to describe groups of people, such as committee members, or more generally people/groups that do not agree with him. Such analogies include, "frogs boiling themselves" and "circus seals catching fish in their mouths." This seems to me to be "personal" in that is demeaning to the character of the people, however technically it is not directed at one person. Still logically, if Robert's Rules does not allow demeaning remarks to be voiced at a single person, logically it seams that it would not allow demeaning remarks to be directed at two people together, or four people, or a small group, or the people that do not agree with you, etc.

These comments by the member are obviously intentional bullying and intimidation tactics, but I wish to discover if they are also "out of order" according to Robert's Rules? If they are not personal attacks per se, is there another rule that would prevent such regular, degrading, dehumanizing comments directed at people in the assembly?

Thank you.

[Joshua Katz]

A personal attack does not become less personal, in my view, if directed at several members of the assembly. It becomes less personal only if extended beyond the assembly, i.e. to Democrats/Republicans (and even then, "Democrats are circus seals" is, in my opinion, out of order given the likely presence of some Democrats, unless you're at a Republican convention or something, where it's particularly stupid to say). But, in any case, if you could not say it about Bill, you also can't say it about Bill and Bob, where Bill and Bob are both members of the assembly. 

And yes, even when not directed at individuals, there are general rules of decorum in RONR that call for speaking politely.

The core of the attacks on individuals is two-fold. Probably the more important element, which also applies to groups, is speaking to motives rather than arguments, or attacks on people in place of their arguments. Whatever a person's reason for making a motion, debate should be about the motion, not the people. As a general matter, there's no good reason to be speaking about other members at all, aside from, say, a motion to give someone money for healthcare or to reimburse their expenses. Most of the time, members are not the topic of discussion, and even if something isn't clearly an attack, it's probably not relevant to the topic being debated and subject to a point of order for that reason.

The second element is general decorum, which applies regardless of whom you're speaking about. We want meetings to conduct business and make efficient decisions, not be general opportunities for insulting people. Insults, whether directed at those present or not, contribute to an environment where people do not feel free to speak, lead to worse decisions, and make decision-making less efficient. 

In any case, raise a point of order, and the assembly will decide if this member is over the line or not.

I once had a member of an assembly threaten to punch me when I raised a point of order after he spent 2 minutes attacking the members of a committee rather than discussing their proposal (which, by the way, I very much opposed). I calmly made sure our Chief of Police (by law, also our First Selectman, and the person who had convinced me to run for office and my campaigning partner) and every other police officer in attendance had heard him, made sure he knew they had heard him, and repeated my point of order, which was ruled well-taken. He threatened me again after the meeting, then went to the restaurant I had used as an unofficial campaign hq and threw menus at the owner, although I'm pretty sure that was an unrelated incident.

[Richard Brown]

1 hour ago, Guest Marcella said:

My question concerns "personal attacks" in debate. In the assembly to which I belong, one member frequently uses disrespectful and demeaning analogies to describe groups of people, such as committee members, or more generally people/groups that do not agree with him. Such analogies include, "frogs boiling themselves" and "circus seals catching fish in their mouths." This seems to me to be "personal" in that is demeaning to the character of the people, however technically it is not directed at one person. Still logically, if Robert's Rules does not allow demeaning remarks to be voiced at a single person, logically it seams that it would not allow demeaning remarks to be directed at two people together, or four people, or a small group, or the people that do not agree with you, etc.

These comments by the member are obviously intentional bullying and intimidation tactics, but I wish to discover if they are also "out of order" according to Robert's Rules? If they are not personal attacks per se, is there another rule that would prevent such regular, degrading, dehumanizing comments directed at people in the assembly?

Thank you.

To get right too the point, yes, comments of the type you describe are inappropriate and are a breach of decorum and are not permitted.   Comments of that type can subject the member to discipline up to and including expulsion.  However, disciplinary matters are rather complex and I suggest you get a copy of the current 11th edition of RONR and study Chapter XX on discipline.  It's 26 pages of detailed information on how to handle various situations. The member should  be called to  order whenever he makes such comments.