Portland Principles of Diversity of Tactics
February 13, 2012 in New Proposals by Lumen
Proposed Portland Principles (Modified and adopted from the St. Paul Principles adopted during the RNC 2008 and from the Occupy Chicago Principles adopted 2/11/12)
1) Our solidarity will be based on respect for political diversity. As individuals and groups, we may choose to engage in a diversity of tactics and plans of action but are committed to treating each other with respect.
2) As we plan our actions and tactics, we will take care to maintain appropriate separations of time and space between divergent tactics. We will plan our actions with intention and with the knowledge that our actions effect our collective movement.
3) We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption, limiting our action to “free speech zones,” and violence, or attempts to divide our movement through the conscious creation of divisions regarding tactics, organization, strategies, and alliances. We agree not to assist law enforcement actions of political repression.
4) We avoid public denunciation of fellow activists or events.
Examples of the above: 1) Jenny will not smash windows during a family friendly march where the intent of the organizers was to have no arrests. This would be not planning actions with intention or acknowledgement that my actions affect others. 2) John will not publically denounce the Solution Committee as ‘The ‘False Solution Committee’ composed of reformist cooperators with the inherent violence of the state.’ This is not respecting differing views on collective change and is unnecessarily divisive. 3) Jessica will not tackle and unmask protestors at a march. This is not respecting divergent views of surveillance culture and is potentially aiding law enforcement in tracking and repression of activists.
The intention of the above is to keep our focus and energy on collective change, in the myriad ways we see change as most effectively occurring, not on horizontal hostility.
I believe that any violence hurts mostly the 99%. The diversity of the 99% is so widespread that even the cops are workers not in the 1%. We get them to understand that we are for the 99% by including them in our solutions.
Is this diversity of tactics coming from the 1%?
http://www.thenation.com/article/166394/why-media-love-violence-protesters-and-not-banks
Dear Occupy Portland,
Thank you, thank you for considering the use of force (i.e., property destruction) as one of your tactics. We didn’t know how to deal with your successful non-violent approach, but we do know exactly how to deal with force. And we will always, always win at force. Thank you again.
– The State
Clearly in the case of Occupy Portland the state has been able to use force to break up the camp and arrest almost 200 people at this point in the face of ‘non-violence’. Claiming ‘successful non-violence’ and saying the state doesn’t know how to deal is controversial at best.
This proposal is about respect and creating a culture of respect that allows the movement to diversify and grow not about advocacy for or against certain tactics.
Yes, the state is quite effective at using force. The state understands force. The state will win at force. It seems we agree on that much.
Any time a protester/autonomous individual has initiated force, in the history of Occupy Portland, this act has benefited the state, and worked to the detriment of Occupy Portland.
Any time that protesters have remained entirely non-violent & non-destructive, even (especially) in the face of police violence, it has worked to the benefit of Occupy Portland.
You cannot win the contest of force with Mayor Sam’s army in a head-on confrontation. Nobody should have any delusions about that. This is an information war. The real battle is not during the action. The real battle is in whether they can find anything, even one clip of someone throwing something in an impotent act of rage, to splash all over the news. Then, in the eyes of the general public, the police response was “justified.” The flow of support & money, towards the police state, increases. If they can find just one clip of people destroying things, or hurting people, or using force in any way, then they completely annihilate our message, as well as our own media response. And when they are denied that? Things happen. Like Mike Reese losing his mayoral bid (thank goodness). Like the hearings to remove certain police weapons from their hands. Non-violence wields lasting power; force is the weapon of the weak.
Like on 2/6, when I felt tricked into going to an event by a contentious Facebook invite (which has since disappeared). The general public will approve of a lot of outrageous things if they’re scared enough. I was scared. After all, that was my neighborhood under attack, by people at the lead of the march. I was equally afraid of the people dressed in black at the front, as I was of the people dressed in black, arriving in force from the rear.
Right now, we’re trying to get horses and pepper spray removed from the police arsenal. 2/6 was a real setback in making that happen. Footage of police misuse of horses & pepper spray was shown at a recent hearing, to get this measure on the ballot. I submitted footage I had taken from various events. But I did not submit footage from 2/6. I did not submit it, because nobody would take it seriously, given the context. When you abandon non-violence, you lose any moral high-ground you might have had with the whole “Constitutional rights” argument.
And I welcome debate over specific tactics. That is why I abhor this Patriot-Act-style carte blanche approval of any tactic, even tactics that some consider to be violent, in the Orwellian names of “diversity” and “solidarity.” If there is a compelling argument to employ a tactic, why not use the existing model to obtain the informed consent of the group (who, after all, is expected to support the tactic)?
“The real battle is in whether they can find anything, even one clip of someone throwing something in an impotent act of rage, to splash all over the news. Then, in the eyes of the general public, the police response was “justified.” The flow of support & money, towards the police state, increases. If they can find just one clip of people destroying things, or hurting people, or using force in any way, then they completely annihilate our message, as well as our own media response.”
This is absolutely false – so false, in fact, that I would call it propaganda for the 1%.
There’s a widespread belief in Occupy that the public abhors violence, and that when police and protesters meet, whoever uses violence loses. This is a gross oversimplification. For the most part, the public does not abhor violence by police! For every Scott Walker or Lt. Pike that gets national attention, there are dozens of violent acts committed against campers and protesters by police that cause no significant public reaction.
Modern American society is actually deeply authoritarian. Most people, when presented with a narrative that involves someone defying authority and then being punished, will side with authority. Whether it’s someone who speaks out against his teacher and then gets bad grades, or who speaks out against his employer and gets fired, or who breaks the law and then gets arrested, the answer is usually the same: “He should have known better. He got what he deserved.” Even when the rebel had a just cause, or the authority is seen to respond too harshly, Americans have a hard time bringing themselves to side against authority; perhaps an exception is made in one case, and the rebel receives a lesser punishment, or the authority “investigates” itself – but lasting demand for institutional change is extremely rare. And a significant part of the population doesn’t even care who’s right; deference to authority is their prime directive, and any defiance must be met with punishment. (These are the “I love seeing hippies getting their skulls bashed” folks.)
So you see, it doesn’t really matter to most people if police break their someone’s arm or destroy their belongings or make them sit in a cold holding area for hours without access to medication or a bathroom while zipcuffs slowly give them nerve damage. Meanwhile, any act by protesters that could be construed as even slightly offensive – resisting arrest, yelling “fuck the police”, defacing a sign, putting up a tent in a public park – justifies an extreme police response in the eyes of the public. It’s not because we hate violence. It’s because we’re on the bad end of an abusive relationship with authority.
You can’t stop someone at an Occupy event from acting violently without committing violence yourself. Capital letters, CAN NOT, period. This is particularly true when you consider that the police or other agencies can send in agents provocateur at any time to commit violence. What’s more, you can’t keep that violence from being captured on camera or reported in the news. So if you make nonviolence the winning condition for Occupy, then Occupy is destined to lose, because all the 1% has to do is send in a ringer, and then tell the public, “look, see the violence!” It is a recipe for failure.
The real battle is making the American people see the harm that the 1% is doing, and that the right and moral response to that harm is direct action by the people, and shattering the chains of authoritarianism that bind us all to inaction. The real battle is making them see that there is no moral equivalence between smashing a window and keeping thousands of people homeless, or between yelling an insult and savagely attacking someone who’s exercising their fundamental right to speak or to exist. The real battle is making them see that the worst and most dangerous criminals are the ones in suits and riot gear, not the ones in hoodies!
“Solidarity” is only Orwellian if you make it so. Remember that Occupy struggles against an established power. If Occupy can be divided and turned against itself, then it will lose, and if Occupy loses, then it won’t really matter WHY it lost; the 1% will still be in control. All this infighting over the strategic value of nonviolence only serves the status quo, which is why it needs to end.
We read the proposed Occupy Portland Principles and were inspired to think about them more. We offer this modified version of the modified version as a friendly amendment and look forward to the movement building meeting tonight where we can have better face to face discussions of this important agreement. We included explanations of our logic for particular edits in notes after each principle.
See you tonight!
Lisa, Hazel and Sarah
———–
Proposed Occupy Portland Principles – version 2
1) Our solidarity will include respect for diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups.
[note: This principle is intended to create unity and solidarity across the entire spectrum of our movement. Many different tactics can be supportive to a broader strategy, and different strategies can still be working toward the same ultimate goal.]*
2) The actions and tactics used will be organized in a way that maintains separation of time or space between divergent tactics. We will plan our actions with intention so that they are part of a broader strategy.
[note: This principle means those wanting to use more militant tactic will not piggy back on the organizing of others solely for the purpose of engaging in particular tactics. It also means that we respect the legitimacy of militant tactics as part of a broader strategy even if we might disagree with those tactics. Maintaining separation of time or space between a high risk action where participants intend to risk arrest and a march where the participants can’t and don’t intend to risk arrest, such as an immigrant’s rights march, allows for better solidarity within our movement.]*
3) We oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption, limiting our action to “free speech zones,” violence, or attempts to divide our movement through creating divisions regarding tactics, organization, strategies, and alliances. We agree not to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others.
[note: We changed “We agree not to assist law enforcement in acts of political repression” because the term political repression needs to be more specific. Someone could argue that they didn’t violate Principle 3 by pointing someone who engaged in property destruction out to the police because they don’t equate breaking windows with political action.]
4) Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement. We agree not to denounce other activists in the media or in public.
[note: Version 1 says, “We will avoid public denunciations….” Saying you will avoid something is not the same as explicitly agreeing not to do it, and is therefore insufficient. It also excludes the line from the St. Paul Principles that says debates and criticisms will stay internal. Debates and critiques are important and need to happen in respectful, constructive ways that don’t become tools for the state.]*
Examples of the above:
1) Jenny wouldn’t smash windows during a march that’s been publicized as family friendly and where the intent of the organizers is to have no arrests. This would go against Principle 1, respecting the plans of other groups, and Principle 2, maintaining separation of time and space between divergent tactics.
2) Jessica wouldn’t tackle and unmask protestors at a march. This goes against Principle 3, not assisting law enforcement.
3) Jessica wouldn’t give an interview to the media denouncing protestors who smashed windows. John wouldn’t go to a neighborhood coalition meeting and criticize the Occupy Portland Solution Committee as ‘The ‘False Solution Committee’ composed of reformist cooperators with the inherent violence of the state. This would violate Principle 4, keeping debates and criticisms internal and not denouncing each other publicly or in the media.
[note: Instead, Jessica could go to the spokes council and/or general assembly to address her concerns. John could go directly to the Solutions Committee or the GA or spokescouncil and clearly articulate his analysis of why the Solutions Committee is not effectively working toward the goals of Occupy Portland, or propose a movement building meeting to discuss the issue. This would make the debate internal as opposed to public. We need to have positive and constructive debates so we can all develop a deeper political analysis.]*
The intention of these Principles are to keep our focus and energy on collective change, instead of falling prey to the oldest tricks in the book, i.e. Good Protestor v. Bad Protestor and pitting those below against each other to divide and conquer.
*Notes are intended to be part of a broader discussion, not for inclusion in the final Occupy Portland Principles.
Questions:
1) Would grabbing a bike rack that another protester was attempting to throw through a window violate these principles?
2) Would livestreaming an action where violence was taking place violate these principles?
3) Would denouncing violence and property destruction on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter violate these principles?
1) If, for some reason, OP officially endorsed an action where property destruction was on the table, then yes. I can almost never think of a situation where throwing a bike rack through a window is tactical or strategic and OP never has to endorse property destruction as a tactic. I can never think of a reason why trying to physically stop people is tactical or strategic. Peace-police don’t stop property destruction they just inflame movements and sometimes are violent towards their fellow protesters.
2) I encourage livestreamers to attend all actions where violence is taking place such when the police are brutalizing occupy protesters or shooting citizens, legislative hearings, or the meetings of bank boards. More tangibly, folks know livestream is going to be at major marches and events.
3) The OP facebook page is hypothetically an in-group. No one is asking anyone else to not debate issues or philosophies or to comment on them. The ask is not to denounce fellow human beings or OP sanctioned events.
A more relevant question…
4) Would livestreaming faces after a majority of the room was under the impression faces would not be livestreamed be violating basic principles of respect and consent? Yes.
Say what you’d like about your personal values of transparency. When you impose those values on other people and do so in an underhanded fashion in alienates potential participants and members of the 99%.
These principles are about respect something you were clearly lacking last night. OP never has to approve or disapprove of any specific actions.
In regards to
1) This is not a hypothetical situation, it is something I have seen happen. The strategic reason for physically stopping the property destruction was clear in this case: it was to prevent misrepresentation of Occupy Portland in the media and the co-opting of a peaceful march by people who were clearly out to cause property destruction, violence, and chaos.
3) The OP facebook page is a special case. I was speaking to more publicly accessible forms of social media, and not denouncing specific people or groups but specific actions and tactics. It sounds like the answer is yes.
4) I take responsibility for my actions the other night. I meant no disrespect. I did announce that I would be streaming, and I never agreed to turn off my camera. I did comply with the request to put the camera at peoples feet, even though I did not agree with it, and even though the field of vision may have still included peoples faces.
When the “agreement” was made, the facilitator asked for disagreement/concerns and I made an attempt to get on stack, but the stack was closed without offering me a chance to voice my concerns/objections. Since the “agreement” was specifically an ask of me, I didn’t feel this was fair. I was not alone in disagreeing with that decision or the process by which it was reached. One mistake I made was not calling for a point of process at that point.
When the facilitator came over and blocked the camera I respected her right to do so and did not attempt to move the camera or restore the field of vision.
When I was finally given a chance to speak during the “fish bowl” I did make an attempt to explain to the group that I was still recording and why I had made that decision but I was cut-off by the facilitator who decided to call me out in front of the group before I had an opportunity to explain my actions. I was also called a liar and other names by some of the people present and at that point, a clear violation of an agreement we had made that did have consensus (i.e. there were no objections to that agreement)
If you come to an open, public forum for Occupy Portland, I think you need to expect that the meeting will be livestreamed, and your face may appear on the Internet. The values of transparency and accountability are not just personal values, they are shared values within Occupy Portland. It has been that way since the beginning.
I am sorry if my actions created a breach of trust or disrupted the very important conversation last night, that was not my intention, but it was the outcome. I could have handled myself better. I do apologize for that. It was a learning experience for me, and I hope for others.
If you or others are interested in reviewing what happened you should be able to watch the recorded stream at http://www.ustream.tv/channel/opdxlive
looks like we need to define violence…
Violence: Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something.
Here’s where the water is muddy on the definition of violence:
EX: my behavior involving physical force meant to break down this cardboard box to put it into the recycling bin
EX: my behavior involving physical force meant to break down this extremely violent and oppressive system we live in by unleashing (without injuring anyone) rage that inspires others to rise up and speak out against this system
Just my opinion here…
EX1 is probably by the above definition violence, but it sounds like the exception that proves the rule. Your intent in this case is probably not so much to damage the cardboard box as it is to fit it in the recycle bin.
EX2 is what I would call using violence against violence. I think it is murky whether this is the correct action to take, but I don’t really find it murky as to whether it is or is not violence.
When police destroy an activist’s tent, or a camera, is that a violent act?
I possess the moral agency to say, “This action is wrong, and I do not support it.” I cannot abdicate that agency by any oath, any law, any verbal sleight-of-hand. I cannot abdicate it by becoming a police officer. I cannot abdicate it by putting on a bandanna. I have the right to not support any act that violates my conscience, especially if I have not provided informed voluntary consent to supporting that act.
To you currently agree with the vision and actions of every OP group? To the vision and actions of every OP group have to be your visions and approved actions? I am not going to go to Salem. I am not going to lobby my legislator. I don’t care if other people want to do this.
No one is asking anyone to participate in anything that violates their conscience. The ask is that folks are respectful to everyone.
OP never has to approve of any action that calls for property destruction. There principles have nothing to do with property destruction and everything to do with respect.
That said, Principle #4 is controversial. Folks see it as some sort of silencing technique.
My understanding is, if someone were to engage in property destruction as an autonomous act within the cover of an Occupy Portland action, that my saying “this is wrong, let’s go” to my fellow protesters, and walking away (i.e., ceasing to provide cover/support for the autonomous act) would be objectionable. I also understand that acts of destruction that occur in my neighborhood, even against my neighbors and on my street, are events that I am not to interfere with, in any way. Am I correct?
My understanding also is, if someone were to engage in the use of force (of any kind) as an autonomous act, as an autonomous individual among an Occupy Portland action, that I am expected to now consider that area a camera-free zone.
Jess, are you serious with this comment? Where do the principles talk about property destruction?
Enough people consider property destruction violence that I can’t see OP ever approving or condoning property destruction. I just wish enough people saw the state as so violence that they were against collusion with the violent state.
Diversity of tactics is not code for property destruction. Diversity of tactics is about a spectrum of political actions. You want to combat corporate power by holding a teach-in, Joe wants to combat corporate power by lobbying Salem, and I want to combat corporate power by direct action shutting down a corporation for a day? Great. Diversity of tactics.
No, your choosing to engage or not engage is completely voluntary. Where is there any hint that you can’t leave a march (or meeting or event or anything) at any time? Where is there any hint that you have to engage in any specific action or actions for any reason?
These principles are about respect for others intentions. If you organize a quiet march, respect means staying quiet. If a march chooses to stay on the sidewalk, you and your five friends don’t try to take the street. If OP goes to testify about police brutality, you don’t disrupt the meeting. If you are at a march supporting ‘civil disobedience’, you don’t freak when people break the law.
What about the principles as they are worded doesn’t make that clear? What about my explanation doesn’t make that clear?
Where is anything in the principles about being camera free at any time during OP events? Where? There are tricky issues of cameras and the effects on potential state repression. Again they have nothing to do with use of force, violence, property destruction, or breaking windows.
No one I know supports what happened on the 6th. No one I know is urging OP to support actions that involve property destruction. Enough people think breaking windows is violent that I doubt OP ever will condone breaking windows. Again, diversity of tactics isn’t code for breaking windows.
lumen- i’d encourage you to maybe make some specific language in your prop that highlights that fact in a more specific fashion. i think that for many people that phrase “Diversity of tactics” HAS become code for “smashing windows”, and i think that is true for many people on BOTH sides of that argument. might save yourself some headache by clarifying.
(i hope you dont feel like this post is in any way attacking or taking sides in any argument, i just keep seeing the same comments and think that may be a way to alleviate some of that)
Quote from the Occupy Portland website (11/11/11)
“Occupy Portland is a non-violent movement. It has always been a non-violent movement. It will continue to be a non-violent movement.”
Condoning violence is not an option if we want to maintain any credibility with the 99%.
Let’s make sure we all agree with what violence is, first.
OP did say that Property destruction was considered Violence back at a GA in TS in Camp. (but i can see how having moral absolutes are problematic…) Pushing away a kettling barrier (temp fencing) is vastly different to smashing a window but I also respect the idea that it is incredibly powerful to be kettled in peaceful silence/protest as a stand against the injustice.
PS I would film both in context of the whole thing so wear your bandannas mateys if ya got a problem with it! (But NEVER the tactical planning meeting of the action) I fight against lack of transparency and for freedom of press and this movement is open so do you have solidarity for me too?
Great. OP doesn’t condone breaking windows.
Can we talk about other diversity of tactics and respect issues now please and about the actual proposal.
In response to Colin’s questions –
1) Would grabbing a bike rack that another protester was attempting to throw through a window violate these principles?
Yes, in our opinion it would violate Principle 1, but you shouldn’t even find yourself in that hypothetical situation because of Principle 2.
Principle 1 – “Our solidarity will include respect for diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups.” This means even if you disagree with the tactics someone is using, you will respect their right to take action. The second part of P1, respecting the plans of other groups, is fleshed out in Principle 2, “The actions and tactics used will be organized in a way that maintains separation of time or space between divergent tactics.” That means that you wouldn’t engage in property destruction at an immigrant’s rights march where you know it would fuck over people at higher risk of arrest, or you wouldn’t piggy back a black bloc on a march where the organizers have clearly stated it’s low risk. In Portland this also apparently (and somewhat surreally) means that conversely pacifists maybe shouldn’t be going to marches that have been publicized as being open to a diversity of tactics and imposing their tactic of “non-violence” on militants.
Does that make sense? In essence Principle 1 & 2 mean that we get it that folks are coming from different places politically and have different needs, we value those differences and needs, and we’ll show and build solidarity across those political lines by leaving space between our chosen strategies and tactics so they don’t chafe each other.
2) Would livestreaming an action where violence was taking place violate these principles?
Lumen makes a good point here, what kind of violence are you talking about? If you’re talking about livestreaming police beating someone, absolutely not. If you’re talking about livestreaming someone engaging in potentially illegal activity that you may consider violent, yes it would because of Principle 3, “We agree not to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others.”
By livestreaming something (ANYTHING) that could be potential evidence in a criminal prosecution, whether you consider them ‘your people’ or not, you’re assisting law enforcement by providing evidence they can use to bring charges against and imprison someone.
As a (non-lawyer) board member of the Detroit National Lawyers Guild and a founding member of the Midnight Special Law Collective, i encourage EVERYONE with a video camera to think about how the footage they’re shooting could either be used to bring charges against someone or vindicate someone of charges. I strongly encourage people to take videos that get charges dropped, not that assist the state in bringing charges against activists. For more info on how to take legally useful video go to http://midnightspecial.net/materials/other.html and download ‘Shooting the Wounded.’ (Sarah)
3) Would denouncing violence and property destruction on social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter violate these principles? Yes it would because of principle #4. No matter how you slice it, facebook is a public
forum… we know that social networks are being monitored. By publicly distancing ourselves from actions or events within our movement by way of denouncements we are serving the state who wants to divide us. This is in no way intended to stifle debate and constructive criticism on line or otherwise, but a better way to air concerns about sensitive issues such as tactics might be in the context of movement meetings where we are discussing these issues face to face… another way of building trust. This brings up a very important point though about how to use social media in constructive ways which build our movement and don’t shoot us in the foot. Principle #4 was mainly created to avoid the pitfalls of denouncing each other in the mainstream media or public event, but a deeper discussion about social medias is a great idea.
Please remember, these are principles, not laws, designed to help us make decisions based on solidarity.
Hazel, Sarah and Lisa
Thanks for the clarification. Some additional clarification on my part may be helpful.
1) This is not a hypothetical. It is a situation I actually encountered as part of my involvement with Occupy Portland. Obivously in this case principle 2 was not being followed, but it seemed there was some confusion about this particular event. it was sponsored by Vetrans for Peace and had been promoted as a non-violent action, but the people attempting property destruction claimed they had organized it and we were upset we were infringing on their “right” to break windows.
2) This is difficult for two reasons. Firstly, livestreamed video is by definition live and unedited. I have no way to redact footage that is captured by the camera. Secondly, often while filming police violence someone will fight back creating a potentially difficult situation. It is not always possible to point the camera such that you only see what the police are up to.
3) Those same movement meetings would likely be livestreamed, bring up the same issues and creating an environment where transparency and accountability is difficult or impossible to have without violating these principles. I also wonder if debate on these forum pages would be considered “public” and be in violation of principle 4. It sounds like the answer is most likely yes.
Again thanks for the clarifications.
Collin and Sarah,
Thanks for weighing in. I am glad people are interested enough to discuss these.
1) I think there is a ton of controversy around the concept of ‘violence’. I don’t think delineation of events by non-violence terminology is a good way to make clear questions like: Is this safe if I absolutely can’t get arrested? Is this safe to bring my children? I think phases like permitted march only on the sidewalks or family friendly or we call for diversity of tactics are significantly more clear. Again, OP can choose to support or not support any specific event with specific language.
2) Sarah brings up good points about liability issues for livestreamers.
IMHO, Transparency and accountability as a movement, ie non-hierarchical decision making, open decision making, record keeping, etc are valuable. Visual record of easily misreported events is valuable. It’s crazy to go to a large public action and expect NOT to be filmed.
However, let’s be very realistic about the history of law enforcement entrapment. OP has and clearly does support illegal action from the initial camp to F29. Livestream undoubtedly makes is easier for the police to track involvement with illegal protest activity, to build profiles of individuals and groups, and most likely to build grand jury or other cases against activists, although I don’t know if we’ve seen that yet. Some individuals are more vulnerable to law enforcement harassment. I, like others, don’t think law enforcement isn’t corrupt or that we don’t live in an increasingly repressive police state.
In terms of last night’s specific movement building meeting, there were individuals present who were involved with OP, left because they were alienated, and came back for that meeting. They probably won’t be back to an OP event. They might participate in future actions that like the Feb. 6th action, might have negative consequences for OP. There was a possibility of dialogue and collaboration that was lost last night.
I don’t hold discussions being streamed over the internet and recorded out of some sort of sense of ‘transparency’ as more important than the creation of space for dialogue. It want to be able to engage in dialogue with folks who might be more fearful about police repression. There were no decisions being made last night; I am unclear why dialogue that might be potentially incriminating needs to be made public for law enforcement or how that is a value of the movement.
That said, I don’t think discussion about tactics or strategy is violation of principle 4. I think principle 4 is the most potentially controversial. For more on that see above.
I have found following this conversation to be very illuminating, so I thank you both. I think conversations like these are important, so that people in Occupy Portland can understand just what changes they are being asked to make in voting on these principles — especially regarding the Livestream aspect of the culture, as well as the founding principles of peace & non-violence.
Hazel, Sarah, and Lisa,
Thanks for your work and enthusiasm on the Principles. A lot of other folks are supportive of these.
The most controversial piece seems to be Principle 4 and that is why I changed the language to originally have ‘avoid’. Folks have made statements like ‘I won’t swear fealty to OP’ or ‘I won’t be silenced’ and I think there is potential for that principle to seem like a silencing tactic.
I fully support healthy discussion of tactics and strategy and don’t think principle 4 should mean people can’t debate including online debates, publishing online articles, etc. I agree that pragmatically, social media is often used for no good purpose.
I can see a lot of controversy around Principle 4 and also ‘not assisting law enforcement in action against activists’. Would this mean not testifying against an activist in a rape/assault/murder case? Refusing to testify if subpeaneaed and risking jail for contempt of court?
I think the only way Principles 4 and 3 could possibly fly with the whole group is some sort of lessening of strong language.
– Lumen
Then principle 4 has gotta go for starters since prohibiting denouncing of violence of protestors would violate this: “Occupy Portland is a non-violent movement. It has always been a non-violent movement. It will continue to be a non-violent movement.”
If you wish to create some kind of welcoming space for destroying property etc-how about you stop trying to push OP into accepting this, and stop trying to get us to shutdown our people’s cam at Occupy meetings that show your goals DO NOT align with OP?
You are free not to be in nonviolent movements if you do not agree with them.
Are you serious that you think you will get this activist community to approve of violence/destruction/smashing windows-etc just because you give a little space or what one is designated the smash things march and other is the peaceful march? No one stops you from having your own actions along those lines-just don’t call it Occupy, don’t expect to hide among us, and don’t forget a favorite Occupy chant, The Whole World is Watching.
That tactics meeting was the most manipulative facilitation tactics we could ever dream of-manipulating the meeting by monopolizing with speeches from facilitators, not allowing thoughtful discussion from many but only in tightly controlled fishbowl, and all that polling at the beginning-gender identity, income, race, etc, was outrageous and would have cause some walk outs of it’s own. Collin has been a known Occupier since the start, faithfully volunteering countless hours for OP. I think he deserves an apology for the way he was treated at the meeting.
I don’t see how these principles have anything at all to with violence or with property destruction since enough people consider it violence. Diversity of tactics is not code for property destruction. It is code for the spectrum of political action that can include everything from petitioning, lobbying, civil disobedience, etc. Add a 5th principle that OP is non-violent and defines violence as property destruction. Great, then keep the principles and apply them as a way to respect the intentions of actions.
If an event is permitted because the organizers don’t want folks to risk arrest, don’t try to take the street. Conversely if an event calls for direct action, don’t try to stop people from taking the street or u-locking their neck to Wal-mart or whatever. This is respect for diversity or tactics.
Denouncing individuals or events is very, very different then debating tactics or declaring yourself a non-violent movement. If I put out a press release denoucing Collin or you put out a press release denouncing the facilitators from Tuesday night, that would be denoucing individuals. If I got on a microphone at a large rally and said Hanford nuclear site was a good thing so screw A15, that would be denoucing events.
The facilitation Tuesday had it’s good and bad points, yes but there were folks at the meeting who don’t identify as OP but were willing to engage in dialogue with OP. They are a part of the 99%. It was a small concession, imho, to point a camera away from faces. Don’t you think it was a bit manipulative on the part of Collin to film people when people thought their faces were not going to be filmed? Do we make no concessions to engage in dialogue with fellow members of the 99%?
It was a small concession in action, but a tremendous concession in principle. Transparency has always been one of OP’s ideals – supposedly – and to throw that away because someone comes to a public meeting and asks that others not be able to see them is outrageous. If you don’t want to be seen, then hide. That goes for every aspect of public life, not just OP meetings.
I don’t think Collin’s choice was manipulative. I think the request that he not film people was absolutely inappropriate, I think the facilitator’s description of abandoning a long-held and important principle as “being adaptive” verges on newspeak, and I think he probably didn’t know how to respond to the request (or rather, wasn’t given a chance) and attempted to follow his own conscience while doing his best to show deference to the group to minimize open conflict. Frankly, I would have liked him to take a stand on principle and flatly refuse to stop filming, but I support the action he took.
Direct response to:
“Transparency has always been one of OP’s ideals”
Not true in the way you imply.
1. At the third GA (a few days before the initial march and occupation- attended by about 200 people) police joined the tactical break out group and most in the group objected. An in depth discussion ensued at that breakout and at the reconvening of the full GA. If my memory serves, they were asked to leave – at least there was not consensus on that kind of transparency.
2 At that same GA, also after a long discussion (of course) we consensed not to seek a permit nor to make our march route transparent. We kept our march route secret until the morning of the march.
3. The identification of Shemanski Park as the target of the December re-occupation was kept secret until we took the park. There was much discussion in OP about the fact that that was secret, but the dominant opinion clearly supported non-transparency for security and to support tactics.
4. In training of legal observers for OP events, we stress that the focus of LOs is to observe the police so as to document when they beat us or violate our rights. We are not a resource to gather evidence for the state to suppress us.
It is an ideal of OP to have transparency of process and decision making as a component of democracy. It has never been an ideal of OP to have transparency to the police or city in ways that aid them to suppress our movement.
Do not conflate internal with external transparency so as to make our movement more vulnerable to suppression.
“It is an ideal of OP to have transparency of process and decision making as a component of democracy. It has never been an ideal of OP to have transparency to the police or city in ways that aid them to suppress our movement.”
And what about transparency to the public in ways that allow them to observe and follow what’s supposed to be a populist movement?
Remember populism? Remember the 99%?
Security culture is a greater cancer in Occupy than anarchist black blocs have ever been.
I think that this is complete over-reaction on your part. Some folks at the meeting are not comfortable with being on camera. Collin sat quietly while the room came to a casual agreement around not filming faces during fishbowl. The folks watching on their computers were still able to get sound to know what’s going on, and the folks in the fishbowl were able to feel a little online anonymity – as was agreed to by the group. Collin completely abused his position by continuing to film without notifying the group that their decision was not being held to by him.
He was rightfully called out for that abuse.
I also think the facilitators did an incredible job of facilitating and incredibly complex discussion. This isn’t something that can be done “GA style”. This requires a more nuanced approach and the polling at the beginning did a world of good to allow all of use to recognize the different perspectives within the group.
It’s extremely lame of you to think “that’s not the way we’ve done discussions before so we can’t possibly do it differently”.
I believe Collin’s apology was sufficient and I hold no grudge. I hope others also accept it and move on as well. But hopefully those who don’t want to be on camera mask up so that we don’t have to continue encountering these idealogical battles around a 24-hr recorded, accessible revolution vs strength through anonymity.
I don’t believe there was a group decision as to not filming the meeting, nor faces. The facilitator made the group decision. You can see it right on film;)
Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with the attack of “extremely lame of you” but we can let that one slide for the sake of the point being made.
Contempt will prompt fighting and defensiveness. Your point will be heard better without contempt.
It would be wise for facilitators to at least be familiar with how discussions have been done so as to know how words like “agreement” translate in the practices we have been doing, not the agreement of the facilitator and a few others only. Also is useful to use the elements that work well and not abandon them for sake of experimenting. This is very relevant because many saw that basic respect for “including the voices” appear to be trampled through ignoring or being unfamiliar with, or not using the methods that work for getting voices heard and building community. Livestreamers ARE participants, are listening and watching and contributing-something that was not supported in the tactics meeting-except by Collin and Brian and the others who were not given “voice.”
You weren’t in the room. Most hands did an uptwinkle when we discussed the position of the camera on the floor.
I’d like anyone to challenge that claim that was there.
Most Senators uptwinkled the NDAA. It violates some of the fundamental principles this country was founded on, but I guess that’s what you’d call being “adaptive”… right?
No one should have made that request, and no one should have supported it. Transparency and access were fundamental parts of Occupy from the beginning, and for good reason. You cannot claim the moral high ground to accuse the MSM of bias when you pick and choose what is convenient for the public to see. You cannot hope to gain the support and involvement of the public when you treat them as outsiders and withhold information.
Diversity of Tactics and the St Paul Principles are not about promoting violence. They are about promoting solidarity.
Consider it from the other side:
I am working with the Portland Mayday Coalition. This is not an OP group – it has been working on organizing mayday demonstrations in Portland for many years.
The Portland Mayday Coalition has, for some years, organized fully legal, permitted family-friendly events that are safe for attendance by undocumented workers who face deportation if they are arrested. We want to have a similar large rally and march this year with tens of thousands of participants.
Occupy Portland openly engages in illegal activity! Righteously so – these things being declared illegal says nothing about justice.). We have been involved in many confrontations with the police and they arrest us and charge us with criminal illegal activity.
The St. Paul Principles establish a framework for the Portland Mayday Coalition to securely sponsor a safe and legal event without being threatened by Occupy Portland engaging in illegal activity (like, for example, occupying another space would clearly be).
Well, I am going to jump into this. There is way too much focus on tactics around here, and not enough on strategy. A tactic is useless if it does not move you toward your goal; if it does not fit with other tactics as part of your strategy. I can envision circumstances where violence might induce progress, but I doubt it would ever be essential or even the best path.
In a recent Occupier article, Arlo the Tent talked compared the Weathermen and the Lord of the Flies blocs. I have no use for Lords of the Flies, and frankly have no use for those that see some tactic as a marvelous achievement, standing alone, in isolation from everything else that is going on.
Of course we need “a diversity of tactics”. But they all need to be supporting the same goal. And if you think this movement will advance without popular support, you are naive. We are fighting an opponent that has all the guns and money. All we have is people. Violence hardly ever attracts more people..
I can’t imagine a reason ever that any occupier needs to express violence towards others or towards property. If we are in solidarity with Wallstreet and Occupy worldwide, why would we ever debate this? I am quite confused as to why we are discussing the need for violence. I can see tactics as a method for progress, but this can’t include violence. When has violence actually worked at driving change?
We’re not discussing the need for violence. We’re discussing the need for people to feel comfortable confronting the police on a less than “sit-cross-legged-on-the-floor” way. This can include barricades, shields, and throwing gas canisters back at the cops. No one thinks throwing a brick through a restaurant window is a good solution at the moment and it was a younger, less experienced person that did the autonomous action. This is a moment of education for all of us about what we’re are and aren’t willing to tolerate and what that looks like written out as agreements.
Are you sure “comfortable” is the word you’re looking for?
great and sweeping social/economic change is uncomfortable as a whole. no one is denying that. however, yes i chose “comfortable” because if we don’t create understanding between us, then we have no hope of moving forward.
FYI the only face you could see in the fishbowl was the facilitator (sorta) Its livestream peeps in a big space!! The only clear view was the persons butt who stood in front of cam needlessly (also muffling sound…)
Bleh, I’m tired of this discussion. There are ALL KINDS of ways for peeps of every stripe to GET INVOLVED. I myself don’t typically do “sit-in” type direct actions as I don’t seek arrest, yet you may see me (and have in the past) confronting and acting as a barrier to the riot piggies outside that sit-in, still some threat of arrest and often times more “violent”. And yet a third person could be acting as a credible witness OUTSIDE the confrontation. Those people may the most important of all in future legal proceedings. Incidentally, property damage could occur in this type of scenario. Who would be at fault? The police, us, both? Depends on your perspective likely. I made my feelings known about the damage to the cars at that march. If I came out of my house and saw some fool kid busting my car window………..
For Chris and others, it’s awesome that you can come and go through the movement in “complete transparency”. But some of us can’t, for a number of different valid reasons. Maybe some of us felt we could before and now can’t because of personal attacks by the trolls of the MSM made against us. Livestreamers are not effing CNN reporters homes. Real persecution and prosecution of this movement has hardly even BEGUN. I’d like to get my own “best practices” down before that begins if you don’t mind. I personally trust Colin and am pretty sure he would understand the nuances involved here. The facilitator in that meeting made a gut-level decision to try to keep the discussion flow going. It enabled some people’s voices to be heard and that was good enough for me.