Have we adopted a clear policy of nonviolence? If so, where can I find it?

J Jackie Public Seen by 37

This is an important enough subject, I am moving it here from the email list. Besides the clear policy of nonviolence that Les asks about, we still need to get out a statement about what natgat is and what this community is aligned with. Who will help do that?

my reply and Les's question:
Subject: [NG-2014] Nonviolence (from Les in Sac)

This has been spoken and understood on calls from early on. However, there has been no official statements of any kind. I think folks gave up on it. For whatever reasons, this year's group has been unable to align on the few early submissions, and hasn't generated or found the energy to follow up. Or it got lost in the shuffle, so really glad you asked. We really should issue a statement about what natgat is and the shared values we adhere to.

Anyone up for taking on this task? (as always, collaborative doc, bring to group for final agreement) there's plenty of material and it would help to promote natgat. We could still have a "launch", coordinated media blitz, email to 8-10K Occupy announcements contact list.

Previous years there were Proposals of Endorsement. Early on this year, Brian Heater wrote a Unity statement, which included 15 principles, one of which was Nonviolence.

and there are some great ideas from Gandalf:

this gathering should
promote unity, solidarity and community within Occupy.

illustrate and model the horizontal, inclusive, consensus-driven, love-centered community ethos which Occupy has come to represent. give every equal citizen within Occupy an opportunity to express his or her individual views, so that everyone knows that their thoughts and opinions have been heard and honored.

Finally, we must hope that this national-gathering will serve to build bonds of friendship, trust and cooperation, across the nation of Occupy, and that this gathering will act to bring us together, so that we might discover fresh perspectives and new paradigms which will move Occupy into the future..

(at bottom of this doc are some excerpts from and links to previous proposals)

Les Kleinberg 7-4, wrote:
Have we adopted a clear policy of nonviolence. If so, where can I find it?


Toad Ficca
Tue 29 Jul 2014 2:09PM

I wholeheartedly cannot commit violence, however, I am not sure that at times it may not become necessary, and for some situations, it brings necessary attention. I cannot do it myself, however.


Cal Fri 25 Jul 2014 1:05PM

IMO, verbal violence needs to be covered.


Jackrabbit Fri 25 Jul 2014 7:41PM

@oswgwhe Please refrain from comments that are not germane to the topic.

It is a simple thing to start a new topic thread that addresses your particular concerns.

By keeping the comments directly relevant to the proposal it helps to keep that proposal focused and easily understandable.

Thank you for your consideration.


Jackie Fri 25 Jul 2014 8:26PM

oh, did you mean this lovely verbal threat received on the ng-2014 list?



@oswgwhe I don't even have the breathe left to address your statements - so many LIES - there is just not enough time.
Some of us have work to do.

also Sea, what is your last name?

LIE: He blocked the Native Americans and ethnic sensitivity in 2012 and 2013 and he’s messing with William Underbaggage this year.
@larryswetman @brandiwilliams -2012

LIE: He’s trying to paralyse us by getting Delphine and Sally to have it that three people from three different Occupies are required before a proposal can be made.
@delphinebrody @sallyg

nobody gets anybody to do anything. this is Occupy - for the record, Sally, Delphine and Cal spent many many hours (guessing 100) to work on the Decision Making Process requested by the group in January, and re-requested when indeed right here on loomio folks were asking for a decision making process.

p.s.to me, that is a very good and wise proposal - how many GAs have all of you seen where one person co-opts the entire GA. Having 2,3 proposers gives more weight to the proposal and shows some serious thought and collaboration prior to proposing.

with our GAs. - who's being non-inclusive now.

Sorry to post something not germane to the topic, Jackrabbit. I cannot abide LIES.

Opinions are one thing - don't be stating things as facts.

and finally, what sort of cowardice is this:
Proof will be provided on the ground in Sacramento if he shows up.

You mean you and the cowardly group spouting this nonsense get to decide when and where and IF the rest of Occupy gets proof? of liable? bullshit!

I am officially demanding proof be provided IN WRITING or you cease and desist from further disruption of this group.


Brandi Williams Fri 25 Jul 2014 8:43PM

What the heck kind of paranoid psychopath email is this.? what is the about... Geez, this is sad shit and the epitome of why so many smart occupiers took what we have learned from the last few years experience and moved on to make things happen, I.e. Accomplishment is actual social change... Who wrote this? Super crazy occupy nonsense...moving on. After the event these folks will be on to complaining about their next set of comrades...that pitch in to help.... ;) 💩


Sally G Sat 26 Jul 2014 12:15AM

The rationale for the 3-group (or 3-person, if a single large Occupy) was very simple—do your work before you get to GA. If a team has already formed in support, it is an indication of a wider range of interest. Certainly, it should not be necessary in a proposal in direct response to something arising out of a discussion, as everyone is already informed. However, if one takes the time to come to a regional or national event, or has a group that is large enough that all do not know each other well, then some advance work saves the larger group time. That is all that was intended. It actually makes it easier for those who are uncomfortable in speaking up at a GA, as they can enlist copresenters who will help them craft the proposal and speak it; those who just want to hear themselves speak will be slowed down a bit by needing to get some folks to agree with them first.


Sally G Mon 28 Jul 2014 1:54AM

This was designed for a multitude of purposes—including making decisions on the calls, including to be a model for any Occupy group that CHOOSES to use it or their own modification. I am neither married nor opposed to it being discussed at the gathering; although, as I think of it, I would like to see an open-space workshop to discuss it after the many hours of work it involved. I am distressed that it did not get more discussion on any platform; hate to think it was all wasted time.


Cal Mon 28 Jul 2014 5:54AM

I'm a bit confused. Which proposal are we talking about now? This discussion is about a policy of nonviolence.


Jackrabbit Mon 28 Jul 2014 5:46PM

The proposal is in the right column.

In the interest of the group, please keep any further comments in this thread focused on that proposal?

Thank you.


Jackie Mon 28 Jul 2014 5:50PM

Please see thread:
Meetings, Calls, Unfinished Business - Please Weigh In!!!

to arrange another call to decide on this proposal. Les of Sac first brought this to the group's attention. 7 people here clearly approve. Let's have a statement of non-violence to offer from the NGWG.

Load More