Loomio

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..

https://natgat2014.titanpad.com/20
(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?

LFS

Les from Sacramento Sun 6 Jul 2014 4:03PM

To help move the discussion, here is the 99Rise Statement of Nonviolence:
1. We will use no violence, verbal or physical, toward any person.
2. We will maintain an attitude of openness and respect toward all we encounter in our actions.
3. We will not destroy or damage any property.
4. We will carry no weapons or any means of physical defense, including shields.
5. We will not wear masks or otherwise conceal our faces or identities.
6. We will exercise personal and collective responsibility to ensure all participants adhere to this agreement.

99Rise was well received in Sacramento, in large part because they treated everyone, including legislators and law enforcement with respect. Number 5 might be problematic for NatGat since use of masks has been accepted by the Occupies since the beginning of time. What about adopting the other parts of the statement?

J

Jackrabbit Sun 6 Jul 2014 4:30PM

I just wrote this up:

Occupy National Gathering Statement on Non-Violence

This document is not a judgement on tactics of violence as a means of achieving goals.

It refers only to the behavior of the participants of the 2014 National Gathering while they are engaged in NatGat activities and within official Nat Gat event spaces.

It is intended to facilitate a safe space for all participants as well as to respect the integrity of the local organizers and their environment.

On violence
Violence is defined ONLY for purposes of this document as the following:
Physical assault on a person or property
Defacement/destruction of public or private property while it is being used for purposes of NatGat activities

No violence will be tolerated by NatGat participants while engaged in NatGat activities. There will be a zero tolerance policy. If persons are violent (as defined in this document) they will forfeit their right to participate in NatGat activities subject to review (process tbd) by the organizers.

If no process of review is established by the time of the Nat Gat the exclusion will be for the entire remainder of the event.

About this document
This document makes no attempt to judge or define those who use/advocate violence outside of the scope of NatGat and NatGat events. It is intended purely to facilitate a safe space for participants and maintain the integrity of the local community. It is not open for debate and has been agreed to by the NatGat planning committee a public group whose meetings have been open and based on consensus.

J

Jackie Sun 6 Jul 2014 4:59PM

Thanks, @les @jackrabbit! These are a great start.

I particularly like the inclusion of verbal in the definition of violence. and yeah, #5 would have to go. Verbal violence does as much, if not far more, damage than physical, imo. (and lasts longer in the psyche).

How about a melded doc with the points listed above and the statement, outlining consequences, below.

Non-violence is agreed to in the OWS Community Agreements

We enter each OWS space with a commitment to:
mutual respect and support
anti-oppression
conflict resolution
nonviolence towards each other
direct democracy
http://www.nycga.net/resources/documents/occupy-wall-street-community-agreement/

J

Jackrabbit Sun 6 Jul 2014 5:40PM

@jackie I would like to suggest that we avoid joining together the two documents and instead have two separate ones.

My reasoning is this: As we've seen in the past, the tactic of violence can be very controversial. IMHO, it is best to keep reference to it as simple and clear as possible and to keep it limited within a very specific scope.

I totally appreciate Les' input, but would suggest that, because it touches on multiple issues, it is more open to interpretation and debate as well as increases the scope of the doc. It can be accepted as its own bit which deals with more specific behaviors relating to violence.

Thanks!

T

Tricia Mon 7 Jul 2014 11:28AM

I like jackrabbit's version. it's specific to the gathering and clearly lays out expectations and consequences.

J

Poll Created Tue 22 Jul 2014 2:30PM

Adapt Occupy National Gathering Statement on Non-Violence Closed Wed 30 Jul 2014 2:09PM

Occupy National Gathering Statement on Non-Violence

This document is not a judgement on tactics of violence as a means of achieving goals.

It refers only to the behavior of the participants of the 2014 National Gathering while they are engaged in NatGat activities and within official Nat Gat event spaces.

It is intended to facilitate a safe space for all participants as well as to respect the integrity of the local organizers and their environment.

On violence
Violence is defined ONLY for purposes of this document as the following:
Physical assault on a person or property
Defacement/destruction of public or private property while it is being used for purposes of NatGat activities

No violence will be tolerated by NatGat participants while engaged in NatGat activities. There will be a zero tolerance policy. If persons are violent (as defined in this document) they will forfeit their right to participate in NatGat activities subject to review (process tbd) by the organizers.

If no process of review is established by the time of the Nat Gat the exclusion will be for the entire remainder of the event.

About this document
This document makes no attempt to judge or define those who use/advocate violence outside of the scope of NatGat and NatGat events. It is intended purely to facilitate a safe space for participants and maintain the integrity of the local community. It is not open for debate and has been agreed to by the NatGat planning committee a public group whose meetings have been open and based on consensus.

Results

Results Option % of points Voters
Agree 88.9% 8 J J T SG DH TF O CD
Abstain 0.0% 0  
Disagree 11.1% 1 LFS
Block 0.0% 0  
Undecided 0% 46 M FW J LS TL JH J P JC KAF L C CG K LRR UB CM CS DB A

9 of 55 people have participated (16%)

J

Jackie
Agree
Tue 22 Jul 2014 2:31PM

Agree, but I would like to see Verbal non-violence included.

J

Jackrabbit
Agree
Tue 22 Jul 2014 2:34PM

It is clear and to the point. Broader rules for right behavior should be agreed to in a separate document.

T

Tricia
Agree
Tue 22 Jul 2014 5:47PM

#OpAhimsa - Ahimsa is a multidimensional concept, inspired by the premise that all living beings have the spark of the divine spiritual energy, to hurt another being is to hurt oneself

LFS

Les from Sacramento
Disagree
Mon 28 Jul 2014 6:21PM

First, the proposal doesn't include prohibition of verbal nonviolence. Second, I don't understand the proposal. It provides that violence has two definitions, which seem to be in conflict. (See below)

Load More