Notes On Dissent 1/19-1/20-1-21/03
RW Spisak Jr.
Notes on Dissent 1/19/03
Friends and Colleagues;
I raise this topic, because I see signs of a problem arising
and I would like to suggest we consider it before it limits
our ability to organize or cooperate.
I will try to describe some scenarios, that have already
occurred and how we might resolve or diminish there impact.
I think that gaming the scenarios might be productive.
This may allow us to explore alternatives solutions
before it deteriorates and becomes disruptive.
Scenario One: Stupid and Offensive Signs
-------------------------------------------------------
A "Sign Carrier" arrives at a "Press Conference"
or Demonstration that offends one or more of our constituencies.
(We're an umbrella organization - we have a variety
of Coalition Members with a variety of Sensibilities)
These could range from mere MISSPELLINGS [English Teachers
might wish to Correct] to Vulgar or Truly Offensive
Neo-Fascists for Peace, Vivisectionists for Peace, or
The sign or might be "ON-OUR-SIDE" but expressing an unpopular
or fractious side issue or carrying an a sign that might be
ill-considered or offensively stated. "F**k Bush", or "Abortionists
for Peace" or "NAZI's for UN Inspections".
maybe they would be amenable to reasonableness and dialogue
but I want to address those situations where they are not prepared
to accept our critique. Vulgar and offensive illustrations should also
be considered in this category. While the majority of the activist community
can be "counted" on to display some sensitivity to the beliefs and values
of others, some due to the "open recruitment' of the "counter culture"
communities; it would seem inevitable that there will be some
broadly offensive signage coming to a protest near you.
Scenario Two: Stupid and Offensive Dialogues
----------------------------------------------------------------
A demonstrator (ostensibly who shares generally an anti-war stand)
might decide that he/she would shout obscenely at those who object
to our anti-war protest - yelling at cars, exchanging hand gestures
with passing motorists engaging in abusive exchanges. While they
are "on our side" they fail the diplomatic test, and resort
to "gutter exchanges" rather than taking the high road of pleasant
bon ami, and good natured, polite exchange.
Scenario Three: Counter Demonstrations/Demonstrators/Provacateurs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
While some might wish counter demonstrators be kept
at arms length, and we might even anticipate that a sympathetic
law enforcement officer might assist us in isolating or separating
two counter demonstrating groups; (Miami Police certainly
have experience, in such scenarios) we might find ourselves
with a less than sympathetic law enforcement team, whose
sympathies lie more with the counter demonstration, than with
our "anti-war" message and might decline to separate
or even turn a "blind eye" to friction that might be generated.
Should the war fever increase, there will be counter demonstrators
we should game - out what a range of "preferred" tactics would represent
the "optimum" response. We are all human, all have our own unique
limits of tolerance of insult and abuse. I would suggest that we
should begin to discuss what techniques we would endorse as a group
to diffuse these situations and develop some strategies for reducing
the "temperature" of any such confrontation.
In Summary
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We have been fortunate that these issues have only begun to arise
and I think it productive that we discuss and prepare some general guidelines
that we might "aim at" as the optimum response in such situations.
Realizing that we are all subject to conditioned responses that few can
resist even temporarily.
Points Proposed for Consideration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. We are dissenters - we should be compassionate and understanding
that a broad range of opinion are welcome and necessary
2. We cannot have a board or commission to "clear" or "certify" what signs
or messages
are approved or are appropriate.
3. While we might hope that all anti-war protesters, uphold the highest standards
of decorum and dialogue - in reality that is unrealistic
and ultimately as offensive to free speech as those who would
"hide us" and censor our speech offensive to the warring class.
4. While it might be hoped, that all who joined us at a given protest on
a public
street might be attentive, to the most delicately offended
among us, this is also unrealistic, impractical and generates
more potential for disruption which only weakens what must of
necessity be a broad coalition of opinions.
5. While one might hope that those whose dialogue or signage is confrontational
or deemed offensive, might be amenable to a well reasoned
critique of their message, it is impractical to demand
adherence to some standard official message.
6. Dissent is by its nature ultimately confrontational, and it would behoove
us
to keep all of our interaction with counter demonstrators
as low key, polite and "cool" as possible.
7. Freedom to protest, freedom to speak, freedoms that we demand, must be
not
only for those who agree with us, but we above all must
understand, that as we require such freedoms, it is incumbent
that we support the rights of our fellow citizens to dissent
as well. If we fail to welcome other such "contrarian" opinions
then we fall to the miserable hypocrisy of other sunshine patriots,
who will grant you every right, as long as you do not choose
to exercise it.
8. Development of a team for confrontation reduction. These must be examples
of tolerance
with long, long slow fuses, and the ability to calm, and defuse
tense situations. We should try to identify those among us
who have these rare skills, and I would say, these are almost entirely
non-self selecting. I think it worthwhile for this group to begin some
"gaming exercises" that might prove useful should our efforts
continue. Once OVERT hostilities commence, our current ranks will swell,
as will the ranks of those who oppose us generally.
Invariably this will exacerbate each of the potential problems
I've outlined.
In Summation: Proactive discussion, dialogue about sensitivities, discussion
of optimal tactics
which might be employed to engage "friendly" as well as counter demonstrators
would be useful. Since this movement is young many of these problems have
just begun to surface. Although some of us have had experience with these
issues before.
Problem: Dissent Correctness
Solutions: Should be discussed then implemented
Suggestions and Tactics Discussed and Deployed
"We must hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately"
Ben Franklin
In Solidarity with my peace loving friends and colleagues
Rick Spisak
miamiforpeace.org
end of part I
sent out at 5:09pm
===========================================================================================================
REACTION1
received 6:38pm
Rick -
A very well thought out message. Language (signs and verbal) as well
as messages on signs can
affront some but be the freedom of expression of others. Censorship
is not high on my list
(nor yours from the tenor of this e-mail). It is unfortunate that the
press always picks up
on the most "offensive sign/language" used at a public display. I would
hope the group
consciousness would dictate what is best for the group but I hesitate in
having any person(s)
make those decisions.
As an example, I am (you have not yet met me but will as soon as this trial
is over) very much
in favor of freedom for Palestine. I find there are situations when
expressing that is not
appropriate in the context of time or place and distracts from the issues
at hand, i.e., war -
what is it good for - nothing.
As to confrontation, well, I work in litigation and go to court. Nothing
has ever been solved
by screaming at another or arguing endlessly unless one is before a judge
(and then I strongly
suggest not yelling).
I merely make a point at having, for the officer, a brief statement of my
rights to demonstrate
as provided for in the Bill of Rights, backed up by a few case law citations.
(These rights
may not exist much longer but for now they do). However, for the lay
person wishing to
confront me at a demonstration, I find it best to merely walk away.
That person is a distraction.
I want to reach as many people as possible, not spend an hour arguing with
someone who has decided
to confront me - trust me, that person's mind will not be changed.
Anyway, from years of Vietnam protests and subsequently more years of protests
for animal rights,
those are my humble thoughts.
Mary Lou
END REACTION1
===========================================================================================================
REACTION2
Received 10:15pm
Well said Rick. I stand beside you in your desire to allow others to express
themselves
in ways that we might not agree with...
Noel
END REACTION2
===========================================================================================================
REACTION3
RECEIVED 10:36pm
Hi Rick,
Passed his on to Carol at5 the Coaliton for Peace and Justice. These
are very real concerns,
and she had some ideas on how to handle. I think she'll respond to
you email.
Paula and Stan
END REACTION3
===========================================================================================================
REACTION4
RECEIVED 11:31pm
Dear Rick
I am gld that you sent this message around, but it is despicable when a man
in high office
i.e. a Rabbai shows up and use foul and indecent language to a protester.
Some people should
have the decency to make comments in proper language.
The entire behaviour of the Rabbai from Temple Israel sickened me and many
people who heard
his !Littany of foul language!.
Perhaps you can talk to me if you would like to know more.
What a pity that out rally was hijacked.
Halima
END REACTION4
===========================================================================================================
REACTION5
RECEIVED 3:36am
Dear Group:
Thanks for all your excellent efforts to keep the anti-war efforts on the
front-burner
even in frigid circumstances.
I have a few comments about Rick’s discussion on dissent.
I agree completely with Rick’s identification of the situation,
but not completely with his solutions.
Yes, while we must try to cooperate and tolerate a number of positions that
we might
personally disagree, we should not necessarily be the testing ground
for slogans,
sloganeering or hate speech that demeans, insults, or provokes nor speech
that brings
our group ill repute.
This country has a long history of quelling dissent like ours, by using agent
provocateurs
to divide and conquer movements, to isolate them from potential supporters
and to go against
them legally. Our first rally acknowledged these possibilities by creating
a security team
that would quickly deal with these isolated incidents by encouraging (in
some cases somewhat
robustly) those practices that cause potential harm to our organization and
what we stand
for before they got out of hand.
Tolerance should be promoted, but not to the point where it undermines who
we are and what
we stand for, or creates a potential legal or physical danger to our organization.
When we run an activity, we are under no obligation to provide a platform
to elements
with whom we vociferously disagree. That is not tolerance, but naiveté.
We certainly
need to balance the interests in building a broad coalition encompassing
many ideas with
those few individuals who, intentionally or not, do harm to our cause.
We do ourselves and our principles no favors when we allow neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic
and other
hate-mongering elements to participate alongside us.
This is my opinion. I think this is worthy of discussion, although
my personal appearance
at meetings for a little while will be difficult.
David
END REACTION5
===========================================================================================================
RESPONCE to #4
WRITTEN 6:46AM
I took a few minutes to write a reply
but I thought you raised such a good issue that
I used your letter to try to explain the additional problem
of Negative Speech from the podium.
When I sent it out - I removed your name and email address
so that any concerns you raised would only be known between you and I
but everyone would have a chance - both to hear the question
and read the answer - if they're interested.
thanks for your comments - hopefully - it will remind people
when they are honored by our Peace Podium
they should stay positive - I find it sad - how often people have these ready
excuses
for their own bad behavior - and how they can blame it on this and that.
I said, at the meeting last night - didn't your mother ever tell you to
"play nice - with the other children" sometime - we all need reminded
- thank you
solidarity & peace
rick
END RESPONCE to #4
===========================================================================================================
REACTION6
RECEIVED 7:38am
Dear Richard,
Thank you for your excellent message. As one of the half-million peace people
at the D.C. march and rally Saturday, I agree that offensive and counterproductive
signage/speech/behavior can hurt our cause. I also agree we need reason,
dialog and
confrontation reduction. I'd be happy to join any team in South Florida working
to achieve these aims.
Peace, love and solidarity,
Suzanne Smither, Boca Raton
END REACTION6
===========================================================================================================
part II NOTES ON DISSENT
SENT 9:26AM - 1/20/03
These are complex issues, and they must be raised
in an arena where; the activist community is composed of
idiosyncratic individualists with a wide range of interests, and issues
who need to work cooperatively sharing responsibilities
- and that often goes against the grain
We activists, are specifically focused sensitized and typically
are ready to speak our minds. Which is one kind of civic virtue.
Its complement virtue is when joining together for some great purpose,
we all must row in the same direction. This is an equally important civic
virtue.
The challenge of organizing free-thinkers, progressives, along with
atheists, deists, and the good hearted religious among us, of so many
colorful stripes and flavors. Hindus, muslims, taoists, nativists, christians
of various denominations, all to combine and build a functioning coalition.
This exercise requires a different set of social muscles. Learning cooperation
and sensitivity "detoxification" is important if we're going to walk along
together
toward a more peaceful future. Right Now.
It would takes less than a minute to find a serious person who can
honestly say
"FIRST SOLVE MY PROBLEM" - then we'll talk about War Plans
and that is fine!
Whether the Great Terrible First Task is
cancer -
hunger -
racism -
communism - genocide
fidel -
putin -
bush -
aids -
enron -
illiteracy - housing
- homelessness - health
access - heart aches
homelessness - immigration
- weather
- abandoned children - high speed cars
insurance - evolution
- abortion -
disasters - the blues
zionism -
reparations - biowaste
- medical experiments - poetry
gene therapy - toxic chemicals - economic justice
- teenage pregnancy - sports
tobacco - ozone layer
- genetic diversity - art
- music
global economic inequities
And if the answer is easy, then the "perfect cause" must come first!
And that's fine in my book.! If that's true for you, well then do that
first!
But, if your here for peace, then grab an oar, brother, grab an oar sister
and try not to bump the oarsman next to you!
solidarity & peace
rick
miamiforpeace.org
END PART2
===========================================================================================================
REACTION7
RECEIVED 10:07
I have no idea how I got on this email list, but was interesting to read,
and couldn't
help putting in my 2cents.
comment: Remember that violence is the language of the unheard, as
profanity is the
language of the ignorant or the illiterate
alr
END REACTION7
===========================================================================================================
REACTION1 - PART2
RECEIVED 10:23AM
Rick - I can't believe this is true and should have been checked out before
passing around.
The "member" didn't have the courage to sign his name let alone spell things
correctly.
I think you should talk to others, and the rabbi if it is true.
Paula and Stan Pred
END REACTION2
===========================================================================================================
REACTION8
RECEIVED 11:17am
More thoughts on Dissent issues
While it is impossible to control everything that happens at a demonstration,
it is not correct to assume that no control is possible or correct. In my
discussion,
I am excluding attacks from outsiders (counter demonstrators or police)
on the demonstration but rather looking inside the area the demonstration
claims as its.
The organizers of the demonstration have rights and obligations. It is
clear who the organizers are and they have the indisputable right and obligation
to control the podium and the microphone. Who gets on stage to some extent
controls
what is said. Time allowances are gently and firmly enforced as well as themes.
Clearly a hook to pull someone off should not be necessary if prior decisions
were made as to who would get the mike. Most of us would not disagree with
the organizers
controlling the podium and mike.
The further from the podium the more difficult the decisions. However, the
rights
and obligations don’t cease to exist for the organizers just because the
persons
are not trying to get the podium mike.
Already some decisions are made as to who can set up tables within the area
that
is perceived as demonstration area.
So too do signs, behavior, encounters, and other literature come under the
purview
of the organizers.
How the group behaves is a reflection of the group. Media and others are
not going
to make hairsplitting comments that there were some in the group who didn’t
represent
the group. We are lucky if they cover the demonstration at all.
How the group is perceived influences how the message that the organizers
wish to
get out is received.
It is well within the rights and obligations of the organizing group to mediate
who is not reflecting the prior agreed upon themes. A reasonable perimeter
can be
agreed upon by the organizers. It might even be flexible, as it might extend
with
a growing group of supporters. But a distance from the last "faithful" demonstrator
to where the others can stand alone or with their group could be agreed upon
within the organization and announced periodically during housekeeping.
Those who are distracting from the aims of the demonstration can be urged
to join
the cause or move without the perimeter.
Certainly, it is impossible to control all reactions and all perceptions
but
the core group knows what the flavor and themes and impressions it wishes
to promote.
The core group has a right to actively work to those ends. Furthermore,
it has an obligation to the others who come to promote those ends and to
attempt
to maintain the atmosphere conducive to such objectives.
The demonstration is alive and can’t be entirely controlled but that shouldn’t
mean that anything and everything must be tolerated.
Peace and love need to be more than a wish.
Brad
END REACTION8
===========================================================================================================
REACTION9
RECEIVED 12:02PM
Thank you for sharing this missive with me. Thank you for your energetic
participation
in a cause I have no energy for because of my work with students. I
try in my present
position as an educator to promote the cause of peace. I hope your
activisim is potent
and with as little harm as possible to yourself and your compatriots.
See you around the campus.
Marcia
END REACTION9
===========================================================================================================
REACTION10
RECEIVED 12:38PM
Excellent point, there are more conservatives joining the peace movement
and we have to have as many people opposed to this war as possible
involved together to accomplish peace and to have our Bill of Rights to
be fully restored.
Peace and Love,
Claire
END REACTION10
===========================================================================================================
REACTION11
RECEIVED 12:49PM
IMO this would be an excellent discussion for The
Peace Bus group. If you're interested in a list which
is devoted to drafting and carrying out strategic
efforts within the progressive culture, accept the
invite you'll get soon from ThePeaceBus.
Nathan
END REACTION11
===========================================================================================================
REACTION12
RECEIVED 1:24PM
Rick - This is another note after talking to Sandy. I learned that
Rabbi Chefitz
was not even at the rally, and now know who spoke. Unfortunately, your
attempt
at setting some ground rule for speakers sounded like a continuation of the
"concerned member's" comments. It was well intended, thought out and
expressed.
I agree with everything you said but....it sounds like you are talking about
the
rabbi because it follows that note. Rabbi Chefitz has fine reputation
in this
community as both clergy, an author and an intellectual, responsible
leader.
We feel so bad that some people receiving this corresspondence will think
it was him that spoke because it appears that way. We know now that
was not
the intention and your points are well taken, but others will have the same
reaction we did, and much damage will result. We don't need more antisemitism
in these terrible times, and have much to do to attempt to bring about change.
Please let people know there was a gap, you were trying not to use names,
and it was not Rabbi Chefitz speaking, so he will not be thought of poorly.
Really feel terrible about this and the impressions it gave.
Thank you,
Paula and Stan Pred
END REACTION12
===========================================================================================================
REACTION13 to (REACTION4 Issues)
RECEIVED 2:16PM
Must have missed the Rabbi from Temple Israel--the only person I saw chewing
out someone over a sign was Jack, who is from Temple Israel but is hardly
a rabbi.
Is that the incident the writer was referring to?
BTW, these notes on dissent are good and I hope really helpful, and it would
be
a good thing to circulate them frequently in one form or another. Some "militants"
are harder on similar activists from a different camp than they are on people
who are truly opposed to peace. Also, one way to find out provocateurs
is to
ask for standards of civility and cooperation--they can't go along very well,
for obvious reasons, and begin to stand out.
Peace,
--Warren
END REACTION13
===========================================================================================================
REACTION14 to (REACTION 13)
RECEIVED 2:22PM
nice point
about the provocateurs - certainly have seen them in the past
and if we're "forced" to keep up the anti-war actions
they will join us in NUMBERS
I am hoping by raising the issues now
we can maybe forge a "civility" consensus
thanks for your support
solidarity & peace
rick
END REACTION14
===========================================================================================================
REACTION15
RECEIVED 2:25PM
Right on. You're MY kind of peace creep.
Regards,
Ed
END REACTION15
REACTION16 to (REACTION 12)
RECEIVED 2:35PM
I decided to keep the members name (out of) the issue.
Whether true or mis-heard the issue it raises of
(self-criticism) I thought could be included in a discussion
of how we "dissenters" handle dissent and other related
tactical concerns. As the events get larger and temper flare,
I wanted to encourage the discussion among the activist community
so that any ad hoc reactions could be "flavored " by some
consideration of optimum responses. and the sensitivities likely
to be bruised.
And ask the activist community to carefully weigh our presentations
and reactions to the range of humanity and opinion that shares this
great big stage with us (Its the stage manager in me) too many years
back stage - I guess
solidarity & peace
rick
END REACTION16
===========================================================================================================
REACTION17 to (REACTION4)
RECEIVED 3:05PM
Please forward to "concerned member"
Your letter which has been sent out widely is
inflamatory, misrepresentative, MISINFORMED and LIBELOUS.
I hope you will send out a retraction immediately before
you seriously damage the reputation of an outstanding community leader!
RABBI CHEFITZ WAS NOT AT THE RALLY ON SATURDAY.
Check information before writing something so irresponsible.
Paula and Stan Pred
END REACTION17
===========================================================================================================
PART III NOTES ON DISSENT
SENT 3:35PM
While I'm sorry that my disclaimer
"My Response : Notes on Dissent Part II"
=========================================
following the "a member" sign off, didn't catch your eye,
This very fact of missing a crucial detail
it makes a point that I wanted to raise.
Not only are there the legitimate "beefs" we might have
with other coalition members - the vegans might take umbrage at
a hostile carnivore at the podium. But between "mis-hearing",
"misconstruing" or even totally hearing what we want to hear.
These and more mistakes will occur, all the standard range of miscuing
- that we do every day - becomes so much more significant as diverse groups
work and plan together and speak to the world as a coalition.
Miscommunication is more common than we might hope, and as the "temperature"
of the discussions rise in socially significant dialogues the possibilities
of misunderstanding only increase. Monologists need not be concerned because
they are only interested in territory rather than communication.
Communication requires a dialogue.
Whether incendiary language or images are used, interpreted, or mis-interpreted
the activist community must summon the most generous interpretations of actions
and
motives. Acting to embrace and include our great diversity. Ironic isn't
it.
I also wanted to suggest that heard accurately or not, we must seek to embrace
with more sincerity than the last republican platform attendees, our diversity
it is our unique strength. Every person or organization that we shun, or
disparage
reduces our power.
I hope that these essays raise issues and reach out to the activist community.
Please bring your biggest heart to our meetings. These factors must be anticipated
and
tactics must be inplace, to enhance unity and reduce factional friction.
If the anti-war coalitions are to grow beyond the narrowest of opinion, these
must be
considered. Since the power of a coalition is its ideological diversity -
those among us, who hope to contribute must keep our barriers down, and be
as tolerant
as we can humanly manage. Each voice adds to the choir
"If we do not hang together, we shall mist assuredly hang separately"
Ben Franklin
solidarity and peace
rick
END PART III
===========================================================================================================
REACTION18 to (REACTION5)
RECEIVED 5:08PM
Although I am not an active member of CPOWI I am co-chair of the Justice
and Peace
committee of the Coral Gables Congregational Church, which actively supports
CPOWI
and I would like to go on record as strongly supporting David's position
on handling
internal dissent. I, think David's position basically emphasizes that openness
does
not mean lack of healthy boundaries. And I also think that he is basically
stating
that there are essential boundaries that need to be in place when dealing
with dissent.
This is a very critical area where great wisdom needs to be exercised because
there is great risk involved, ultimately CPOWI's viability as an effective
peace-promoting
organization is at stake. An organization which is bent on promoting
peace and
outruling violence needs to use peaceful tools to promote its message.
Hateful,
offensive, or inflammatory language are completely unacceptable as instruments
for peace and its use will lethally undermine any credibility the organization
may
claim as a peace promoting entity. There are quite a few texts and manuals
on
non-violence methodologies that may be consulted, and I am sure that such
resources
may be accessed through the Martin Luther King Institute, the National Council
for
Community and Justice, and practically any library. I have had access to
such
publications in the past. Jim Howe, (who subscribes to this list) is the
Executive
Director of the local Office of the NCCJ and I am sure he would be a great
consultant
who could provide CPOWI some very valuable guidelines concerning the definition
of
civil discourse and its applicability in the context of non-violent resistance
to war.
I would also like to say that it would be absolutely demoralizing and
self-defaeting
for CPOWI, or its allies, to engage in the use of the same tactics
or methods of the
"oppressor", this position was sustained by both Gandhi and Martin Luther
King.
Now, CPOWI needs to define its non-violent philosophy and the behaviors that
correlate
with such a philosophy. It can then proceed to build coalitions with
partners that
adhere to that philosophy, and its parameters, in terms of behaviors and
language
that are acceptable in dealing with the opponent. It would be non-sensical
to ally
with persons or groups who adhere to tactics and methodologies that are in
conflict
with non-violence. It is a major tenet of non-violence that "the end does
not justify
the means", actually that is its fundamental basis. The principle of freedom
of speech
guarantees that groups with different outviews and methodologies may operate
in a society,
but it is not CPOWI's role to provide a forum for just any type of person
or group.
That access is guaranteed by the civil society which allows a diversity of
outviews
to have access to a variety of available forums. Lastly, I would like to
say that it
would make it rather impossible for faith-based organizations to support
an organization
whose members do not show full respect for the personal as well as the physical
integrity
of its opponents. CPOWI must be careful to avoid alienating valuable allies
whose
credibility is also very much at stake when taking a stand for peace.
Sincerely, in peace,
and rather concerned.
Margarita
END REACTION18
===========================================================================================================
REACTION19 to (REACTION4/18)
SENT 5:59PM
RWS: Regarding your Suggestions
director@yiddishculture.org wrote:
Dear Group:
Thanks for all your excellent efforts to keep the anti-war efforts on the
front-burner
even in frigid circumstances.
I have a few comments about Rick’s discussion on dissent.
I agree completely with Rick’s identification of the situation,
but not completely with his solutions.
Yes, while we must try to cooperate and tolerate a number of positions
that we might personally disagree, we should not necessarily be the
testing ground for slogans, sloganeering or hate speech that demeans,
insults, or provokes nor speech that brings our group ill repute.
RWS: No one has advocated "slogan testing", certainly I suggested the
utmost tolerance from those who speak from our podium. I hoped to raise
the issue of how we should plan to respond to those who might appear
and use less than inclusive language or graphics. I'm sure you don't mean
to suggest
that was what was intended in these discussions.
This country has a long history of quelling dissent like ours, by using agent
provocateurs to divide and conquer movements, to isolate them from potential
supporters and to go against them legally. Our first rally acknowledged
these
possibilities by creating a security team that would quickly deal with these
isolated incidents by encouraging (in some cases somewhat robustly) those
practices
that cause potential harm to our organization and what we stand for before
they
got out of hand.
RWS: I raise these areas of concern because the chances of this type of disruption
increase, and so that we might have a thoughtful response in place when they
occur.
Tolerance should be promoted, but not to the point where it undermines who
we are
and what we stand for, or creates a potential legal or physical danger to
our
organization. When we run an activity, we are under no obligation to
provide a
platform to elements with whom we vociferously disagree.
RWS: I was raising the issue of how we treat "street activity" as opposed
speech
coming from "our provided podium" which is therefore, "sanctioned or endorsed"
speech.
Which if you look closely at my essay, I requested that those who speak from
our podium
be as supportive and inclusive and non-confrontational as humanly possible.
That is not tolerance, but naiveté. We certainly need to balance
the interests
in building a broad coalition encompassing many ideas with those few individuals
who, intentionally or not, do harm to our cause.
RWS: Yes this is true, and I was hoping to endeavor to assist us in
revealing,
what these parameters, might be. It is important to encourage dialogue which
will
enhance our tolerance of differences as well as discuss alternative techniques
to deal with those situations, where individuals who "show up for some alternative
protest", supporting some other agenda. And to develop through discussion
those
optional techniques that would encourage a range of prepared responces to
any
of the posible scenarios that will occaisionally occur.
We do ourselves and our principles no favors when we allow neo-Nazi, anti-Semitic
and other hate-mongering elements to participate alongside us. This
is my opinion.
I think this is worthy of discussion, although my personal appearance
at meetings for a little while will be difficult.
David
RWS: The purpose of these dialogues was to illuminate the problem, and discuss
solutions and to assist in developing thoughtful responsives that optimize
our
chances of success and minimize our chances of problems . Unlike the president,
I do not see the world as "with us or against us", and I urge my colleagues
to endeavor to be as open minded and tolerant as is humanly possible.
And aware of the broad spectrums of grey.
solidarity and peace
rick
miamiforpeace.org
END REACTION19
===========================================================================================================
REACTION20 to (REACTION19)
RECEIVED 8:34PM
As an internet-first activist I am accustomed to
having the luxury to bounce my ideas off of "the right
people" whenever I can find them.
I feel that the internet creates a fluid kind of
concensus (sp?) gaining ability. You can exchange
ideas so freely and get input, incorporate it into
your ideas, someone can change your whole point of
view by replying with a little blue line of text that
completely broadens your horizons...
We also see, in the internet, a much more powerful
form of social "word of mouth" communication; we have
outright syndication through these email lists, buddy
lists, and websites.
As an inclusive, not exclusive, culture, it is our
responsibility to resist tempations about limiting
other people's speech. A lot of people in the world
have the right, the responsibility, to show a great
deal of rage to power, and even to each other.
Sometimes this can be a speed bump in social
situations, and a progressive movement is nothing if
not a social situation.
I agree with nonviolence and embrace it; I reach for
constant rationality; but I cling most dearly to
honesty. When a man needs to say the F___ word, let
him say the F___ word. Fuck it. Some feelings only
come out right when they shock you.
The fact that any given group of organizers might
consist largely of polite white folks should not mean
that they should approve only of polite white
expression. (Apologies to any polite folks of other
races.)
Now, to see-saw back to the other side of the
argument, will some people leave the movement if they
hear a naughty word over a P.A. system? Will some
legislators and other civic servants turn a deaf ear
to a mass of citizens with ski masks knocking over
newspapers and spraying graffiti, regardless of the
message behind it? Yes, and yes. Will the United
States call you a terrorist if you fight back with
guerrilla warfare?
The United States railroaded a first-strike nuclear
policy into our social vocabulary and got away with
it. When they first brought it up, they absolutely
knew a lot of people would flip their lids and totally
reject it. Same with torture. That initial outrage
to the shocking did not prevent acceptance by the
masses. Repetition works even for that which is most
difficult to accept, thanks to a love of perversion,
or novelty, whichever term you prefer.
When will I get to something practical and useful?
Now, I guess.
I agree about the need to refine a message for
effectiveness, broad audience hooking, accuracy, and
most of all, positive social impact. I know that
provocative messages are not the way to win most
people over. I'm glad that the Black Bloc is a
minority in the movement - but I'm a little bit glad
they're there. They light fires under polite asses
and remind us all that the hour is late. Imperialist
genocide started before we were born. We all started
bankrolling it with our very first jobs. There is no
time like the present.
I am thankful for democratic anarchy in the movement.
It ensures that the fittest method of protest will
survive, and reminds us that we need each other, and
therefore we must always be willing to accept any like
mind within our ranks, and reject only those who are
simply dishonest about their intention to have the
most positive impact possible. Just as no one message
should control society, no one message should control
the movement.
In order to do this right, take care to make liberty
your guide when contemplating or discussing strategy,
tactics, messages, alliances, support. Just as I am
free to craft my resistance, so are we all.
If I'm inspiring you, read "I, Pencil" by Leonard Read
at http://www.fee.org/vnews.php?nid=316 and apply its
wisdom to your thoughts on the resistance.
I'll shaddap now cuz "I, Pencil" is a tough act to
follow. :)
Oi!
Nathan
END REACTION20
===========================================================================================================
REACTION21
RECEIVED 9:24PM
dear CPOWI friends, i'd like to put in my 5 cent worth and endorse the following
statement by rick,
which i find very wise:
"Whether incendiary language or images are used, interpreted, or mis-interpreted
the activist community must summon the most generous interpretations of actions
and motives.
Acting to embrace and include our great diversity. Ironic isn't it."
yeah, ironic. i was in washington on sat. the 18th and, on the frozen grass
of the mall,
there was everyone, and i mean everyone. there was a bus (i don't know how
the heck it
managed to get there!) covered with paint and writings which promised fire
and brimstone
to whomever did non embrace jesus. there were delightfully funny signs, wise
and thoughtful
and moving signs, students in leather trench-coats, students painted all
in white, and
someone holding a humungous, extremely visible sign which only said FUCK
YOU BUSH. there
were aggressive signs, pro-palestinian signs, religious signs, veteran signs,
angry signs,
graphic signs, and lots of people with drums who danced frenetically the
whole time the
rally went on.
when we marched to the navy yard, a group of college students chanted an
fabulous slogan
which i have never heard before (you certainly have). it was accompanied
by drums
and went: SHOW ME WHAT DEMOCRACY LOOKS LIKE -- THIS IS WAS DEMOCRACY LOOKS
LIKE.
democracy looks messy, creative, and open-hearted. limiting democracy --
the freedom of expression of ideas at peace rallies as well as in newspapers,
the congress, the classroom, the workplace, etc. -- is on a continuum with
the
police state of bush's "democracy."
i am not saying the anyone should be allowed to do anything. no one should
be allowed
to insult and offend and hurt. but maybe we can approach these friends (they
are friends,
because we try very hard not to have enemies) with love and solidarity: talk
to them,
buy 'em a soda, show them what democracy, love, and tolerance look like.
and, at the
end of the day, if the media -- as they always do -- zoom in on the only
disruptive presence
in a rally made out of otherwise wonderful and peace-loving people, well,
that's
what they do isn't it, and we'll have the clear conscience of having lived
up to the
ideals of democracy and tolerance we are working so hard to defend! integrity
is more
important than good PR, and at the end wins out.
i didn't see any security (other than the police, and not much of that either)
in D.C.,
and people were relaxed and easy with each other. there were only two arrests,
for extremely minor offenses that deserved arrest. i didn't see a moment
of anger.
this is what democracy looks like.
gio.
END REACTION21
===========================================================================================================
REACTION22 to (REACTION21)
SENT 9:51PM
you generous soul!
thank you for your comments, and bless you
for connecting it to the great work accomplished
in DC
thank you for placing your shoulder
and brain, to the wheel
bravo
solidarity & peace
rick
miamiforpeace.org
END REACTION22
===========================================================================================================
REACTION23
RECEIVED 11:58PM
rick what is margarita talking about, not alienating allies?
I hope she doesnt believe zionism is part of the peace movement.
If she has a problem,` fear of zionist reaction then i feel she cant be an
honest broker and is selling out. I noticed it was alright for lerner to
bash the catholic church. By the way i was on channel 41
last wednesday for one hour informingthe public on what zionism represents.
If she insists zionists are part of the peace movement then she has isolated
herself
from the rest of the movement throughout the country and as a consequence
will
have sided with fascism whether she is in denial or not.
to be continued:
rws
1/23/02