Proposal to Adopt the Chicago Principles of Solidarity

[Kelvin]

Some proposed edits - I don't think these will be accepted as amendments due to the argument about how we must sign on the exact same pledge as other groups in order to show solidarity. It's a fair point but a couple problems -
- Statements of solidarity don't carry much weight if all groups (if not individuals) signing onto it collectively come together and draft it themselves
- Collective ownership of the document then enforces some sort of general accountability as each groups is at least given the opportunity to present their individuals concerns
- All other groups are endorsing these principles solely for the G8/NATO summits and related actions. The proposal asks that Occupy Chicago endorse these for perpetuity (i suppose its open to amendments). I think its obvious to say that a general statement of solidarity in terms of how we work with other groups ought to have some differences in considerations and content. "free speech" zones for example is a highly context specific term that could use some generalizing.
- Perhaps it'd be wise to include some sort of sunset clause.
- There's a long history of the term "respect for diversity of tactics" that ought to be understood. They were highly appropriate in the context of the seattle protests in allowing tremendously diverse groups to collectively participate in demonstrations. A state repression ratcheted up another level, activists found that they were often forced into shared times and places against their original intentions. These scenarios often times created problems with regards to how exactly one ought to interpret merely "separation of time and place", along with what sort of actions were still permissible if such separation were no longer possible. It was also clear that some of the most of effective post Seattle summit protests were ones where groups not only committed to respect for diversity of tactics/actions but also committed to using different tactics together towards a strategic goal. Merely embracing diversity of tactics does not challenge groups to think critically about how they can collectively work together to advance larger aims.
- These edits are non meant to be final but merely a first step towards illustrating the kind of debate that should occur within all groups as they draft these principles collectively and sign on to them.

• Our solidarity will be based on respect for a political diversity within the struggle for social, economic and environmental justice. As individuals and groups, we may choose to engage in a diversity of actions and we are committed to treating each other with respect and working towards a common goal of peace and justice.
• As we plan our actions and tactics, we will take care to maintain appropriate separations of time and space between divergent tactics, to ensure that no one is put in a situation of risk, by our actions, that they did not so choose.
• 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 oppose all forms of oppression whether it be based on race, gender, sexual preference, age, ability or more. We commit to work toward the liberation of ourselves and all people.
• Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events.
• Occupy Chicago is committed to nonviolence and strategic nonviolent action.

Rationale behind these preliminary edits:
- diversity of tactics and plans of actions edited to diversity of actions so as not to exclude humans rights/immigrants
- Changed "but are committed" to "and we are" committed to place equal emphasis on the commitment to treating each other with respect...
- After "time and space between divergent tactics" added "to ensure that no one is put in a situation of risk, by our actions, that they did not so choose." so as to clarify the underlying rationality between separation of time and space. This would thus provide a general principle for how to deal with
unplanned scenarios where time and space are no longer under our direct control.
- Added "We oppose all forms of oppression whether it be based on race, gender, sexual preference, age, ability or more. We commit to work toward the liberation of ourselves and all people." so as to commit ourselves towards holding each other accountable for the forms of oppression we face as a society. This would recognize the fact that our enemy is not simply the state but also the underlying oppression and privileges rooted in modern society, for which we are all responsible for.
- Added - "Occupy Chicago is committed to nonviolence in all of its actions." both for PR purposes (so that the statement cannot be twisted as an endorsement of violence) but also to assuage the concerns brought up yesterday about how this statement would relate to our commitment to nonviolence.

[Kelvin]

Some more reading:
http://www.truth-out.org/what-diversity ... 1319485557
http://www.starhawk.org/activism/activi ... ssons.html

[Dormaphaea]

Ella Mae

sent you a PM, hopefully to clarify a bit. Frankly, it seems like there's some redundancy of working groups there, or perhaps, it's just what they are named, makes it appear fractured and if there's a divergence of focus. Anyway, get back to me when you can, if ya wanna.

[m_x]

Interesting edits Kelvin but isn't what your proposing no different than what happened before?

You suggest that:

"- Statements of solidarity don't carry much weight if all groups (if not individuals) signing onto it collectively come together and draft it themselves
- Collective ownership of the document then enforces some sort of general accountability as each groups is at least given the opportunity to present their individuals concerns"

I agree with this sentiment. I think its important that people truly understand and agree with what they're signing on to. That said is what you're proposing no different than what happened before? The difference being that this time Occupy Chicago is writing the principles and now asking other groups to adopt them?

If collective ownership is important perhaps we should be reaching out to other groups to see if:

1.there is interest in re-writing these principles.
2. If there is weather they liked to hold a spokes council in which each group could collectively participate in drafting the principles.

[Kelvin]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear. The idea would be that Occupy Chicago along with other groups would make a first attempt at drafting principles that make sense to them internally. A spokescouncil would then be formed - whereby all of the groups would bring their individual concerns and ideas together and a document of principles that satisfies all the groups' concerns would then be drafted. This document would then be brought back to the individual groups and reproposed for signing.

[m_x]

Perhaps outreach should be done to groups who've already signed the principles in place to see if this is of interest of them.

I do not know how these were actually formed, for all I know group work already took place to write these and we are just late to the party.

[Rojo]

This is what Andy wants people to show solidarity with when he proposes respecting other groups divergent tactics. However, the people confronting these thugs, are in fact Occupiers themselves. We have the ability to set the standards here in Chicago and say what is and isn't acceptable. And I'm sure some will say they are Police provocateurs. Okay,so then why all of this talk defending diverse tactics and "strategic property damage" if it's only being committed by the Police? Think people. You are being manipulated here, not by the Police, but by a wolf in sheep's clothing.

And if setting a minimum standard for behavior is going to splinter us, how come that hasn't happened in Oakland? Because that's where this video was shot.

http://youtu.be/iXIy915c8tg

[spencerthayer]

Rojo you're wrong. Not every person committing strategic property destruction will be a police provocateur that's called snitch-jacketing and it's an offensive anti-democratic tactic to paint one side in a negative light.

I will be supporting people who are planning such actions and they will not be police. You can of course attempt to snitch-jacket me but anyone who knows how to use Google would be able to vet me rather quick.

Also, Occupy Chicago doesn't have any unique ability to set the standards for G8/Nato. None. OC is just one of the many affinity groups that'll be on the street.

[Rojo]

Andy, I never said you were a snitch, now did I? I said you were a wolf in sheep's clothing? The Occupy is an international brand at this point in time. No one outside the protesting community knows anything about CANG8. You have inseted yourself into a movement that has greater recognition than you and sought to manipulate it for your own agenda, including supporting known violent protesters who will turn in a second on their fellow protesters if they speak up.

I thought we were trying to change the World and the way things are done. You, Andy, no matter what you say, are continuing the same old bullshit.

In case you and anyone else forgot what Occupy is about. "We are a peaceful, nonviolent, non-partisan movement. We are not a leaderless movement, we are a movement of leaders."

And you never did address the video.... Maybe you and everyone else didn't see it. This is what real Occupiers do when confronted by people like you. http://youtu.be/fKMOy5CLldc

Or how about this one? http://youtu.be/iXIy915c8tg

People were so busy worrying about the movement being co-opted by others, that they barely noticed when you moved in, Andy.

[BenBurton]

And you never did address the video.... Maybe you and everyone else didn't see it. This is what real Occupiers do when confronted by people like you. http://youtu.be/fKMOy5CLldc

I'm guessing people ignored it because you spammed it everywhere like a dick.

And you don't get to decide what defines what real Occupiers do. It's an absurd thought that you believe you can define that. It's ridiculous.

This is Chicago, not Oakland, New York, Bamako, Tahiti or Vancouver. Real people in Chicago will decide what it means for Chicago to Occupy, not some YouTube video you've spammed all over.