Round 2: The Chicago Principles of Solidarity

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

90% is a bit of an exaggerated claim.

[Dormaphaea]

Please, no names. We don't want to get bogged down in the shrieking again.

As far as 90% for or against, what matters is who shows up to vote. I think it's more like that the majority of the people who are going to participate were not even present for the vote, and really aren't concerned one way or the other and are peaceful and mature enough to abide by common sense and the laws (except in cases of planned or spontaneous civil, and peaceful, disobedience.

More than anything, we have a moment in time here. Read Naomi Kleins, "The Bonding Properties of Tear Gas," written in 2001. It may help is see the forest for the trees.

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

I read the article earlier. My reaction was that time and place don't leave me with much confidence that her experience is one we'd share the same way today.
But today is another day, and I will read it again.

[rmperrotta]

I accept the friendly amendment of a sunset clause, but not with a specific date. There may still be solidarity actions going on at jails and and public institutions for a week or two after the demonstrations.

I will amend to add:

"These principles will expire in May or early June after protest activity for NATO/G8 has ended, and may be re-submitted to the Occupy Chicago GA for re-approval at that time."

I think there are a lot of great ideas in the re-writes. I really like the one about not snitching, and would accept that as a friendly amendment as well if someone wants to call for it.

As for all the great ideas out there, on this thread and in the previous discussion: Anyone who wants Occupy Chi to adopt a solidarity principle is welcome to propose it to the GA. This is just one set of principles many groups will be following during the summits.

Rachael P

[Rojo]

rmperrotta said: I think there are a lot of great ideas in the re-writes. I really like the one about not snitching, and would accept that as a friendly amendment as well if someone wants to call for it.

Really? Then what makes us any better than the Police Officer who turns a blind eye to the violence committed by another Police Officer? All they're doing is standing in solidarity with their own brotherhood. If we are going to engage in the same action, what makes us any better?

Also, if you really think the more violent elements rallying around the NATO/G8 are going to play nice and not invade other peoples designated parade routes/protests, you have another things coming.

Is this what people want to stand in solidarity with?
http://youtu.be/_mzKcsAcKg0
http://youtu.be/iXIy915c8tg

[BenBurton]

Is this what people want to stand in solidarity with?
http://youtu.be/_mzKcsAcKg0
http://youtu.be/iXIy915c8tg

I think the general idea is to focus our energies on peaceful, non-violent actions. We only have the ability to do so much and we can either spend a lot of energy policing ourselves or use that energy on proactive and non-violent rallies and actions.

Leave the policing up to the police. It's the job they're paid to do, not us. We can't waste our time and energy doing someone else's work at the expense of reaching the goals we'll set for our own peaceful, non-violent actions.

We have a chance to make an impact in the world. I'm not going to waste my time focused on other objectives.

[Dormaphaea]

I'm with Ben. Let's leave this to the ones who feel the need to sort out this sort of thing. As for the rest of us, let's please get focused on a process for action.

[rmperrotta]

FYI - The schedule was very full this week, so I offered to have this vote moved to next week. This gives us more time to think and debate, which can only be a good thing

[Rojo]

I know it seems like I am asking for us to Police their actions, but I'm not. I recognize that most people would not be comfortable with confronting these guys. However, both Occupy Marines and Occupy Oakland have both come out publicly against the Black Blocs and violent protesters. I would prefer to see a statement from us distancing us from these actions. Something simple, like, " We know most protesters coming to Chicago are peaceful. But those that are hear for other reasons, let us remind you that we are a peaceful movement and that we do not stand with you. The actions taken to reach a goal are just as important as the goal itself. Otherwise, we are no better than the system we seek to replace."

I'm sure we have better speech writers in the movement than I, but I think you get the point. I believe simple actions like this can cast us in a positive light. This was posted yesterday in the Google groups and I think it is excellent food for thought. http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/fil ... noweth.pdf

[rmperrotta]

Statements like that are exactly why we need solidarity principles, including not snitching.