Round 2: The Chicago Principles of Solidarity

[Rojo]

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

Care to explain? Because the idea of not "snitching" is perpetuating what the establishment is already doing. And I thought this was about changing the way things are done, instead of seeking to establish one system with another.

[myanswer]

I am totally opposed to #2a of Chicago principles and could never vote yes to it

[myanswer]

I am in favor of adopting these instead as a friendly amendment including 8 rules for nonviolence.

St Paul Principles

1. our solidarity will be based on respect for a diversity of tactics and the plans of other groups. 2. the actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain a separation of time or space. 3. any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events. 4. we oppose any state repression of dissent, including surveillance, infiltration, disruption and violence. we agree not to assist law enforcement actions against activists and others.

8 Rules of Non-Violence

1) Nonviolent action AND speech, no matter what. Zero tolerance for violence.

2) Unity of message across organizations & include. Include demands, all should know them.

3) There must be a long-term and coherent strategy, not just tactics & actions.

4) Police should be seen as potential recruits to movement, not enemy.

5) Keep national/international audience in mind when framing. Goal is win ppl over.

6) Defensive strategies never win. Don't respond to attacks using their language.

7) Claim victory whenever possible. Important for morale.

8) Keep anger in check /w solidarity actions & humor."

[JacobTS]

First of all I appreciate what the activist "myanswer" posted about about the St Paul Principles.

Second, this is my opinion :

Occupy Chicago is a non-violent movement dedicated to peaceful protest.

I propose:
"Occupy Chicago is a peaceful movement dedicated to peaceful activism."

Let's remove the visual "violent" at all opportunities. Let's reinforce that we take action. I'm not a fan of "protester". I prefer to be called an "Activist" or "Activista".

The Chicago Principles

• 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 tactics and plans of action but are committed to treating each other with respect and working towards a common goal of peace and justice.

Verbose but cool.

• As we plan our actions and tactics, we will take care to maintain appropriate separations of time and space between divergent tactics.

Not sure what this means. IF it means, let's not "double book" ourselves on the same date for "Actions" then cool

• 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.

Verbose but I think it's all good. May I suggest that we change the wording to something like:

"We oppose any state repression of our Civil Liberties including coercion, censorship, or infiltration of any kind."

Civil Liberties covers all those things listed. All those things listed is really just the tip of the iceburg of tactics that can be used to repress.

Also, if we are concerned about infiltration then why is adbusters on our committees. It's a conflict of interest : they are reporting on #ows while at the same time trying to infiltrate it with their "directives." these people are sitting in vancouver, getting paid, to give us orders while at the same time writing articles/blog posts on their newsletter/magazine. their latest post even encouraging dissent and competition between occupy encampments. this is perhaps a separate issue but this conflict of interest is not unlike the relationship of mitt romney to clear channel...

• Any debates or criticisms will stay internal to the movement, avoiding any public or media denunciations of fellow activists and events."

I am 100% against this being in there for a couple of reasons.

1) It's censorship. By issuing a gag order on free speech, the "Principles" essentially set up a "Free Speech" zone which was listed in the previous clause.

2) It's censorship. It is a self imposed limitation on the First Amendment, something we are supportive of and use to further our message.

3) It's censorship. It will inhibit the Committees such as Social Media, Press, and Secretariat from being transparent and communicating not only with the local community but with the larger Occupy Nation.

one more thing: this autonomy thing http://www.nycga.net/resources/statement-of-autonomy/ i like it cause it distances itself from entities such as adbusters or Oakland's Militants or the Green Army or whoever. it encourages others to be active. It encourages solidarity. But it prevents liability from coercion or being infiltrated by these outside "directives" that are cavalier, naive, or misinformed merely due to them not being in chicago. I'm only mentioning it because of it's sentiment to autonomy and it mentions a respect for others. i'm not suggesting adopting it's language or format.

one last thing: why do we need a pledge anyway. golden rule anyone?

harmony fish,
jts

[Todd]

golden rule ?
"He who has the gold, makes the rules"

[Billy]

If what I saw in the tweet is correct the part about being committed to peace did not pass and this thing is just endorsing violence. Occupy Chicago is or at least was dedicated to peace and non-violence. These principals turn this all on it's head.

There needs to be a group that is dedicated to peace so that people who are dedicated to that can group together. That group of peace activists has to be kept separate from violent activists. If you do not then you will loose many of the people that are dedicated to peace. I for one will only be involved from here on out to over turn these principals of solidarity and if it can not be done will remove myself from involvement and I'm sure others feel the same way.

The National Defense Authorization Act has passed. Before that bill passed many people were held without charges for the duration of the G20 in Pittsburgh in 2009. If you think that won't happen now I believe you are a bit miss guided. Rahm Emanuel is looking for reasons to lock us up as individuals for the duration of the summits. Some of us will go missing as we get closer to May.

I understand that the GA structure is democratically based but there is one principal that Occupy Chicago stood on and that WAS non-violence. These principals of solidarity betray that. This is a movement breaker and a serious division point. I don't think you guys realize what you have done.

I also have noticed that protests either violent or non-violent other place both in the US and world wide have done little to bring about any change. If you want to be effective organizing general strikes and boycotting various entities seem to be far more effective. Go ahead and do as you please but violence in this movement will only serve to discredit us.

[m_x]

This proposal in no way endorses or compromises Occupy Chicago's commitment to non-violence.

[marymcmahon@clear.net]

Can someone repost the final proposal here?