Tonight the Direct Action group, in charge of planning marches and other protest actions, presented the following “Statement of Diversity of Tactics” as a proposal to the General Assembly (GA). The following statement was passed to ensure the autonomy of working groups and the cohesion of the entire community.
Our solidarity will be based on respect for diversity of tactics and plans of other groups. As individuals and groups we are committed to treating each other as allies in the struggle.
The actions and tactics used will be organized to maintain a separation of time or space to protect the autonomy and safety of the movement.
We realize that our detractors will work to divide us by inflaming and magnifying our tactical, strategic, personal and political disagreements. Therefore, any debates or criticisms must stay inside the movement to avoid any public or media denunciations of fellow activists or events.
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.
The above statement fully agrees with the Occupy Boston Internal Solidarity Statement, opposing all forms of oppression.
In Solidarity,
The undersigned
21 Responses to “Statement of Diversity of Tactics”
I think this Statement has great merit and will enhance and advance the Movement in a positive manner. It is imperative that we move forward on several fronts at once, using resources to the best advantage.
I agree wholeheartedly that outside factions will most assuredly attempt to put us in the worst light possible and be as divisive as they can be, Some aspects of the media have already dismissed the Occupy movement as, “inane” and have compared us to Nazi’s. Needless to say, both these and other negative statements and positions are devised specifically to denigrate Occupiers and the Movement. By maintaining a calm demeanor when dealing with those inside and outside of the Movement and being knowledgeable in the various aspects and positions within the Movement, we can maintain ourselves above those that have decided the most basic right Americans have, the right to dissent.
Peace to you brothers and sisters.
In solidarity,
Bob
“We realize that our detractors will work to divide us by inflaming and magnifying our tactical, strategic, personal and political disagreements. ”
Totally AGREE
“Therefore, any debates or criticisms must stay inside the movement to avoid any public or media denunciations of fellow activists or events.”
WHOA! this is a public movement, our discussions are shouted in a public square. I think this is supressive and WAY out of line, wish I’d been at that GA
“We oppose any state repression of dissent,”
Well I oppose ANY repression of dissent, please see above
on October 9th, 2011 at 1:04 am #
[…] Occupy Boston: Tonight the Direct Action group, in charge of planning marches and other protest actions, […]
“Therefore, any debates or criticisms must stay inside the movement to avoid any public or media denunciations of fellow activists or events.”
This line irks me something awful.
The Media Group here at http://OccupySantaCruz.org is deep in discussions of what we want to publicize as a body. We are still discussing a media policy, which we will bring to the GA, and have thus far focussed only on providing neutral reports of the General Assembly. Even should we choose not to publish single-author essays from our more extreme fringes (which I am not necessarily opposed to myself), merely publishing the minutes of our GA would be in violation of the above clause.
Silencing individual voices from within the movement is entirely antithetical to the movement.
I am very surprised that this went through.
“Therefore, any debates or criticisms must stay inside the movement to avoid any public or media denunciations of fellow activists or events.”
In addition to what the people above said, this is the sort of sentiment that leads to people bullying and hurting each other, and the victims being forced out or silenced, while the harmful people get to stay around.
Also, and I hate to be the first to mention it, but the “public” (what, are we not the public now?) and the media are going to criticize and denounce things no matter what. Acting like we’re trying to hide or cover things up is only going to give more ammunition to the strongest critics.
There’s a big difference between choosing to not post -every word- of -every argument- where the whole world can see it, and saying “We must not ever let ‘outsiders’ see where we disagree.”
The statement that was approved seems much more like the latter than the former. I would have blocked this resolution if I’d been there last night.
on October 9th, 2011 at 11:47 am #
[…] statement from #OccupyBoston about supporting a diversity of tactics. LD_AddCustomAttr("AdOpt", "1"); […]
In parts of the global justice movement a decade ago, “diversity of tactics” was put forward as an alternative to a policy of nonviolence. If protesters wanted to engage in property destruction and street fighting with police, the argument was that these activities shouldn’t be discouraged or condemned. The idea was that such activities could be confined to certain “zones” within a protest.
I trust that activists in Boston and elsewhere are considering the lessons of past movements. We may disagree about those lessons. My own feeling as an activist was that “diversity of tactics” left the global justice movement much more vulnerable to infiltration and repression. Setting aside arguments about definitions of violence and self defense, the fact is that police, the media and the general public don’t distinguish between activities in one “zone” or another. Engaging in property destruction and street fighting with police hopefully aren’t tactics that any #OccupyBoston protesters have in mind! But please be aware that for some of us, this is the history that the phrase “diversity of tactics” represents. For all the good intentions of proponents, I believe that it served police goals more than it served the movement’s goals.
The current uprising is growing quickly and gaining momentum. Let’s make sure that all tactics support the goals of winning justice for the 99%.
In solidarity,
Lara
Some Republican said “we’ve got a big tent” … Heh We.re got even bigger PUBLIC Parks! ALL Aboard!
Viv La Difference!
I was not involved in the creation of this statement, but I understand the statement about keeping disagreements inside the movement to be pretty self explanatory. It’s not saying that you should have your opinions silenced, It’s saying that if someone who is working towards the same goals as you does something that you think was tactically wrong, you shouldn’t go condemning them in the media. Instead you should have the conversations with the people directly, at spokes-councils, etc.
A diversity of tactics doesn’t imply that certain people want to clash with the police or destroy property, rather it sets the tone that we are all on the same side and that tactical differences shouldn’t divide a movement.
For example, Martin Luther King didn’t condemn the black panthers in the media.
Martin Luther King Jr. was *certainly* critical of political violence by blacks, as well as black nationalism, in public.
I understand and even respect (my interpretation of) the Intent. Arguing in the media is a very bad idea, because the argument will very quickly over shadow any message.
But the wording is that of a single party dictatorship. We are not a political party, if we become that I’m gone. 99% is a very public number.
The purpose is to prevent denunciations of fellow activists to the media. In particular there was someone who handed out fliers at occupy LA with members of a group there which opposed police brutality and condoned property destruction. This made those people unsafe and furthered police repression against the movement.
It showed its use when someone went on top of a column at the Federal Building at Occupy Boston and certain protesters yelled at the cops that “this protester wasn’t with us” This also helps isolate protesters and furthers police repression against fellow activists. We are going to have tactical differences and no one is telling you what to do or what not to do, but this statement showed that those present at the GA vowed not to divide our movement and to talk about issues we had within Occupy Boston to iron stuff out rather than leading to the divisive witch hunts which broke apart groups in the 60s or which led to massive media attacks on activists after the WTO in Seattle in 1999. This kind of statement has been adopted in a number of locations including St Paul during the Republican National Convention Protests in 2008 and Pittsburgh before the G20. People need to learn their history that we need to be a united force regardless of whether people walk on the sideways, in the streets, those who occupy buildings, do eviction blockades, or who de-arrest their comrades.
That being said the statement urges groups that do act autonomously to think of the interests of the group as a whole and to separate their actions from areas (or with time)which will lead to police repression against those at risk. IE: undocumented people, etc.
I find this exactly the problem with a “people’s movement” these days. We are all outraged, but not in solidarity. My list does not match yours – but we all want to make noise. I read a comment on another blog from a black man in Memphis who felt he had no place joining their occupation – in a predominantly black city? What IS really going on? Is this just the in-crowd of activists? I want to be supportive of protest, but I need to know I’d be in there.
Saddened. Sounds like the movement is no longer nonviolent.
What does oppose any repression to dissent mean? By what means do we oppose it? What are our counter measure to surveillance. tapping, stalking, and house break ins that are explained as burglaries but are actually the FBI? Do we understand the consequences of openness and transparency? If that has not been part of preparedness then it should be.
We thank you SO much for your endorsement and toleration for “diversity of tactics”, smarmyspeak for toleration of violent, disruptive assholes. You couldn’t even agree to push level 3 sex offenders out. EXCELLENT!!
Please continue to completely ignore advice given by people like Sara Robinson here: http://radioornot.com/site/?p=5181
Such tolerance makes our job so much easier as you not only refuse to push out, but actually assist, the agent provocateurs we have placed among you to pump up the violence level, thus losing YOU public sympathy and providing US with a legal foundation to disperse and arrest you. Of course we’ll do that anyway, but things go SOO much smoother when the media runs pictures of broken storefronts and masked hoods throwing things at cops. You do indeedy do get attention from such acts, but the publics sympathy goes to us.
So far the Boston movement has been too peaceful for our liking, you need to take a page from Occupy Oakland, bring on the Black Bloc brigades, SMASH THINGS!! It gets your movement attention! Attention helpful to US, harmful to you. REVOLUTION, DESTROY!!!!
on February 26th, 2012 at 1:38 am #
[…] in October 2011 endorsing diversity of tactics,” as opposed to exclusive nonviolence (see Boston statement of diversity of tactics and Occupty Wall Street […]
on February 26th, 2012 at 5:03 am #
[…] in October 2011 endorsing diversity of tactics,” as opposed to exclusive nonviolence (see Boston statement of diversity of tactics and Occupty Wall Street […]
on February 26th, 2012 at 5:39 pm #
[…] 2011 endorsing a “diversity of tactics,” as opposed to exclusive nonviolence (see Boston statement of diversity of tactics and Occupty Wall Street […]
on February 27th, 2012 at 7:44 pm #
[…] in October 2011 endorsing diversity of tactics,” as opposed to exclusive nonviolence (see Boston statement of diversity of tactics and Occupty Wall Street […]
on March 2nd, 2012 at 6:12 pm #
[…] in October 2011 endorsing diversity of tactics,” as opposed to exclusive nonviolence (see Boston statement of diversity of tactics and Occupty Wall Street […]