Hey, there! Log in / Register
Walkout at Occupy Boston over participation of convicted sex offenders
By adamg on Sun, 01/08/2012 - 9:45pm
Some 20 Occupy Boston activists walked out of a general assembly tonight after a group of participants managed to table a proposal aimed at protecting people from level-3 sex offenders at Occupy Boston events.
Under the proposal, any level-3 offender - the most dangerous rating under state sex-offender laws - who is found out would be banned from Occupy Boston events for at least a week and then his or her status would be brought before a general assembly - Occupy Boston's decision-making body.
But four people, one a woman other activists had never seen before and another Paul Shannon, director of Reform Sex Offender Laws, which wants to eliminate sex-offender registries, raised objections and the matter was tabled.
Robin, who has been involved with Occupy Boston since its inception, rose and led a walk out over the perception the movement was placing the interests of rapists above participants who have been raped and their families and friends. In a series of tweets, she explained:
I want to say: I thought long and hard about [the walkout]. It wasn't a decision I came to lightly. I didn't pre-plan, exactly, but I thought long and hard about it throughout these GAs. I decided for sure once I said it here. I did it because there was/is no way in the process to respond to how horrifying this entire ordeal has been for women, survivors, parents, and our supporters. I also felt seriously disturbed that a bunch of strangers who came solely to block this proposal and will likely never return were able to do so via our seriously broken GA process. I am at an impasse. I don't know what to do. But I do think the mic check was helpful for some who felt silenced and/or traumatized by what had happened. SOMETHING needed to happen.
After the walkout, remaining participants passed a resolution against all forms of violence and said they would draft a more detailed plan within a month. Another Occupy Boston meeting tomorrow, however, may take the whole issue up again.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
| Attachment | Size |
|---|---|
 Proposed Occupy Boston policy on sex offenders | 0 bytes |
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
If an OBA becomes aware of a L3SO, notify SAA who notify GA?
So if an OBA becomes aware of an L3SO OBA, they should notify SAA who will then notify GA?
OIC. HA!
I thought Menino was their nemesis? Sounds like he wrote the policy! Ga Ga Goo Goo.
So much for occupy boston
It was interesting for awhile, now it's officially an irrelevant sideshow. This division will absolutely delight the Boston Herald.
Awesome, another asshole manarchist
deriding the safety of women and children as "an irrelevant sideshow" and less important than OB's public image.
Won't anyone think of the
Won't anyone think of the children???
Women are not the only
Women are not the only victims of sexual violence.
They have more than their
They have more than their fare share of internal conflict on governance issues but their activism does not appear to be stymied by it.
The working groups are working. The GA is working S-L-O-W-L-Y and with much dissent. Naturally, the GA gets a lot of media attention and the activism a little less so.
That said, Robin's right about this, and I'm surprised four voices of dissent, is a sufficient minority to block a proposal.
18 people joined the blocking
18 people joined the blocking of this proposal, which was almost double the required 10% of everyone present. Those who blocked objected to using a very flawed government list to ban people who have not acted inappropriately at Occupy Boston or perhaps anywhere at all since they were put on the list. Blockers are very interested in Occupy doing a better job handling cases of actual sexual misconduct, but don't want to give more credence to the government's sex registry process than we give to the rest of the criminal justice system.
empathy for those in the room?
While I can understand the desire to not validate a flawed justice system, OB operates under the policy that every decision is subject to change & update or replacement.
So, when people in the room with you are crying & shaking and telling you they need this because they are traumatized and then you deny them a symbolic gesture over a political principle, you have walked away from humanity. Send the people you work with a message that you care. Pass the proposal that the wounded have requested and commit to coming up with something better. No one would be hurt in the intervening weeks, but you have hurt many, sitting in the room with you, by standing on some detached ground. It show more concern for people who have a history of serious offenses against others than for those who have been the victims of those kinds of offenses. And you don't even know the offenders. You care more about strangers.
To then, go on with the GA, after 30 very upset people walked out is further wounding. The message, "oh well". And then, "oh, look, we'll do this for you. All better now, right?" Resolving a conflict without those who have been hurt by the conflict being present is condescending. The victims of offense don't want you to fix things for them. They want you to listen to them & have them be part of the solution-building.
That was oppression in action.
If OB wants to remain relevant at all, it will stop all GAs until this fracture is addressed. Working groups can still plan actions & the bigger political messaging can still happen, but the GA has proven itself destructive. Plowing past the wounded, only means you're behaving in the battlefield mindset of the status quo.
Emotions should always trump
Emotions should always trump principles, especially when it comes to criminal issues and especially the treatment of people who have already served their criminal sentences.
I guess bodily autonomy for women and children
isn't a principle of yours, eh? Nor those icky GIRLY emotions, like empathy.
I wish you the best in
I wish you the best in expelling people from your alternative society that interestingly sounds like the society we already have. Bonus points for using an element of the state (sex offenser status) to get there and if you're not with us, you're with the terrorists/child rapists political debating style.
A Rational Principled Solution
They will all move in with you and your family for the winter and share your tent come the next camp out ... and it will be up to you to make sure they don't break the terms of their release or reoffend.
Compelled to share a tent?
Looks like a bogus theoretical. More like, they can move into your neighborhood, or occupy a public park that you've decided to squat on for political purposes. Want to advocate for life sentences- fine. Other than that, barring homeless level 3's from median strip "park" doesn't really compute. I'm still having trouble getting a handle on the precipitating event. What happened? Was law enforcement alerted?
18 a$$holes joined the blocking
justify rape apologism much?
I supported Occupy Boston, and still support
the aims and goals of the Occupy movement as a whole, but I think it's about time to put the nail in the coffin of Occupy Boston. Without the camp, it's devolved into a depressing sideshow of hippies and idealists debating worthless points that, in the end, have absolutely no impact except on the egos present. They are going to have to make a big showing come Spring, or be-du-bee-du-be that's all folks! Sad to see, because god knows this country needs help (and not the kind the Tea Party or Republicans are offering, nor that of the mainstream, corporate Democrats)
I also have to say -
as someone who supported them, this is incredibly embarrassing, seeing what they've become. There is a reason many people go to one GA and never go back, they are INCREDIBLY boring and irrelevant (as we saw yesterday, they can't pass a motion against sex offenders after 4 meetings?) I'm sorry, but letting every little idealistic douchebag argue every single point makes the whole thing a joke. I was never really sold on the idea of these GAs, but this has finally convinced me that, for the most part, unless you are working with serious, intelligent people (which naturally, Occupy Boston has many of, but clearly, not enough) it is an unworkable idea that gets people bogged down in lunatic diatribes and pseudo-bureaucracy that rivals that of the Federal Government itself. Also, do they not realize how embarrassing this will be for them? They're seen as a joke already, and the second the Herald gets its paws on this, they are going to have a freaking field day. *Sigh*
There a reason the founders
Settled on Representative Democracy.
See OWS and the California ballot provisions.
This has been brewing for awhile
According to Una Spencer (pen name) for one of the facilitators for the Occupy Movement, this has been a conflict that has been known about for at least the past few weeks.
After the encampment was broken-up/disbanded, some members learned that there were Level 3 offenders who were at the encampment and the General Assembly was unable to reach consensus that Una and others considered to provide safeguards for the vulnerable such as victims of sexual violence and children.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049670/-Occupy-Boston:-Wheres-the-Empathy
I have been following Una's
Writings throughout Occupy Boston. She is an excellent writer who describest the decision making process well for those of us on the outside. I applaud her for her stance.
Spencer's take on last night's general assembly
A story of failure.
People spitting on other people at the GA?
Is the writer exaggerating? If not, the spitters should absolutely be thrown out of the organization, and prosecuted for assault.
I read the blog
It's rambling. I agree with her for the most part, but her writing is horrible.
But the camping part is over anyway, right?
Was anyone sexually assaulted by a "Level 3" at Dewey Sq during the physical occupation? Why is this relevant now? Seems a little like "Animal Farm" to me. Also, doubtless some Level 3's were sleeping around Dewey before the protesters got there- not sure Occupy had any legal right to exclude them from the public space. Also, was this woman unaware that a small percentage of Boston's "real" homeless were formally incarcerated sex offenders?
It's not just the camping.
It's not just the camping. According to the flamage on the issue, the guy had the opportunity to acquaint himself with at least one child.
And unlike the level-1's, (the public urination convicts and assorted nonsense), convicts don't get listed as level 3 without reason.
This proposal stemmed from a
This proposal stemmed from a person who repeatedly invaded personal boundaries, inappropriately touched people and showed a keen interest in young boys at camp. The person went by another name and we found out accidentally by coming across their picture while doing jail support. This did not stem out of thin air.
Lacking common sense
I read the blog. She lost my sympathy when she described how after the breakup of Occupy Boston she took in 2 former participants, later to complain about their behavior. She claims she prioritizes the safety of her daughter. So why would any concerned parent let strangers in their house? Use some common sense lady.
Gone Baby Gone
I wonder who was the author of the policy probably Bernard Law. I applaud the members who walked out. People your movement is dead and gone when you allow sexual predators a seat at the table
Why one woman isn't going back
Ren Jender discusses last night's vote:
fyi
Unless you're on Facebook, you can't read the discussion.
History of Anarchic Movments
There is one central issue: there is such a thing as too big. http://news.priyo.com/tech/2011/06/07/dont-believe...
Hutterite communities undergo a division process when their communities hit 150 families. There is a limit to the size of a group that wishes to use consensus and anarchic governance. That 150 seems to be a very critical size, as it is pretty much the limit of a person's ability to know all the others. Beyond that, you need to have more rules of interaction - and laws, and enforcement, etc. because it is impossible to work things out on a person to person basis.
Too bad that yet another group can't seem to understand that they are not different in that regard - past that number, the principals of organization have to change to reflect the level of social organization and interaction. The most successful anarchist organizations in history were relatively small rural villages - networked, yes, but also quite small.
Hutterites are level-headed
Hutterites are level-headed people going about the business of life, not cartoon characters showing up at a camp-out demonstration to change the world. I suspect that 150 would be wildly optimistic for these knuckleheads.
Depends on who you ask
You might also look up another communal group called the Doukhobors if you want to temper your commentary ...
What to do with people who won't stop hurting others?
To me this raises a hard question: how to respond to people who will not, or can not, stop harming others? When I was younger I wanted to believe that anyone can be rehabilitated and restored to a sanity that makes it possible for them to participate fully in society. But I no longer believe that is true. I believe (based on experience and education) that there are people who either will not or can not be change. Whether the hinge term is will or can is less important than the question of protecting others from the harm these folks will cause.
I have to ask....
Who is getting a real kick out of this infighting? It wouldn't be the people opposed to this "movement", would it?
+1
+1 (as in, I'm getting a kick out of it)
unknown
A lot of healing has to take place. It is unfortunate that this happened. It was unnecessary that this happened. This proposal took a lot of needed energy from the otber proposals that were more urgent. To propose an action that from what i hear already happened. Raquel was already aakex to leave. Part of the proposal was for the person to be askes to leave. This sounds more like a cover my ass attempt. Propose to concent to an action that already took place. If it already happened it shows we did not need a proposal to tell us to do the right thing. Why virtue. Do i need consent to decide what is right and what is wrong before or after i ask the GA to follow suit. It has alzo been heard that this proposal was intended to be scrapped once passed just to handle the one known incident. Why target level 3s. People who are not caught or have not been convicted are just as dangerous. The additional villifying of Paul Shannon is interesting when you find Howard Zinn on the list of signers of the same document (google: howard zinn, sex offender, registry - and find site wvil exposed) it is quite possible that he only is looking for the best interest of individuals others would hang, beat, kill, starve, and treated inhumanely. Are sex offendees evil...i dare you to say yes i dare you to say no. The pain caused to the victims..thats evil. That pain and scarring may never dissappear. The sex offender evil or not is under the same constitution. They need to be prosecuted, they need to be dealt with. Does defending the rights of the damnex damn the defender as well.if this is the case a great disservice to the blocker has been done. Look at twitter and see all the immature usage of hash tags and ranta, and gross use of twitter expertise that has been done..the wrecking of an individual's image is a great wrong doing. This whole issue will drive a divide so great that being back at Dewey Square will bring back all the demons. If this was passed people would have been upset. Would there be a walkout...maybe. there was critical mass on both sides to create this divide. Use this flaw in the process to drive a wedge between the movement and the occupiers. I refuse to deoccupier. I have been an occupier well before this movement. I finally found an occupy that took me in. The fragments flying around may be the only things ill have to remember this by years to come. Im scared of this factionalization. Im terrified that i may be so detached from this issue because no matter what i fight. I fear but im not afraid to walk this route with all. If this is what has been chosen then so be it this will be resolved however it ends up people will still occupy. I started to ramble should have ended this while back, but i am terrible at closing statements, but i am good at holding doors open. There were so many proposals passed regarding safety. Every safety proposal brought strife. We coumd not get a guy with a gun off campus. We coulsnt get a volatile individual off campus. We coulsnt handle a volatile alcaholic. Now we struggle with this issue...i am always going to fear proposalz, but there will be no day i fear any human. I did my saefety rounds and still shit happened. So no im not saying i have or had any answers, but we still are in the dark fumbling around. Has anyone done this before? Still a lot to learn. /rantoff btw i cry for unity for there is no way to do it alone. Id probably end up a madman point of processing myself.