Proposals for GA, 12/8/11
The following 3 proposals were submitted by Mike H. for consideration on 12/8:
From the Anarchist and Anti-Authoritarian Caucus -
“We propose that OccupyPhoenix define clearly and practically what is meant by non-violence. If the position of non-violence is simply an attempt to impose morals upon a movement that has a diversity of tactics, then we propose that the blanketing and unrepresentative definition of OccupyPhoenix as a non-violent movement be removed.
However, if OccupyPhoenix is serious about its position of non-violence and wants to stand firm on the principle of moralistic non-violence, then we propose that the police (a violent and oppressive state apparatus) be removed from all references to the 99%.”
6 Comments on “Proposals for GA, 12/8/11”
You can track this conversation through its atom feed.
Dear Mike;
I would give you some DIRECT RESPONSES:
1.oppose the “limit” on Canopies on site, as anyone has the right to set up a canopy at anytime they choose too. Telling me that I cannot setup my own canopy at 3am due to GA rules would limit the movement entirely. However, if you are talking about 2 minimum canopies, then yes I support & endorse it.If I wish to LEAVE A CANOPY on site, leave it in the hands of someone responsible, or take it down & take it home with me, I can choose to do that. Another option is to be mobile as much as possible. change the layout & placement within the plaza daily, until we are too large to do that.
2.I agree nothing more. Remember that in a 10 person committee for GA 9 people must agree out of 10 to pass, as we operate on a 90% consensus.
3.I did not know we needed GA confirmation on reimbursement of expenditures & donations we as INDIVIDUALS. I have donated & lost over $500 of gear & food donations since being there on OCT 15th, including Thanksgiving FOOD. Were these items agreed by GA to be purchased by you & reimbursed, or was it something you decided to do, & be repayed for them being confiscated by police?? It is just looks kinda sketchy, but its only $70. I guess I know the process now, if this is how it is done.
I agree below. looks like the anarchist movement is co-opting from within. They purported the ALEC event. Then a member of anarchist coalition tells OPHX livestream they cannot record a teach-in. Then a member the SAME coalition, wants us to change HOW WE view the WORDS non-violence as a MORAL, not an ETHIC….lol *facepalm*.and now I find out one of the FINANCIER’s, Michael Horton (also in the Media Team) is the Spokesperson for the Anarchist and Anti-Authoritarian Caucus Coalition. I love you mike, but sometimes you risk yourself for others is not always a good idea.
December 10, 2011 at 12:23 am.
From the Anarchist and Anti-Authoritarian Caucus -
“We propose that OccupyPhoenix define clearly and practically what is meant by non-violence. If the position of non-violence is simply an attempt to impose morals upon a movement that has a diversity of tactics, then we propose that the blanketing and unrepresentative definition of OccupyPhoenix as a non-violent movement be removed.
***I believe you are confusing MORALS with ETHICS. Moral are of a definition of the character of a person, MORALS do not define ACTIONS. ETHICS DEFINE ACTIONS. Ethics defines HOW a person will go about it. So yes we do think that NON-VIOLENCE should include Verbal, Emotional, Mental, Physical, Spiritual, Sexual attack on another BEING of ANY KIND. but we do not believe that it is HINDERING anyone one GROUP or PERSON from ATTENDING OPHX. ***
However, if OccupyPhoenix is serious about its position of non-violence and wants to stand firm on the principle of moralistic non-violence, then we propose that the police (a violent and oppressive state apparatus) be removed from all references to the 99%.”
***this statement makes the previous statement redundant. You want to stop OPHX from using non-violence as a “moral” compass to educate, on the basis of BLANKETING to CONTROL…. but you want to BLANKET all POLICE OFFICERS as “VIOLENT”.Then refuse them access as salvation when they to realize the error of their ways & ask you what they can do to HELP the movement?? Tsk, Tsk.***
There are always a few bad apples in anything. but to accuse all Phoenix PD of being violent & NON supportive of the 99% is straight PROPAGANDA on BEHALF of the Organization you represent. We are not a FAN of the local police department, but doesn’t mean the bad ones cannot learn from their mistakes.
December 9, 2011 at 11:38 pm.
I second Victor’s proposal.
December 8, 2011 at 9:29 am.
http://gawker.com/5865089/20-things-you-should-know-about-americas-most-horrifying-new-law
December 8, 2011 at 8:43 am.
I propose we start a campaign to Impeach/recall or otherwise remove Senator John McCain from legislature in the Federal Gov’t representing the people of Arizona. He has dutifully ignored his constituency and played a key role in authoring the newest round of laws proposed to silence dissent, crush opposition & institute a government of force controlling through fear & the might of our military that we paid for. His continued war mongering & disregard for stateside issues affecting his state has gone on long enough. He is a clear traitor to the Bill of Rights that he is sworn to protect, both as a former member of our armed services but also as a public servant. He is a disgrace to peace & freedom loving people everywhere, and our state could do much better than this. This is important, as no other issue poses such a clear and obvious threat to our movement, our ideals and our peaceful demonstration. If we do not make a stand here, we will have little ground on which to make one in the future. We are already being painted as enemies, being dehumanized in the media & in the eyes of those under the spell of the media. I urge this to be brought up at the GA.
Yours,
V.
December 8, 2011 at 8:42 am.
1.) In the event that resolution is passed, it could result in the GA as a whole effectively having control of what is or is not set up @ any protest. It is my opinion that this possible side effect would need to be limited, but I am unsure as to how it could be better worded.
2.) Agreed. While people may be able to make their opinions known online, and voice their opinions in person, there needs to be an accountable list for what is or is not passed. I would further ammend this to inlude a list of Who voted and if they voted ‘Yea’ or ‘Nay’ on a proposal, along with a full list of enacted proposals On Record (on-line & at site) for the group Occupy Phoenix.
3.) Understandable, and if the money is available, I agree that the person needs to be reimbursed or have the property that they donated returned. As we are not an official NPO, so donations cannot be taken off of taxes, and we do live in an age where money is a necessity for survival, if someone needs a payback for the money that they put out, it should be given. At this time, I can agree to previous amounts being reimbursed. However, I do think that anyone who wants Future Costs to be reimbursed should put the proposal for spending before the GA, and have the payout approved in advance – to be paid after said items are recieved.
AA / A-A council recomendation
Either action could be detrimental. While one or the other may be necessary at some future point, I would recomnd wording the denounciation of the Police as “any Police member who has taken violent action against the Occupy Movement” rather than removing all Police officers uniformly.
The removal of the term non-violent, which is currently being read as peaceful, would be a bad idea, as it would open Occupy up further to potentially being linked to ‘terrorist’ organizations.
While I do not believe that this movement will be able as a whole to remain peaceful or non-violent indefinitely and remain as a force for political/socioeconomic change, I do believe that it is necessary to be able to remain under that term for as long as possible.
December 7, 2011 at 11:24 pm.