Martin Blank
6th March 2012, 23:33
As I mentioned in other threads, Occupy Saginaw (OS) has been organizing a march and rally/speak-out for International Women's Day, focusing on the issues of rape and rape culture. You can see the content of the leaflet and information about the event here (http://www.occupysaginaw.com/march8).
This event was originally proposed by Participant S., a woman relatively new to OS, but known from the original Occupy group. Suffice to say, this is a really important and personal issue to her. When she tried raising and motivating this issue in the other #Occupy group in the area, Occupy the Tri (OTT), they not only flatly rejected the idea, but engaged in misogynistic attacks on S. and her history.
When she came to OS, it was at the insistence of Participant R., who had himself recently come to Occupy Saginaw after being threatened out of OTT by a couple of its leading members. We were much more receptive to the proposal and understanding of the reasons this was so important. We agreed by consensus to take on the organizing of this protest, even though we had less than two weeks to pull it all together.
A working group was established to coordinate the logistics and make sure everything that was needed for the march and rally were completed. This included leaflets, posters, generic signs, an OS banner, endorsers and speakers, any necessary permits, etc. Within five days, all but the other endorsers and speakers, and the banner, were done. This is where things started to go crazy.
S. had agreed to take on the bulk of the organizing and be the Spoke for the event. Her zeal and passion for the issue was impressive, but it soon became clear that it went beyond these motivating factors. It was quickly realized that S. was treating this event as "her baby". That is, she was beginning to make decisions without consulting the group. In this, she was supported by R., who ran interference.
Things came to a head yesterday (March 5) when S. told Participant L., the interim Organizer of OS, that she had found a "keynote speaker".
To back up a moment, though. When OS first agreed to organize the march and rally, one of the suggestions made was to invite someone who helps to teach women self-defense against attackers. Informally, participants agreed that this was a good idea; no names were suggested at the time.
When L. asked who this speaker was, S. said he taught self-defense classes at Saginaw Valley State University ... and, oh yeah, he's a campus cop!
L. strongly objected to the presence of a cop at the rally and asked S. to find someone else. S. replied that he was her choice, that he was already invited to speak, and that was that. That ended the first of what would be more than a dozen phone calls that afternoon.
The next call involved L., S. and R., with the latter two attempting to browbeat L. into accepting the cop speaking. In the process, they distorted facts about what was agreed to by OS, as well as the character of this cop (Marc Strain (http://www.svsu.edu/universitypolice/meet-the-staff.html#Strain), day shift patrol supervisor and detective for the SVSU Police, which are a sworn police force like the city cops or county sheriffs and have a Mutual Aid Agreement with the rest of the county's police (http://www.svsu.edu/universitypolice/about-us.html)).
As more members were informed about the conflict, a number of "compromise deals" were floated by other OS participants: showing up after the event; sending a non-cop in his place; having a table but not speaking; etc. All of these were relayed by L. to S. and R. Both flatly rejected any attempts at compromise.
As a result, an evening conference call of available OS members was arranged. There were nine participants present: L., S., R., M. (interim Media Spoke), N. (L's daughter and OS liaison to Occupy Detroit), C. (a supporter of Workers World Party), A., G. (A's daughter) and E. The first order of business was an explanation by M. of why the meeting was called. Not more than three seconds passed before S. and R. began shouting over others and demanding that OS accept this cop's presence. All attempts at keeping order only created moments where tension made up for lack of volume.
The next point was to see if a suitable compromise could be reached. Both S. and R. rejected any compromise, telling the other members of OS that "what's done is done" and "he's coming, whether you like it or not". Moreover, they began presenting a false narrative about other members, including L., who was the first participant to place a block on the decision, agreeing to having the cop there in advance.
When it was clear that no compromise could be reached, the block was formally placed on the table by both L. and M.
It was at this point that C. and A. both announced they had to leave to deal with other matters, and registered their votes on the final question. A. voted against having the cop as the speaker, while C. (a self-described Marxist-Leninist!) voted to go ahead and let the cop speak!
Of the remaining seven, only S. and R. voted to let the cop speak and overturn the block. The other five voted to dis-invite the cop and support L. and M.'s block. Immediately after the vote, both S. and R. abruptly left the call (then, later, quietly snuck back on to listen in to what the rest of the participants were discussing).
This morning, S. called L., informing her that their event (with the cop) will take place in the same park where the OS rally will be, because the permit for the pavilion area of the park (the only area that needs a permit to use) was actually in R.'s name, not that of OS. Moreover, S. informed L. that she had already spoken to the cops about OS and asked the police to stop us from "disrupting" their rally.
Nevertheless, OS is going ahead with the march and rally. We have most of the materials for the march and rally already, and we see no reason to back away from this event.
This was a small but important political victory, too. Of the six who voted for the block, five of them did so explicitly based on a generally communist understanding of the role of the police and that of the state. Since the conference call, participants have been talking about the need to clarify our position on the cops and the state in general, as well as on our political independence from the twin parties of capitalism.
Workers Party members initiated the block, and were able to win consensus for their position among OS participants. Our next GA, on March 10, will be very interesting, since the push for a more revolutionary #Occupy organization is coming to the floor based on consensus agreement.
This event was originally proposed by Participant S., a woman relatively new to OS, but known from the original Occupy group. Suffice to say, this is a really important and personal issue to her. When she tried raising and motivating this issue in the other #Occupy group in the area, Occupy the Tri (OTT), they not only flatly rejected the idea, but engaged in misogynistic attacks on S. and her history.
When she came to OS, it was at the insistence of Participant R., who had himself recently come to Occupy Saginaw after being threatened out of OTT by a couple of its leading members. We were much more receptive to the proposal and understanding of the reasons this was so important. We agreed by consensus to take on the organizing of this protest, even though we had less than two weeks to pull it all together.
A working group was established to coordinate the logistics and make sure everything that was needed for the march and rally were completed. This included leaflets, posters, generic signs, an OS banner, endorsers and speakers, any necessary permits, etc. Within five days, all but the other endorsers and speakers, and the banner, were done. This is where things started to go crazy.
S. had agreed to take on the bulk of the organizing and be the Spoke for the event. Her zeal and passion for the issue was impressive, but it soon became clear that it went beyond these motivating factors. It was quickly realized that S. was treating this event as "her baby". That is, she was beginning to make decisions without consulting the group. In this, she was supported by R., who ran interference.
Things came to a head yesterday (March 5) when S. told Participant L., the interim Organizer of OS, that she had found a "keynote speaker".
To back up a moment, though. When OS first agreed to organize the march and rally, one of the suggestions made was to invite someone who helps to teach women self-defense against attackers. Informally, participants agreed that this was a good idea; no names were suggested at the time.
When L. asked who this speaker was, S. said he taught self-defense classes at Saginaw Valley State University ... and, oh yeah, he's a campus cop!
L. strongly objected to the presence of a cop at the rally and asked S. to find someone else. S. replied that he was her choice, that he was already invited to speak, and that was that. That ended the first of what would be more than a dozen phone calls that afternoon.
The next call involved L., S. and R., with the latter two attempting to browbeat L. into accepting the cop speaking. In the process, they distorted facts about what was agreed to by OS, as well as the character of this cop (Marc Strain (http://www.svsu.edu/universitypolice/meet-the-staff.html#Strain), day shift patrol supervisor and detective for the SVSU Police, which are a sworn police force like the city cops or county sheriffs and have a Mutual Aid Agreement with the rest of the county's police (http://www.svsu.edu/universitypolice/about-us.html)).
As more members were informed about the conflict, a number of "compromise deals" were floated by other OS participants: showing up after the event; sending a non-cop in his place; having a table but not speaking; etc. All of these were relayed by L. to S. and R. Both flatly rejected any attempts at compromise.
As a result, an evening conference call of available OS members was arranged. There were nine participants present: L., S., R., M. (interim Media Spoke), N. (L's daughter and OS liaison to Occupy Detroit), C. (a supporter of Workers World Party), A., G. (A's daughter) and E. The first order of business was an explanation by M. of why the meeting was called. Not more than three seconds passed before S. and R. began shouting over others and demanding that OS accept this cop's presence. All attempts at keeping order only created moments where tension made up for lack of volume.
The next point was to see if a suitable compromise could be reached. Both S. and R. rejected any compromise, telling the other members of OS that "what's done is done" and "he's coming, whether you like it or not". Moreover, they began presenting a false narrative about other members, including L., who was the first participant to place a block on the decision, agreeing to having the cop there in advance.
When it was clear that no compromise could be reached, the block was formally placed on the table by both L. and M.
It was at this point that C. and A. both announced they had to leave to deal with other matters, and registered their votes on the final question. A. voted against having the cop as the speaker, while C. (a self-described Marxist-Leninist!) voted to go ahead and let the cop speak!
Of the remaining seven, only S. and R. voted to let the cop speak and overturn the block. The other five voted to dis-invite the cop and support L. and M.'s block. Immediately after the vote, both S. and R. abruptly left the call (then, later, quietly snuck back on to listen in to what the rest of the participants were discussing).
This morning, S. called L., informing her that their event (with the cop) will take place in the same park where the OS rally will be, because the permit for the pavilion area of the park (the only area that needs a permit to use) was actually in R.'s name, not that of OS. Moreover, S. informed L. that she had already spoken to the cops about OS and asked the police to stop us from "disrupting" their rally.
Nevertheless, OS is going ahead with the march and rally. We have most of the materials for the march and rally already, and we see no reason to back away from this event.
This was a small but important political victory, too. Of the six who voted for the block, five of them did so explicitly based on a generally communist understanding of the role of the police and that of the state. Since the conference call, participants have been talking about the need to clarify our position on the cops and the state in general, as well as on our political independence from the twin parties of capitalism.
Workers Party members initiated the block, and were able to win consensus for their position among OS participants. Our next GA, on March 10, will be very interesting, since the push for a more revolutionary #Occupy organization is coming to the floor based on consensus agreement.