I am a strong supporter of Non-Violence. I do not believe in Violence on a personal philosophical level. I believe that the use of force to conform any person to your will is an affront to freedom everywhere and the autonomy of every person on earth. To use anarchist rhetoric any use of physical force against an individual is, in fact, fascism.
Regardless of a strong stance of Non-Violence within the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the deep discussions that have happened at Occupy Oakland about the definition and nature of violence, it is clear that across the country, our government has endorsed a policy of violent repression of political dissent. The state complains about guns on our streets, but then buys guns, and pays people to carry them through our streets.
Through the continued raids on our encampments, regardless of the restraint, and commitment to non-violence that Occupy Oakland has shown, the State, and the OPD as an extension thereof, has expressed no indication that they are intending on changing their policies in regards to enforcing their illegal seizures of camping infrastructure, including tents, food, and medical supplies, from our political encampments.
It is clear that the intention in writing the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States was to ensure the right of the people to openly show dissent towards the government, without the threat of violence.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution was written to strategically defend the First Amendment, from a government which would choose to violently repress political dissent.
Self defense, or defense in general, is never Violence. Violence requires the intent to harm objects, living or inanimate. The intent, by definition, of defense is to stop the continuation of violence.
Police are trained to take control of situations always by exhibiting an escalated level of violence compared to a situation. If the situation involves peaceful crimes, they show up with weapons to threaten violence, if the situation involves unruly behavior, they enforce their authority through violence, if the situation involves weapons they use deadly force.
I do not want to live in a system where people must endure violence in order to have their voice heard. Furthermore, In a state that sponsors violence from its policing agents, the only way to end violence and proceed with non-violence is through a de-escalation process. The police are not extra-legal forces. They do not have less responsibility to the law, they have more, and the people should not be held to any standard of behavior more restrictive than that which the police are held to.
All of this being said, In the interest of preventing further violence in our society, it is necessary for people to take the defense of their persons, and the ideal of non-violence into their own hands by embracing their second amendment rights.
It is completely unacceptable to escalate the level of violence in a situation, however, in situations in which the police have already escalated the level of violence, it is the responsibility of society to hold them accountable, and to enforce non-violence, by matching their level of escalation, until we can come to a mutual de-escalation and disarmament.
If the police come into our communities with weapons on their belt, we should meet them with weapons on our belt.
If the police come into our communities with weapons in their hands, we should meet them with weapons in our hands.
If the police aim their guns at us, and place their fingers on the triggers, we should meet them by aiming guns at them and placing our fingers on the triggers.
If the police start firing unknown projectiles at us, we should fire unknown projectiles back at them.
In the defense of non-violence.
Do not confuse militancy with violence. They are not the same.
Every great non-violent movement has had a militant wing, such as the Black Panthers or the India Independence Movement.
We should aspire to leave our guns at home, but until the state decides to not bring guns into our communities, it is our responsibility to meet them at their chosen level of escalation.
The violence committed by OPD has brought untold damage to this political movement, it has disrupted our own decision making process, it has been use to muffle our voices, and to make our position seem more extreme, and less desirable to the rest of our society. Our society is terrified of speaking out because of the repression they will face, until our police are unarmed, they will continue to fear speaking out against the establishment.
The concept that this speech is condoning violence is a misinterpretation of what is being said, violence IS evil. Any perpetrator of violence should face the full wrath of society. Self defense of the people, by the people is not a violent act.
The idea that this message is Seditious, is seditious itself. It is an act of sedition to restrict the constitutional rights of the people. It is an attack on this country to enforce restriction of political dissent, it is an attack on this country to illegally seize the property of those dissenting, and it is an attack on this country to pass any law limiting the peoples right to meet a threat of violence, with arms. The restriction to only unloaded open carry is a violation of the constitution. The police are entitled to carry loaded weapons and as extension of that, the people are entitled to carry loaded weapons.
This is a call, for the people, to embrace their Second Amendment right, to bear arms, in defense of non-violence, in the lineage of past social movements in our city of Oakland, including the Black Panthers. We will continually be violently oppressed until there is a consequence for the escalation of violence.
The excuse of the arming of policing agents a preventative measure against violent crime is a lie propagated by a fascist movement in this country. Economic inequality IS the cause of violent crime. Introducing an armed force into the community to try to limit violence is like trying to put out a fire by dropping wood on it. Instead the armed police are used to silence those who would speak against the government, against this fascist movement, and keep them silent in fear of continued violence, while the economic attack on our community continues, and continues to propagate violent crime.
If you want to stop violent crime, you have to enforce economic justice, and create a distribution of wealth in which all people have their needs of survival met, including housing, education, food, and healthcare. These are all human rights, and until our society can ensure them for every individual, there will be violent crime.
Do not be fooled into thinking that carrying weapons is an endorsement of violence. Carrying weapons is the only way to promote non-violence in a state that sponsors violence.
Thank you for your thoughtful post Kit, I learned a lot from it and appreciate your experience and point of view. I am pleasantly surprised to learn all that info about California gun owners! Who knew?
Thanks again – Michelle
Before you advocate armed resistance against government forces, please Google:
Koreesh/Waco, Texas.
1992 L.A. Riots
Wounded Knee 1890 and 1973
Ruby Ridge
I agree. Leave the weapons out of the mix. Brandishing weapons only moves the focus onto an escalation of force and armament by government forces. (i.e. 1992 Los Angeles Riots)
I agree, what the UCDavis students had a powerful and far-reaching POSITIVE impact on our movement… unlike smashing windows at Whole Foods, which did nothing for our movement other than undermine it.
I guess a better way to describe the original article is that it is not in defense of non violence, but it is for the justifications and excuses for using violence.
If justifications and excuses are to be allowed, than anyone can justify and excuse anything. Do you think the police do not have justifications and excuses for the actions they do? If justifications and excuses are to be accepted, then we must also accept that the police violence towards protestors is justifiable and excusable. Or else you are just a hypocrite with a double standard.
This is not in defense of non violence, this is in defense of violence and provoking authority.
When you seek out confrontation, when you let them know that you will be there armed and ready to use your weapons, you are encouraging them to come in prepared for your defense.
Non violence, means non violence.
When they come in with weapons on their belt, we will have none on ours, we will show them that non violence is the way.
When they come in with weapons in their arms, we will have none in ours, we will show them that non violence is the way.
See where I’m going with this?
When images of non violent protestors being pepper sprayed, who did not raise their own weapons in defense, hit the internet, these images proved to be stronger than any other images to come out of the movement so far.
When images of Oakland rioters starting fires, hiding their faces behind masks, breaking windows, provoking the police to incite violent came out, these images proved to do more damage to the movement and alienate the Occupy group more than anything so far.
So which would you choose, to create the violence that alienates the people the Occupation claims to represent? Or to do the work of the 1%, by feeding into the violence that they have left in our communities and in our hearts.
Anon11010110 (214) writes: “…..create a distribution of wealth in which all people have their needs of survival met, including housing, education, food, and healthcare. These are all human rights.
————————- ——————————-
In the last few words of his rant, “Anon (214)”, beautifully sums up the bottom line Marxist agenda of the so called “Occupy” movement whose backers & organizers are organizations with Marxist agendas like Move On, SCIU, remnant splinter groups of defunct ACORN & clueless individuals parroting the Marxist line, commonly known as “Useful Idiots”.
Nowhere in The Constitution or Declaration of Independence are needs such as housing, food, education, or health care guaranteed. All we’re guaranteed is the “Right” to “pursue happiness”, which may be fostered by attainment of such needs. There will always be haves & have nots, just as there will always be smart & stupid people. Those advocating the Marxist line, such as “Anon (214)”; ( that redistributing wealth will make us all “equal” & create fairer society) , fall into the latter category.
My only complaint re: the OPD is they use Too Much restraint. Do we have a right to peaceful assembly to redress grievances? Yes. But when that assembly disrupts the course of business & harms merchants trying to earn a living, that “assembly becomes a MOB. As such, police have an obligation to protect the community. If the MOB refuses to disperse, police should abandon the Restraint of pepper spray. Time to BUST HEADS!
Anon claims these “oppressed” protestors should resort to “2nd Amd. remedies” if confronted with police violence. Should police act outside the confines of the Constitution, I agree. And for this reason I support the 2nd Amd & own guns. But this is not the case here. So if Anon (214) & his fellow “Useful Idiots” resort to armed resistance, they deserve & Will be crushed like bugs.
Strangly enough, I agree. This is really an asymmetrical war of perception. It is “hearts and minds” – you win by losing hearts and minds struggles. You never win by becoming powerful. You win by losing. This is basic Lao Tzu / Sun Tzu. And was why our country lost the Vietnam conflict. (We were out “media-ed”). 😉
I sit on the Board of Directors of a statewide gun owners’ group, and am Of Counsel to another one. There is a long history of gun rights being used to defend civil rights, especially in the black civil rights movement of the 1960’s. Google “deacons for defense.” In fact, much of California’s most recent gun laws were created as a reaction the the Black Panthers (whites did not like armed blacks). Google “mulford act.”
THAT BEING SAID – while your theories are generally correct, our experience has been that guns and grassroots direct-action politics should not mix. The consensus is that armed struggle is not required, and that social change can be made by working within the system, like we have done. As much as we do not like certain laws, we would never advocate any sort of social protest that involves the breaking of laws. This erases any positive press, and simply sinks any gains. True peace, and true change, should not involve obvious conflict of any kind. With respect to the “gun nut” moniker. The stereotype may be true in other parts of the state, but in Oakland, at least – law abiding gun owners are a diverse crowd, and include black grandmothers who keep a pistol to defend their homes in East Oakland, gay and lesbian men and women who arm themselves to prevent getting bashed, lawyers (like me) who enjoy target shooting, hispanic men who hunt and fish, female college students who compete in pistol competitions, old Asian men who like to hunt with shotguns, etc. The last thing that any social movement should do is to start reiterating media stereotypes. IN FACT, I did an unofficial poll of one of our groups (with a survey size of about 500). About 70 percent of us, statewide, support gay marriage. The conceptions about gun owners, at least in California, are exactly wrong. Just wanted to clear that up! 😉
AND AGAIN, GUNS SHOULD NOT BE MIXED IN TO THINGS HERE. I AM TELLING YOU THIS FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE AND KNOWING HOW THINGS PARSE OUT. IT IS A GOOD SENTIMENT, AND WE SUPPORT PASSION FOR ALL CIVIL RIGHTS, BUT ON A COMMON SENSE LEVEL, NOTHING GOOD WILL COME OUT OF ARMING ANY OCCUPY MOVEMENT. IN FACT, THIS WILL LEAD TO EXTREME PROBLEMS WITH MEDIA AND LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Also, law enforcement is not your opposition. Your opposition is the people who tell law enforcement what to do. If you do not like how LE is treating your movement, start at the top, and replace leadership through the political process.
Please let me also add that I have spent several hundred pro bono hours over the last several months working with decisionmakers, here in Oakland, on solutions to our street violence problem. I am working with progressive groups, and the general feeling among our groups is that violence in Oakland IS caused by economic disparity. We are working now to empower Oakland (especially the flat parts of Oakland) with jobs.
Please contact me at kevin@oaklander.org if you all would like to join our coalition. You will note that I am not anonymous.
OK, rant over!
klt
Violence plays into the hands of the 1%. We end up going down to their level. They’ll use violence in PR campaigns to paint the movement as nothing more than a dangerous, violent, and angry mob. Most people won’t back violence.
Look at the media coverage of the violence the police have done on behalf of the 1%. Most people have begun to side with the Occupy movement as they become outraged with daily evidence that we live in a police state where the 1% will set their troops loose on peaceful protesters.
If we turn and become violent, we will lose. People will become disgusted with us. I, for one, will not stand with people who are violent and destructive.
Yes, look at the example of the students at UC Davis. Those images of non violent resistance to police brutality has only drawn more people to the movement.
When Whole Foods at Bay and Harrison was vandalized along with the graffiti turned off so many people and it made us look like those we oppose. Yes, most of us have distanced ourselves from the violent few.
It would be wise of us to stand firm in peaceful resistance even in the face of violent repression. We take the high world and the world listens and comes to understand what the 1% is all about – oppression through violence or threats of violence. As we stand in non resistance most reasonable people become outraged and begin to become motivated to bring change.
If we choose violence, we will get violence in return. And we will ultimately lose.
This is exactly what the 1% wants– to destroy our own cause by discrediting it with violence and vandalism.
Isn’t this exactly the same logic the gun nuts [of which you are one] have to offer? No fucking thanks.
We will never win an armed skirmish with the police and its time to renounce the love affair with the street battle. So far to me the most powerful moment of the OWS protests has been the non-violent response by the UC Davis students to the brutality inflicted upon them.
Go ahead and start firing projectiles at police and see what Mr. Darwin has in store for you
Erm, no thanks.