Talk:Spring Equinox

I like this proposal, and especially the idea of asking the gov't to pitch in. There needs to be strong language indicating that there are issues of homelessness and addiction that the government needs to address, and that this demand is not the sole focus of the movement (despite its importance). I encourage language in the proposal that would explain that this is not the end of Occupy Boston, but that Dewey Sq is no longer sufficient as a central location.

Can we demand of Menino that he address *all* of the issues he brought up regarding the OB encampment: homelessness, addiction, women's safety, sex workers' rights, etc? Farkas.aj 12:05, 7 December 2011 (EST)

+++

1.	Politically, I think that it is necessary to show in good faith that the encampment on Dewey Square is indeed temporary, and not a permanent settlement extending into the future.

Rebuttal/Response:

It was my understanding that the tactic of occupation was an act of civil disobedience, in addition to being politically-motivated, protected free speech, which under the U.S. Constitution, the City cannot abrograte without citing clear and compelling reasons and the courts applying the ‘strict scrutinity’review. If the City truly believes the encampment will be permanent, it is because it is willing to admit that there are no existing remedies, nor government officials willing (or able) to take up the cause of the occupiers. This is actually a good thing! It is healthy and desirable to lift the veil! If the occupation reveals to the public that it is government officials who routinely act in bad faith, the the impression of the protesters as‘immature,’ unsophisticated, resentful,  and un-serious will be cast asside. The message of the occupation is better served not in amicable relations with the City but in the brutally realistic, painfully honest public evaluation of our political economy and institutions.

For this public evalution to take place, the City (or the Courts) must respond or choose to ignore the protesters. The City could act honorably and lawfully if it recognizes the constitutionality of the protesters actions, and, out of their own good faith, choose to cooperate with the protesters to find a way to address their concerns without violating the fundamental rights of freedom of assembly and political speech. The Courts could uphold their own standard, which is the only token of their legitimacy, by restraining the city from these violating fundamental rights. Once more: the review of strict scruity forbids the government from violating rights without a compelling reason. If these individual rights should be compromised the government’s interest must be compelling, the policies ‘narrowly tailored’ to achieve or protect this interest, and enforcement must be the least restrict means to those ends. As you can see, it would be helpful to the cause for the city to decide what to make of the encampment.

The City may also ignore the protests, which would also be telling. It would indicate that it has no right to intervene, or if it does have a right, that it would be politically disasterous to exercise it. The opponents of the camp may agitate for some response. It would be interesting to hear why.

So what ‘good faith’ is there to show here? Why did protesters adopt civil disobedience as opposed to traditional venues for redress in the first place? Protesters took the camp out of anguished frustration—trust in the city, the government in general, has already been irreparably broken by the government’s lackadaiscal treatment of the protesters’ grievances! Besides this, in order for the occupation to be an effective instrument for advancing the interest of the protesters, the occupation of course has to be temporary! The protesters should vacate the premises upon conditions that the City and society in general seriously consider their grievenaces. A public evaluation of our society, a re-awakening of our political consciousness, is paradoxically the most remote and the most concrete demand one could make of the City. The only way to do this is by occupying this space indefinitely until that conversation takes place.

2.	We have many people with no other place to stay, and stability of place is very important for them through the Winter. By declaring a residential end date on the first day of Spring, we can negotiate a stability to our camp while we are here.

Rebuttal/Response: It is understandable that there should be heightened concern for displacement during wintertime, however, the primary motivating reason for the encampment remains political. The camp is a testament to social discontent. It is a place of residence only secondly, and it should be said, that it is NOT the responsibility of the protesters to burden themselves too much with horrible symptoms of the society they are rejecting in the first place! While there is obviously compassion enough in the camp to accommodate the downtrodden, protesters should ask themselves why they came out of their homes in the first place. Is it to expiate themselves for the guilt of not yet being homeless, to show solidarity with the oppressed by sharing bread with them? Or is it to stir all of society to look at the hideous truth in the face to move them to finally get rid of the systemic cause for rank inequlity and widespread coldheartedness? At this moment it would be helpful to recall the wise words of the Marxist revolutionary, Leon Trotsky: “In a serious struggle there is no worse cruelty than to be magnanimous at an inopportune time.” The time is now for protesters to reflect on what inspires them to show up, to articulate their outrage with their heads just as much as their hearts. ''' Moreover, it is terribly unlikely the city could engage in this negotiation. To agree to do so would embolden future civil disobedience, which is why they would never agree to do it.'''

What’s more, a large degree of homeless participants is actually a deterrent to the movement. Many homeless persons are victims of systemic neglect; they are disporportionately afflicted with mental health problems, drug addiction, and criminal tendencies which provide the police with a ‘reasonable cause’ (a casus belli) to enter the camp, which would pervert the whole purpose of the occupation. The Safety Working Group should be held to account for its effectiveness in eliminating such persons who may pose a threat to participants, their property, or the ideological progress of the protest through their reckless disregard for well-meaning protesters. Please do not be martyrs thoughtlessly. Think logically!

3.	We need to last until the Equinox, to usher in the American Spring! Comment: Well, this would color the disbandment with tinge of irony. Here we have thermidorean elements before the frost melts away! (I kid, I kid. Nice thought!)

4.	March 20th coincides with the proposed Convergence on Washington. 5.	We can negotiate bringing in Winter tents as a condition for declaring a residential end date. Comment: Negotiation is unlikely for reasons stated above. Also, if this is the intent (Negotiation) behind the proposal, then disbandment should be conditional; the G.A. should not endorse the plan to disband without sureties, in writing, that winter tents will be allowed, along with other necessary equipment.

6.	We are not "ceding" the ground, but "seeding" the ground -- we will go off in 1,000 directions, like dandelion seeds on the wind. 7.	This is not giving up. Change is part of life. This is moving on to Occupy Everywhere! 8.	We need a new creative protest means, and we have the Winter to think of it, to excite and get into the public consciousness with our memes of social justice!

Comment: This may be true, but it doesn’t have to stop simply because the movement voluntarily chooses to disband the grounds on that date.

9.	Spring is a great time to grow the grass! Comment: Spring is also when the park is a comfortable public space… The public should be exposed to it! Comment: March Fourth is a Sunday two weeks and two days before the Spring Equinox, should weather and planting conditions permit, this duration of time can be a celebration for sowing seeds of grass, tending to the Greenway, and crafting peaceful sanctuary structures, culminating in a march forth from the thoughtfully rejuvenated space on the 20th. The only sensible way to occupy anything indefinitely is to make your acts intricately woven into the fabric of its nature, so that they may be tended to over time in thoughtfully wise and enduring ways.

10.	This may help our court case, if we have another hearing. Part of the City argument against us was that we are a potentially permanent encampment There are many possible amendments that could be made: 11.	We could tie decamping to a condition, such as the City granting us an unused space where we could create a homeless shelter by a new model, where it is run mainly by homeless and formerly homeless people, so that it has a different feeling than the standard shelters. 12.	We could state another condition, that we work with the Greenway on creating a sculpture park in the theme of tents, that provide a lean-to shelter where people can get out of the rain when needed, and a gazebo-type forum where people can hold public meetings on civil topics. +++