What is the Sound of No Back Touching?

What is the sound of no back touching? Who are the leaders of a leaderless group? These are but two of the profound Zen koans that Occupy Baltimore offers to the young Grasshopper.

To come clean here, I didn’t take notes in any of the meetings. Much like my barely composite representation of OB’s leadership, Callow N., some of my recollections of specific moments may be mashups of one or more separate actual moments.

As such, I no longer recall whether the assertion of our right to discuss things amongst ourselves was ejaculated forth during discussion of the Sexual Offense policy, or the equally ridiculous discussion about whether or not to apply to the City for a permit to occupy the square, as both subjects were masticated for at least 5 days. The discussion of the permit issue was tabled in exasperation each night, as the fledgling consensus democracy could not come to a consensus.

The Sexual Assault Policy went on to be discussed over at least three weeks or more, during which it later became the Sexual Harassment Policy, and then simply the Sexual Offense Policy. It went through several drafts; an early one caused a negative media firestorm. It is periodically still being discussed.

The Sexual Offense policy was not only discussed ad nauseam, but this issue, the permit issue, or issues related to gender and LGBTQ equality led the G.A., apparently every night, for weeks. As far as I could tell, economic issues were not big a priority for the Callow Crew.

The proponents of the so-called Sexual Offense policy seemed to be largely concerned with preventing such horrific offenses as strangers touching them in the middle of the back without asking permission first, and also preventing anyone from calling them “sweetie,” “babe,” or even the dreaded “Hon (TM).” The looming threat of such actions made some people feel unsafe in the square, perhaps even made them feel like something much worse, such as actual rape, might potentially occur. (To the best of my knowledge, nothing beyond rogue back touching or the occasional rebuffed proposition had occurred, or had even been alleged, at the time of the start of this lengthy discussion.)

During the public discussion of the Sexual Offense policy in one of many General Assembly meetings, some voices of reason prevailed, and it was apparently agreed by consensus (among the self-selecting group that is willing to sit through hours of circular discussion) that if a victim was offended by some cretin doing something unforgivable, such as calling the victim “Hon (TM)” or touching her or him on the back without permission, they should not report the “assault” to the police, but the group should deal with such petty offenses between individuals itself.

I want to be clear here: I don’t think the Occupy Baltimore group ever discouraged the reporting of actual crime to the police. Nevertheless, the original “Sexual Assault” policy caused a media firestorm when someone in the group prematurely discharged an early draft, and began promiscuously disseminating it as a pamphlet.

The media (rightly so) assumed that “Sexual Assault” referred to serious crimes such as rape and sexual molestation; they saw that the policy was discouraging reporting of (minor) offenses to the police, and publicly made the unwarranted leap to the conclusion that the group was discouraging reporting of rape.

The resulting brouhaha was an example of a media tactic that Revolting back-toucher Revo and I know well (having been past media targets): if you want to discredit someone, say they are the exact opposite of who they actually are. The main proponents of Occupy Baltimore’s “Sexual Assault” Policy were in fact overly concerned with preventing anything that might have any remote chance of being construed as sexual offense of any kind, by even the most sensitive and easily offended soul. Through the distorted lenses of the media’s voyeur binoculars, however, OB became known for being totally unconcerned about preventing or punishing rape.

The discussion about the Sexual Assault/Harrassment/Offense Policy went on for the next 3 weeks, resulting in a current final draft that prominently includes the following words (emphasis mine):

“Sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted commentary or physical contact. It is the victim's prerogative to classify any action as sexual harassment, and to decide whether or not the harasser be ejected from #occupybaltimore. If the victim chooses to enforce the ejection policy, the harasser will be ordered not to return until the Safer Spaces Committee in conjunction with the Mediator’s Committee has reviewed the incident on the following day.”

Got that? ANY action. This policy amounts to nothing more nor less than a license to convene a vigilante mob against anyone an alleged “victim” does not cotton to.

Now, if someone tells you that a touch or a particular use of words makes them feel uncomfortable, then cool it and do not touch the person. Perhaps walk away. Sincere attempts to be respectful of others is key.

However, unless it’s actual physical or actionable verbal abuse of some sort, minor infractions aren’t “harassment” if the offender ceases the offensive behavior when asked. Individuals have differing comfort levels.

One should always endeavor to respect another’s comfort, but honest differences of opinion about what is appropriate can and do occur.

Something that is not a crime, or at least a repeated offense, should not result in vigilante actions and mob rule.

By acting like one who cried wolf, the policy’s main proponents inadvertently trivialized the risk of bona fide sexual assault, particularly when people are sharing a public space 24/7.

Weeks later, a rape was alleged to have occurred at Occupy Baltimore. The allegation was given sensationalist coverage on Fox 45 TV news, although police have since reported that they believe no sexual assault occurred, and the alleged victim made no such formal charge. One might question the veracity of a charge that is made publicly on the local right wing TV station, but never filed with the police, particularly when the TV coverage showed alleged drug paraphenalia left conveniently outside the door of a tent, for Fox News cameras to find.

Next:
Part 4

Previous installments in this series:
Click here for part 1.
Click here for part 2.

Astrogirl and Capt. Revo Join the Occupation

I have a complaint. I was harangued into joining the local occupation against my will, by a serial back-toucher and a Revolting Protester, Capt. Revo.

Before the Occupy Wall Street protest ever began in New York, Revo already had it pegged as a trigger movement that would quickly go viral to become an international phenomenon of discontent. He saw it as coming at an ideal time, at the perfect level of fertile public outrage, taking full advantage of Tahrir inspired lateral communication and cell phone technology, the “flash group” technology that had made the Arab Spring possible, now denigrated as “flash mobs” on this side of the pond.

Through the jaded eyes of a frequent activist for over 30 years, I saw it as a protest organized by the usual suspects, which would undoubtedly produce the usual result: a small to medium sized group of people who would raise a fuss for a day or so and nothing beyond that would happen. Revo can justly claim the visionary edge here.

Capt. Revo was thrilled and energized by the potential American Spring he saw coming over the horizon. He immediately wanted to get involved. His badgering “encouragement” for me to get involved was met with my yawns. This Occupy thing will be a hassle and will come to nothing. That was my firm belief at the time.

By the time satellite protests spun off from the Wall Street site and started proliferating across the country, however, Occupy Wall Street had proven staying power. By the time Occupy Baltimore got underway, I was beginning to feel a groundswell. When Occupy Baltimore landed next to Harborplace, I agreed to give Capt. Revo a ride to McKeldin Square.

As an aside, my buddy Revo had his theatre, his livelihood, and most of his worldly possessions taken from him by the BDC in a nefarious process, and he now has no vehicle of his own. As the Beatles sang, “I got no car and it’s breaking my heart, but I’ve found a driver and that’s a start.” A downtrodden 99%er self-described “revolting protester” with a huge Yellow Submarine banner the BDC didn’t get, and a door to door chauffeur. Poor Revo.

When we first arrived at McKeldin Square, the nightly General Assembly meeting was just starting, with facilitators using the effective, but annoying “People’s Mike” to speak to the crowd of roughly thirty or so, mostly young and white participants (the apparent composition of the group at that time). I already had just about enough of “the People’s Mike” from the media coverage of Occupy Wall Street, where a civic ban on sound systems was the mother of that invention, by necessity.

Baltimore has no such ban on voice amplification, yet the Occupy Baltimore protesters seemed to relish using the People’s Mike, regardless. It appeared to impart a sense of participatory, joystick empowerment for the speaker to hear the crowd echo everything they said, vebatim in mini-tweet form – listener tedium be damned!

Using the People’s Mike, when we first arrived, was a representative of the self-appointed leadership of the “leaderless” Occupy Baltimore (think Zen koan), whom I will describe as the barely composite character, Callow S. Narrowmindsky. At that moment, Mr. Narrowmindsky was in the process of introducing the People’s Committee for the Prevention of Sexual Assault. He told the assembly that a representative of the Committee would read the group’s proposed policy on sexual assault, which would then be subjected to a non-binding temperature check, to see how people were feeling about not feeling anyone up.

Narrowmindsky and his cohorts then thoughtfully assured the assembly that “Afterwards, you are free to discuss the proposed policy among yourselves. We don’t have any rules to prevent that.” Capt. Revo and I exchanged grinning glances, stifling shocked hilarity at that reassuring revelation. Revo expressed his appreciation, and wondered aloud if it was not the secret wish of Narrowmindsky’s clique to ultimately invoke such a ban of free speech, outside the General Assembly. The angry glares directed at the Capt., from a core group among the assembled, was my first indication that hanging with Revo around this crowd may earn me an involuntary joy ride in a dark trunk to the killing fields.

The perceived need for a public pronouncement that we still retained our first amendment rights became an object of recurring mirth over the next few days...as did the content of the Sexual Assault and Harassment policy itself. (More on that next time...)

Click here for part 1.
Click here for part 3.