I write as someone who has just spent a long night camping outside the State Library with no structures resisting harassment from both State Libary Security and police. I also write as someone who experienced this as a deeply empowering experience. To read more about what happened last night see the indymedia article http://indymedia.org.au/2011/10/30/occupation-re-established-in-melbourn... However yesterdays events pose some big questions about the democratic processes of Occupy Melbourne.
Firstly I would like to say that I understand what happened yesterday was ultimately the responsibility of the state who traumatised people last Friday by assaulting them and trashing their personal belongings. This is not an attack on individuals but a reflection of how that fear worked to undermine the strength of purpose and unity of Occupy Melbourne. The problems began at the Treasury Gardens where a proposal was put by the logistics crew to move to the Edinburgh Gardens in the City of Yarra. They reported back on a meeting that had taken place with the City of Yarra where it was stated the council had no current opposition to the camp coming but support could be withdrawn quickly. The other proposals included staying at the Treasury Gardens and moving to RMIT property in Bowens Lane. Steve Jolly talked around the crowd to moving to RMIT on the grounds of its central location and the Union support that was likely to follow from the CFMEU. He also stated the support for the Yarra Council was not likely to last given that local residents were likely to quickly complain. Thinking under fear of an imminent police attack if we tried to set up camp in the Treasury Gardens the crowd overwhelming decided to go to Bowens Lane. There was very little support for going to the Edinburgh Gardens.
Once we had stayed at Bowens Lane for a while we were informed that RMIT was in the process of moving a Trespass notice on Occupy Melbourne. What followed was a very difficult GA, again undertaken under the threat of imminent police attack and by a group of people many who had been traumatised already by police violence. It is not surprising under these circumstances that consensus was very difficult to achieve. People spoke in passionately in favour of either going to Edinburgh Gardens, staying put and making a stand at RMIT. Eventually a proposal was put forward to move to another central city location but not set up structures perhaps even return to the City Square. My reading at this point was that the proposals that had the most support was either to stay at RMIT or move to another central location. The proposal with the least support was a move to the Edinburgh Gardens. However at this point when consensus could not be reached the debate became quite divisive. The arguments for going to Edinburgh Gardens were that we would be allowed to set up camp there, at least temporarily.. A proposal from the facilitation group that given we don't have consensus that we should support a proposal for some people to a stay at RMIT and others to leave was met with much hostility as it was seen as divisive. A woman announced soon after that a group of people were going to go to the Edinburgh Gardens regardless of the the decision, the kitchen was already being set up there. She added those who wished to remain non-violent should join them. I took this as inferring that those who stayed were some how being violent by risking being brutalised by the State! At this point Jacob Grech got up and made a report back/speech that we should move to another location in the city and keep going. He said rather than get busted on "private land" we should get busted if we had to on public land and test the laws against political expression on public land. Then, I cant remember who, someone suggested we go to the State Library to continue our occupation. This was overwhelming supported by the GA to break the deadlock and the crowd still around 500 strong did just this.
However this is when things got a bit weird in my opinion. There was no encouragement made for people to start making themselves comfortable at the State Library. Instead people were left to mill around and drift off without any sense of purpose. A little while later I wandered over to a group of about 15 people having an informal caucus and the discussion was going in the direction that someone should take on making an "inspirational speech" to the crowd that was left saying what a good day we had had and we should reassemble at the State Library at 4PM. No discussion was made of talking to people about the fact that we as a GA we had decided to move the occupation to the State Library. People were also to be informed that a camp existed at the Edinburgh Gardens. This indeed occurred. At this point I made a short speech encouraging people to stay at the State Library as long as we could whether it be 5 minutes or all night, that we should take a stand and not move on. About 50-70 people did indeed stay on after this point to continue the occupation without structures. We moved into the dry on the steps of the State Library where we ending up staying until about 12.30PM when we were removed by police at request of Library Security.
The weirdness continued however. About 9.30PM someone tweeted and Facebooked that the camp for the OM had been established at the Edinburgh Gardens! Despite about 70 of us being on the steps of the State Library at that point being threatened with eviction!. Credit where it is due these posts were quickly removed by members of the media crew present. Some members of the Legal Team came down to offer support. Members of the logistics team brought us some blankets. However they also took away gear from some people to the Edinburgh Gardens for safe keeping. Whilst this was done out of good intent it left us even more underesourced at the State Library.
The people at the State Library who were following the decision of the GA to move to the State Library and who were following the spirit of the second most popular proposal which was to move to a central location and remain without structures were "high and dry" to some degree in the wet! The communal kitchen moved with all the food to Edinburgh Gardens. We had to do a whip around to buy food from the Supermarket. Some individuals self-organised and brought down much needed tarps , bedding etc which was all needed and greatly appreciated. I don't know for sure what was happening at the Edinburgh Gardens but to the best of my knowledge all that was brought down during the night to the State Library was a few blankets and a banner. We were left to similarly self-organise for breakfast today.
None of this is meant as a personal attack on the people who went to the Edinburgh Gardens - people are free to go anywhere they like. The question at hand is why communal property was redirected away from the site chosen by the GA to a third option which had received the least support.
In my opinion as stated this is all a result of justified fear of authorities after the violence of last Friday. However if this Occupy movement is to continue then we can't get away from the fact we do not have permission currently to camp in the central business district BUT THIS IS WHERE WE NEED TO BE. We need to recommit to non-violently occupying a space in the CBD, a high profile space with or without structures. If we can't or don't have the strength for this - then it is not anyone fault but a result of the demoralisation of the campaign by state violence and harassment. Even if we stumble now our spirit will grow in other ways. However, we have to choose today though - are we an Occupy movement? A series of rallies or a camp in the suburbs is not an Occupy movement. Think carefully comrades - the future of our movement is at stake?
Davey Heller (the perspective of one tired member of Occupy Melbourne!)
Comments
There should be better communication and sharing of resources
Maybe there should be a discussion at the next GA about the allocation of resources.In a situation where there are apparently no leaders, the control and distribution of resources is where the cookie crumbles.Personally, I don't think it is a bad thing to have a dispersed movement for the reason that it is harder for the police to deal with a protest in multi locations. If everyone is in one spot, they can round you all up and that is the end of that! There should be better communication and sharing of resources amongst occupying groups though.
If the CFMEU support this load of shit I will burn my union card
If the CFMEU support this load of shit I will burn my union card in front of the shop steward.We build buildings to support corporate greed thats where we make our living.If the CFMEU agree with you then they must stop all construction Tomorrow, and that won't happen
Good on you all for staying put despite the odds
Good on you all for staying put despite the odds. This movement is worthwhile, valid, inspiring.
'Leaders' eventually alienate themselves
What you have described has often (almost always) occurred in campaigns in which I have been involved. A dynamic can develop in which certain individuals and groups become established as 'organisers', 'leaders', 'media spokespersons' and 'police liaison'. People can be very effective in these roles and in many cases the campaign can achieve good things as a result. But the establishment of these roles can become problematic. Let me stress that I am not blaming individuals themselves. Rather I think that such roles are created as the result of an organisational dynamic. As these individuals become established in leadership roles they can form relationships with each other and actors outside the movement with whom they liaise. These bonds are then strengthened by the need to 'manage' the campaign within bounds which they all assume to be reasonable. These bounds become norms which are shared by the leaders and many supporters/members. They are also reinforced by prevailing social norms and backed by police violence and the portrayal of this violence in the corporate media as ambiguous (or even normal) and unavoidable though regrettable. In this process many people in the movement who are not 'leaders' become alienated.
I think that in very strong movements such as the peace movement during the Vietnam war, the strong morality of ordinary people, has been seen to prevail. In these cases, 'leaders' who alienate themselves from the people in the movement either get dragged back into line by the majority or stay on the sidelines and become irrelevant.
There is no reason why these hierarchical dynamics need to become dominant in Occupy Melbourne. As far as I can tell, the process adopted by OM (the General Assembly, organising committees, the human microphone etc) was based on non-hierachical organising principles which were developed in Madrid and then which spread globally to other occupations including Wall Street. I am hopeful that people at all levels of OM think carefully about what they are doing and maintain the principles of direct democracy which are contained in these processes.
(Edit) A couple of provisos: Of course the above comments are highly speculative. There is nothing from your account to suggest that 'leadership' issues directly caused the situation you found yourself in. They are, however, important to keep in mind. The other proviso is that 'counter-leadership' forces and autonomy were also at play. Eg the food group decided to set up at Edinburgh Gardens. The fact that they did is not such a bad thing in my opinion. (end edit)
It's great that you were able to organise yourselves and gather the necessary resources autonomously. I hope that you form some close groups based on affinity and solidarity and that you will continue to exert your power throughout the duration of this movement. If many such autonomous groups form and are united by a common goal, the movement will become very strong and difficult for authorities to destroy - even with the use of all of the resources of violence, surveillance, subterfuge and ideology that the corporate/state has at its disposal. At least that is my view.
Inspirational stuff. Well done.
Outcomes on Saturday 29th Oct
I think the facilitators on Saturday ought to have joined the group at the Library and immediately re-convened the GA to clarify what was needed at the new location. Having said that, they were probably frazzled and wanted to knock off. I certainly was. Hope it's all cleared up a bit now after another GA!
With the benefit of hindsight, we could have just stayed at the Library all day and taken it easy on Saturday. But we had a prior decision to go to Treasury Gardens, so I think we got pretty much the best outcome of a bunch of less-than-ideal possibilities. I think having a sit-in and being arrested at RMIT would have been a mistake, large parts of the crowd would have voted with their feet and left a much smaller group to face the cops. Not ideal, maybe, but that's where it's at I guess.
By the way thanks for a clear and concise account of the day's events!
Feel a bit out of the loop, request your account/opinion
In regards to Saturday I was out on camp with a Disability group so feel I am still a bit out of the loop on the current happening and proceedings of Occupy Melbourne. From what I have heard from a number of participants is that the movement seemed disjointed and what has been an effective decision making process, was absent on the Saturday. I was also a bit confused on the decision to occupy RMIT as is this not private land and would it not make it easier for eviction. But yes I would like your account/ oppinion.
Decision without all info drawn out - be kinder to each other!
Heya,
Just some clarifications from my perspective only. Agreed that the decision of some folk and especially the subsequent tweet and announcement that OM had reconvened at Edinburgh Gardens was problematic. The call was made from facilitators that numbers had dwindled so heavily (decision not so supported in practicality, after all to move to state library it seems? Or people dispirited by meting) that further decision making at the state library could be viewed us unrepresentative. Many of them were delayed in coming across as they were in heavy discussions with people who disagreed with the process. There was quite heavy tension, and the moderator had also come under such sustained and in my view, unreasonable attack, that quite frankly none of the inexperienced people there were volunteering to do this... quite understandably.
And I have to disagree, upon request from some people I did speak briefly, clearly affirmed that the decision was made to move to state library and sought approval and support from the crowd for the brave crew that were determined to stay.
I think the problem came earlier on - the suggestion for Bowens Lane came late and wasn't thought through, nor consulted with the groups that needed info to make things happen: food, logistics, legal etc... however the large group was impatient and this led to a decision that was possibly made without all information being drawn out.
There is definitely some learnings for the faciliation team, however I have disappointed by some commentary (not necessarily here)that doesn't reflect on group ownership of the process. The Bowens lane decision was broadly supported, however when we got there, we found out we were likely to be kicked out. The group were then forced into another round of decision making under stress, and some people in the crowd acted really poorly towards the facilitator trying to do his best under difficult circumstances. We need to be kinder to each other.
I think this can be pulled back together, and we can work through it.
I feel organisers have become like the pigs in Animal Farm
I have tried without success to air my own concerns about Occupy Melbourne on their site, unfortunately without success. This great "freedom" movement has silenced me. Not one of my posts has been posted on the site. Twice I have sent emails to people and received no response. For a so-called democratic movement it has barred me from having a voice in the Occupy Movement.
So I will make a few points here.
Occupy Melbourne has been like a dog without a bone since October 21st, which I refer to as Black Friday. Since that bloody day, when Robert Doyle sent the troops in to evict a peaceful and happy occupation of City Square, we have had nowhere to lay our hat. The General Assembly's have fallen into farce. The media has mocked our democratic processes. And no wonder. When someone gets up on stage and tells us that we shouldn't march anywhere because it is likely to stop traffic for a while we have to wonder what the fuck we are doing.
Democracy is great, but it's like all things, too much democracy only brings us down. In response to the above article, it is all well and good 100 or 1,000 people saying "let's occupy such and such a space" but unless they have the willingness to do the job, to go there and set up camp and face forced eviction, which is what will most certainly happen anywhere within the Melbourne CBD, then really, their opinion is simply hot air. It is the people who are going to physically occupy the space who must have the greater say on where that occupation should be.
The very first thing I contributed to the debate (which was ignored) was that we need to engage in dialogue with the City Council to negotiate a space which we can claim and camp in. If there is no such negotiable space we have three options. Find private land within Melbourne that someone is prepared to invite us to set up camp on (this could be RMIT, Melbourne University, a church, anything where the decision is taken away from the Council). If this is not possible we are reduced to two options. One is to set up camp in Melbourne with the knowledge that we will be evicted, and to resist like on the 21st until we have been pushed the length and breadth of the City, with violence and disruption and arrests etc etc. The other is to find an alternative place to camp outside of the CBD. But without a base Occupy Melbourne ceases to exist. So this has to be settled. I don't know why we wouldn't at least attempt to negotiate with the Council in good faith,stating clearly that it does not have the legal power to prevent peaceful assembly. But if that fails, and it most probably will, and in the meantime even if it had success, we need to find somewhere we we can be. I have outlined the three possible scenarios. It is the organisers and those who are willing to put bodies into sleeping bags and tents that must make this decision. This does not mean that a General Assembly ceases to have a function, but it cannot have that function.
At least that seems clear to me. Some of the facilitators were angry with me because I yelled a couple of times during proceedings at the 10th or 9th General Assembly. Well if you want trained monkeys then you'll get the brains of monkeys. If you want passionate, earnest, free thinking independent individuals then maybe you have to be prepared for an interjection now and again. One of the facilitators acted like the police, telling me where I could stand. They don't have that right. If you want to promote freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, then stand up for individual rights as well, don't stamp upon those rights.
I feel like the organisers have become like the pigs in Animal farm. They have made themselves more equal than the rest. They stand at the top. We stand at the bottom. The Bolsheviks did this. A short history lesson. The Bolsheviks named themselves that name, which means, in Russian, the majority. In the revolutionary movement of the time they were not the majority. The majority were calling for a capitalist revolution, not a communist one. They felt that capitalism had to come before communism. But Lenin and Co. named themselves the majority, called themselves the Bolsheviks, and took over the dialogue and direction of the revolution.
This is important because when we claim that we are the 99%, we are acting like the Bolsheviks. I'd like to think I stand for the 100%. But really I stand for just me. The greedy corporate mogul is as disenfranchised and alienated from his or her true nature as the proletariat is. But we don't represent a silent majority. We represent ourselves. We represent the disenfranchised and alienated in ourselves. We would do much better, instead of baseless chants, to focus on some real policies that will provide for true representation and true freedoms. The freedom to assemble is in Victorian law. One policy I would advocate is for proportional representation in Parliament. Real democracy. Democracy that recognises the number of greens and socialists in society. At present Federal Parliament has one green member. If there was proportional representation there would be twenty green members. There would also be socialists. But I haven't heard a single person promote this, just some stuff about corporate greed and "we are the 99%" That doesn't cut it. We need to promote some serious policies. The only policy I have seen on Occupymelbourne.org is the one for a treaty with our blackfella brethren. This is an excellent policy. Why is it the only one? Surely we need a super profits tax to return some of the billions in banking and other profits to the public? Why hasn't this been promoted?
Back to the organisation. You cannot claim that you promote freedom of speech when I have been disallowed to post on your website. You allow others to post but you censor mine. Why? And why hasn't one of you had the guts to come to me with any concerns you might have. Surely you have room for one dissenting voice, for one person who represents himself, who is independent, unaligned, who speaks for himself and not for others? If there is not room in your movement for that, what in the hell are you do presenting yourself as representing me?
Maybe make arrest deals with police, like in USA
A thoughtful piece Noel and if this is the way you are communicating on the Occupy Melbourne site than it is a shame that your posts are not getting through for whatever reason that might be.
However, there is one option that has not yet been considered which is to seek a restraining order or injunction against the City of Melbourne and the Victorian Government stopping them from evicting us.
I believe that the eviction was an illegal one as there are no powers of arrest contained within the Activities Local Law and Section 6 of the Summary Offences Act forbids a move on order being issued to protesters and there can surely be no question about us being that. Further it is certainly arguable that the removal was in breach of the Victorian Charter of Human Rights (but the Police have been known to cheerily ignore this with their searches of persons without reasonable suspicion). I have put that opinion to the legal team with zero response.
Accepting that I am correct then the next response should be to seek that order or injunction yet it has not occurred.
Further, while the fear of a violent eviction along the lines of what happened on 21 October is reasonable, it is led to bad decisions being made especially those made at the GA on Saturday 29/10/11 and then led to the ridiculous situation where we marched to RMIT and we allowed ourselves to be "evicted" from there and then move on to the State Library all after having been to the Treasury Gardens before that and being "evicted" from there.
If we believe that we ae about free speech then we can not allow ourselves to be evicted from anywhere unless the Police or other "authorised officer" does it to us.
I have a cousin by marriage that is part of the Occupy USA movement and they have created a list of people who are prepared to be arrested and maybe some sort of liasion work with the Police can be done where those people who want to stay and not be arrested can be allowed to quietly leave and those that refuse can stay and be arrested. Maybe we can do the same thing.
I would love to see this taken up in a court of law
Yes I also thought there might be a legal challenge that we could pursue through the courts. Even if it is determined that the campsite and structures for against local by laws nonetheless I believe the law upholds the right to peaceful assembly. An occupy is simply a peaceful assembly over time. I would love to see this taken up in a court of law. Our greatest strength, in a democracy, is to use the laws of the land to protect our rights and freedoms. I also think that if the right to peaceful assembly was upheld then there would be an argument that the tents and structures were peripheral but necessary to that peaceful assembly, and that that ought to override any by-laws preventing such structures so long as they did not threaten safety or health or others rights.
As for the point about my comments not being posted, you will have to take that up with the organisers of the Occupy Melbourne website. personally, I think it is incredulous that they continue to deny me the right to a voice on their website. It truly boggles my mind. I have said nothing different there that I have not said here, and it is hardly revolutionary or threatening.
I think the cops got what they wanted, a very disjointed group
I was at the GA on Sunday, seemed like a lot of egos took over the meeting and very little was discussed about what the next move would be to try and re establish a camp? The guy from the kitchen basically told us he will do what he wants and we can go fuck ourselves? It’s occupy Melbourne… not Fitzroy? But he assured the group that food would get to the people no matter where they were and left, no food for the people at the library that night? And the poor buggers who were occupying had to hassle kitchen for breakfast?
I think the cops have got what they wanted, a very disjointed group, need to stop all the bullshit infighting and come together, dived and conquer is there motto, there winning guys? But we can turn this around if we unite, even the kitchen…
Re: WTF happened at occupy Melbourne on Saturday 29th Oct?
Yeah that was effed up.
Walmart Black Friday