Occupy Melbourne can do better.

A member for three days? I was there attending (not camping) for the first week in City Square. I was violated by the police on 21 October along with hundreds and thousands of others. I have attended a number of GA's, I don't know what attendance is required to be a part of the group, I thought it was inclusive and everyone was welcome.

By naming me an infiltrator (sorry I haven't got video evidence for my claims) you simply do disservice to the cause. And the record of the vote on the non violence motion is a matter of the minutes of the GA.

It was defeated, it was not "carried over."

I must be missing something. I thought that non-violence was generally accepted as something to aspire to, and that it didn't take rocket science to work out what it meant.

Non violence means what it says. An act of force other than resistance directed at a party, animal, plant, or object is generally considered violence. Of course yelling at someone is an act of violence, whereas yelling at your phone (whilst it is off) is probably not. So certainly what amounts to violence needs t be considered. But it seems that Occupy Melbourne has no notion of what violence is or amounts to, and doesn't want a discussion to determine what it is, they are quite happy to adopt violence as a means of achieving their ends.

Let us remember that a specific case was the catalyst for this debate. In this case an object (a camera) was forcefully removed from a council worker in order to damage it. It is alleged that the council worker was injured during this process. So it is not a simple case of smashing a camera, and the smashing of a camera does require quite some force in itself, but that camera could not have been smashed without interfering with a person, perhaps even occasioning harm to that person. It appears that Occupy Melbourne is prepared to accept this level of violence at least in the name of its movement.

Let us consider the types of actions that might be condoned by allowing violence against objects (I won't even go into violence against plants or animals, although these things are a matter of further discussion - for instance I could throw a pot plant through a window). So we agree that members of occupy Melbourne can smash windows because this is not "violence" as such, even if it does I suppose instil terror in people. So terrorising people is okay too. For example, one expects that the council worker, doing his job, was somewhat terrorised by having his camera taken from him. I wonder what sort of action we can condone in support of resistance against the police? Molotov cocktails perhaps? This is where our own violence, and acceptance of violence, takes us.

One of our strengths as a movement is to point to the violence employed against us. To say, we are peaceful, non violent protestors occupying in the name of the 99%. But suddenly that very powerful tool is taken away from us. We have to point to ourselves to identify where the violence springs from. The police are only employing violence in response to our violence. Some people in the Occupy movement might be happy with this state of affairs, but many will not be. You want your movement to grow, rather than to wither away. You will not do that by employing violence as a tactic. You won't do that by calling the police to evict a fifteen year old. You won't do that by calling people crusty cunts. You won't do that by being ageist or sexist.

If you want to grow you have to stand for something you have to aspire to something, you have to inspire people with your message. That is not happening at the moment, and it is doubtful whether it will happen with a group that adopts violence as its message to take to the people.

You'll have to point out where I have distorted anything. The media are hardly distorting what you are doing, they have given up reporting on it altogether.

You do not have all the names of those who were injured on 21st October. I have made my own personal complaint against the City of Melbourne for the injuries I incurred on that day. I have written about them elsewhere.

That is exactly the problem. On 21st October we were pointing at ourselves and chanting "this is what democracy looks like," and pointing at the police and chanting "that is what hypocrisy looks like." But if we adopt violence as a weapon we now have to point to ourselves and say "this is what hypocrisy looks like," because we have begun to copy our enemy.

Not once have I condoned police violence. Nor do I condone anyone's violence. I have been arrested many times, just go to my website and you can see a photo of me being arrested during a campaign to save a forest from mining.

You can paint me with whatever brush you like, but I was not the one evicting a fifteen year old teenager with threats of the police. I did not smash a camera and possibly injure the person holding it. I did not call anyone a crusty old twat. If you can't take criticism you ar ein the wrong business.

And I voted for non-violence. Did you?

You will find a link to the complaint I made

Here.

. I originally complained to the ombudsman but was advised by his/her office that first I would have to take it up with the relevant authority. The City of Melbourne ordered the action taken on that day, so I took it up with them. If they do not provide an adequate response I will pursue it with the ombudsman again.

I didn't realise it was a crime to lodge a complaint on my own behalf, but whatever.  The name of liar I find insulting in the extreme.  Grow up.

So first you tell me I wasn't injured, then you call me a liar, then you tell me who I should or should not be complaining to, I guess that is why I choose my friends, and choose the politics I believe in, which includes non violence, peaceful strategies, not turning away fifteen year olds with threats of calling the police, not calling people cunts cos you don't agree with them, not using violence to get your way. And I forgot to mention when I was called an infiltrator. I suppose I also broke my own glasses, ripped my jacket and scuffed my jeans, all for the sake of making a report of fiction. Whatever...

The craziest thing is that I think you actually believe that bullshit you write. What a joke.

I did speak to the woman. She became quite abrupt towards myself and others who were trying to intervene between her and the teenager involved. She said to us that it was "none of your business..." even though we were there too, apparently "she was in charge and new best," and considering she is a self-proclaimed psychiatric nurse who would misspeak her. She reminded me of Nurse Ratchet out of One Flue Over the Cuckoos nest, and from my experience of psychiatric nurses they are very bossy and rude to everyone they meet as a general rule.

If I had truly wanted to hurt the Occupy Melbourne movement I would have titled this original post as "Occupy Melbourne Condones Violence" rather than the name I gave it which was that it can do better. My only purpose here is to try to make Occupy Melbourne a better and more inclusive place. As it is quite obvious from the attacks I have received from people here, I cannot do that at Occupy Melbourne. Nonetheless I believe in the things it stands for. Which is why I encourage the next GA to seriously reconsider its position on non violence. I have not seen where it is written that Occupy Melbourne supports non violence, but I have seen it reject a motion in support of non violence. I have seen it support an individual who acted violently towards a member of Melbourne City Council.

I would have loved to have been more involved and to help out with policy development. But I have said from the outset that the deal breaker for me was Occupy Melbourne reject an opportunity to reidentify with non violence. Without that I am out. And everything I have said here has been to protect myself against false accusations. I have been called an infiltrator, a liar, and a cunt. And apparently i was never injured and was probably never there on October 21st. How do you expect me to respond except to defend myself against these false accusations?

Holier than thou? No. I just believe in non violence. And I know that when my daughter was having difficult times as a fifteen year old I would have been horrified if she had sought the company of Occupy Melbourne only to be forced to leave in the middle of the night with the threat of the police being called. I also know when people are being two faced.

Seriously, adopt non violence as a priority. Without it you have nothing.

You actually recognise by the points you make that a thorough discussion of what amounts to non violence is in order.

Remember that this proposal was in response to a Occupy Melbourne member who took it upon himself to take a camera from a council worker with force and intent in order to damage it.

That to my mind is not non violence. It is not self defence. It is not self protection. It is not taking reasonable steps to protect oneself or defend oneself from injury or harm.

I was recently charged with assault after five ticket inspectors gang tackled me and threw me to the ground where they forced my elbows hard into the ground and sat on top of me, I struggled fiercely during this because I was in pain and in distress, I tried with all my might to free myself without actually occasioning violence, it was a struggle (useless) on my part, and if I inadvertently struck one of the officers during this struggle then it was an act of self defence on that occasion. It was necessary force to protect myself.

Nowhere have I suggested that this ought not to be the same type of force used to protect oneself whilst still advocating non violence. I agree with all the points you make. People have the right to protect themselves, to take evasive action, to resist arrest, but there is a clear line when one goes beyond what is necessary to protect or defend oneself and actually acts violently towards another. That is exactly the point where I draw the line.

Non violence provides for resistance, but not for attacking. But it does mean if a police man is punching you then you should protect yourself with your arms rather than your fists. You should block the punch, not throw the punch. At some point it might even be warranted to throw a punch, if it becomes the only way to placate an attacker. You might have to knock someone out in order to stop them being violent towards you or others. Non violence can provide for this. I'm not exactly sure where buddhism, for instance, draws the line.

Clearly taking a camera from a person going about there job possibly injuring the person in the process with the object of destroying that camera without that camera being used as a physical object to harm you does not meet this criteria.

Using force to stop force is one thing, using it for other purposes requires quite a significant justification, I would have thought.

Oh, and my glasses were in my pocket at the time, so no, my eyes were not threatened. :)