The Statement of Nonviolence is a statement which sets forth one of our principles as a movement: our commitment to nonviolence. It is a principle that is deliberately excluded from the Principles of Solidarity - I believe because the term 'nonviolent' is so broad, and so nebulous, as to be, really defunct as having any meaning. Semantics are always subject to interpretation after interpretation - one need only look at the Supreme Court, an institution which literally just works on interpreting semantics and their applicability to real life. And they find that semantics are continually challenged by events and human behavior which tests and questions what seems so simple when laid out, starkly, in black and white, on paper.

My initial proposal to change the statement of nonviolence was a simple one - remove four words: "property destruction" . As a vague, nebulous and indistinct term that had already been rendered defunct by the city and LAPD's use of that term against us, it seemed a simple amendment to make. We, as a movement, have been accused of property damage to the lawn. To the park. To the sidewalk. To the fence. To the steps. We cut up debit cards, and break open locks to get into foreclosed homes. It already didn't apply to us, and if this was what establishments meant by property damage - how could we have that in a nonviolence statement? It was pointless. Undefined, it sits there, lumping in all eventualities from killing a blade of grass to rampaging in a full-on riot all across the city. As a 'non-violent' statement, I - and many others - didn't see the need for for including property damage in that statement, because it was demeaning, saying that the city's grass, its fence - was equivalent to our health and safety, our bodies, which had been subject to true violence, and knew what that felt like.

When we first heard proposed this amendment at GA, the - three - concerns were the same: what will stop someone from rioting and indulging in wanton property destruction in the name of Occupy LA if we take those words out?

Well, presumably the fact that rioting and causing damage are quite obviously violent acts which can endanger a person's health, safety and wellbeing, and we at Occupy LA are committed to nonviolence.

If you don't think that's the case, I'd love to know what your definition of nonviolence is, because mine is quite simple: to not act violently, to not act in such a way that we cause harm, mentally or physically, to a human being. There are all manners of ways in which we may cause harm which we have not defined in this statement: rape, bullying, verbal abuse, stealing, manipulation, lying about someone behind their back, spreading untrue rumors about someone, burning down someone's house, removing their livelihood, hurting their pet, calling their mom a bitch, eating meat, self harm, mutilation, anorexia blah blah.

Why should we define these? They are self evident and in many cases highly personal and subjective.

We are not children, but responsible human beings who can make these distinctions between violent and nonviolent behavior ourselves. If we cannot, it seems safe to say we might be in possession of some kind of personality disorder which renders this distinction impossible, and a few words, written on a piece of paper, will not sway us. It may be true that some people may cross the line between violence and nonviolence, and venture into violent and unacceptable behavior because of mental illness, because of drug abuse, because of self defense, because, simply, they are angry, and their normal moral and ethical code is lost in the heat of the moment. Sadly, this is the reality of being human. We must deal with these episodes on a case by case basis, rather than coming out with a blanket statement of condemnation which ignores the gray areas of an individual's experience. It is for this reason, that any principle we emerge with, must stay, necessarily, vague, and not allow us to cross over into the realm of law and of authority. We cannot, and never should, tell people how to behave, and what the penalties will be if they do not. That is what government does, what laws do, what the LAPD is empowered to enact upon. We can only put out into the world what we truly believe are our guiding principles of the movement.

The old statement is no longer representative of our movement. That much is clear. I state this not from personal opinion, but as someone who has facilitated numerous assemblies, has garnered responses on the listserve, in several facilitation meetings, on the website and from individuals as diverse as residents of Skid Row, to Cambridge University Lecturers. I took on the monumental task of reframing and restructuring a statement of nonviolence which manages to cover a variety of attitudes, opinions and hypothetical situations, without being too definitive, too reductive, and too alienating.

Some people, including myself, believe we must include a sentence banning the carrying of weapons. Others point out that under the 2nd amendment, this is a civil right accorded to a citizen under the constitution, and who are we, as a movement, to go against the bill of rights? It seems easier, in that situation, not to alienate those who strongly believe in carrying firearms, and simply omit the sentence entirely, and fall back upon the principle in its broadest term: we are nonviolent. We do not encourage violence, support it, condone it. We must trust that our brothers and sisters who strongly believe that carrying firerarms is a constitutional right, will respect and abide by our nonviolence statement. At the moment, they want to leave, because of the current nonviolence statement which excludes them. I don't want them to go. I believe that my insistence - and others insistence - upon the inclusion of this sentence will alienate a small number who believe in this right. Solidarity is more important to me than my own personal hatred of the 2nd amendment and firearms: so we omit the statement, we move on.

Any statement we adopt as a movement, must be made this way. With the consideration not of our personal opinion, but of who we we might marginalize and exclude if we cling desperately onto something which is ultimately meaningless unless defined to a 't'. The omission of a statement on firearms is not going to lose us support amongst the 99% - they are not sitting at home, hovering on their seat, waiting for this statement to come out before leaping on in to join us on a march. But the inclusion of something about firearms might, instead, be a weapon for those who are against this movement to throw at us: "Aha! Occupy is against the 2nd Amendment!". That is why semantics, annoying as they may be, are so important, and why when we cannot fully commit to one because we have already broken it - property damage - we should be brave enough to accept that, examine it, and figure out how to rephrase what we mean without venturing into the territory of long, tedious lists of acceptable and unacceptable forms, and the penalties for each.

I found tonight to be incredibly productive. Every person with concerns was amenable to change and offered friendly amendments. Those who could not find their friendly amendment on the floor of the assembly, were open to working together with me outside the assembly to find a way for their view to be encompassed. When we have worked together, I will report back to the assembly and the listserve what we achieved, in the interests of transparency.

There were two exceptions tonight. One from an individual who has a personal grievance with me, heckled me throughout the assembly, and then approached me afterwards and was unpleasant and intimidating.

The other was the issue with Michael (I think last names are unnecessary here). Michael, as a wise, kind man whom I have a lot of respect for, has been a face I have missed around the movement. He left, I think, a couple of weeks before the raid, and hasn't been seen very much since - maybe once or twice at a General Assembly. I was surprised but delighted to see him tonight, as a genuinely good person who has a lot to offer the movement. Michael hardblocked the new statement, which he is, of course, perfectly within his rights to do. However, when invited to voice his concerns on stack, he refused. Later, when we had amended the statement considerably and worked through three hard blocks, finding alternative sentences to please everyone, he hardblocked again, and was reluctant to explain why. Eventually he stood up and said he believed the new statement would incite a round of indiscriminate property destruction and violence. He then, confusingly, said OLA resources had been used to fund individuals in violent behavior, and resources was not transparent, and the future of the movement was in jeopardy.

As the proposer, (please refer to minutes for confirmation) I said I was unaware of this event, but it was not directly related to the wording of the proposal. Hardblocks need to be justified in terms of how they threaten the solidarity of the movement, how they might marginalize or exclude certain people, and result in them walking away from the movement. They need to be specific to the proposal at hand, and not generic statements about separate, but obviously very serious, concerns or issues. Michael was unable to specifically state how this statement might be related to these incidents, or what we might do to amend it so we could encompass his concern and address it. His hardblock indeed referred to episodes from the past he was reluctant to specify but seemed to be based around an idea that OLA money had been used wrongly. Michael become agitated upon questioning, and CJ, from the crowd, working as a note taker, and - she might hate me for saying this, one of the most conservative people in the movement - called a point of process and suggested Michael's was not a valid hard block as he was unable to tell us why he was hardblocking. Karo then broke process at this point and asked the assembly if they agreed with CJ. This is not something we have ever done as Facilitation, and we need to address this as a committee. I personally am not sure if it is either democratic or effective. The GA said they did not think Michael's hardblock was valid. At this point Michael said he was leaving the movement, and left. Process broke down. One person had left. I was deeply saddened by this, particularly as I believe many people have been alienated from this movement by the same individuals targeting me right now - the same individuals who seem unable to comprehend that any statement we make as a movement, must be authored by the movement, to encompass our varying views and opinions.

 Michael then returned, and we welcomed him back. He made a short speech which did not address the statement, but claimed that Facilitation had been "hijacked" by a dangerous faction who were anti-democratic.

I found Michael's erratic behavior disturbing, especially given Scott's recent "secret" email to a select group of people calling me a "faction", and then Marty's phone call to me, Gia's text asking me if I had incited violence, a blog post besmirching my name, and the presence of a number of people on Scott's secret email list who never attend GA, nor have participated in committees since the raid, at Monday's GA, and again tonight. I, personally, was furious at Michael's slur, having endured an enormous amount of stress from the fearmongering anti-democratic group who do not seem to understand that rewriting the statement is a participatory act which they need to take part in, rather than spread rumors about over the internet. Facilitation is the committee I have dedicated my time to since I joined OLA. They are the most democratic, functioning committee in this movement. We rotate moderation, we take a vow of impartiality, we train people up and hold workshops, we take and publish minutes, we hold open meetings we publicize widely on the listserve, we have a core group of people who have been with us since day 1, and an evergrowing membership of new people, and those, like Jamie, who came to us from Wellness and other committees who have more time now we are not an encampment.

Personally, I am tired, furious and heartbroken at the lies, the rumors, the fearmongering, and the continuing refusal of people to engage in the democratic process and understand that we must work together to make collective decisions, not scream names and only show up to GA because our buddy sent us a text saying "hardblock", accompanied with a bunch of lying, cowardly rumors. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of people considering debate they don't "like" dangerous and trying to close it down with underhand tactics. I'm sick of the hypocrisy of people using revolting tactics, and then pointing fingers at those working in a horizontal, democratic way. I'm fed up of being told that because, say, Anthony wrote a stupid email, that I am somehow in that "faction". I'm heartbroken by the fact these people are probably behind Michael's behavior, and applauding themselves for inciting it, and gaining a reaction from me. I'm writing this email because it has to stop.

The old Statement of NV was written by one person, hastily. This new statement has been authored by a hundred different voices. It's still being worked on. I'm working with the hardblockers now, and then will send it out to the listserve again, for more feedback. I will keep going. Group authored proposals are time consuming and exhausting. I've now helped put together three. It involves facilitating dialogue, weaving in different people's views, and losing interest along the way. Karo wants a statement which is more about diversity of tactics: knowing that this would not be consented to right now, she's drifted away so I'm doing this work myself, using the tools available to our movement: GA, committee meetings, website, listserve, talking to people, picking up the phone.

And then when someone you really liked, and really respected, comes in and calls you and the committee you've worked with for so long, essentially, corrupt and "hijacked" - you wonder why on earth you bother.

I am so tired, and so saddened, by the suspicious minds trapped in fear and paranoia who think their own prejudice and closed-mindedness is an excuse to slur those who have sacrificed so much for our movement. I am so tired of people who have no willingness to work with others for the greater good. I'm exhausted by the ignorance of those whose prejudice stops them from figuring out how this beautiful model of consensus works. I don't know what Michael's deal was tonight: genuine fear and ignorance provoked by the same malicious minds who have spread rumors about me and "factions" all week, a simple failure to understand, or a misguided attempt to hide his embarrassment at being unable to articulate himself by throwing insults around: but whatever it was, it fucking sucked.

I still believe in this process, and I will still keep believing in it. But I reserve the right, always, to call Bullshit when I hear it and see it, and this week I've had my fair share. Scott, Mario, Clay, Michael, whoever else is there: don't hardblock something unless you want to work on making a collective decision and properly understand consensus, and properly understand why the type of rumormongering you're promoting is so destructive, hurtful, violent and wrong. Because the only people engaging in behavior that threatens our solidarity right now - are you guys. Either join us and talk it out, or shut the fuck up and GOTV.