1/25/03

Scenario One: Stupid and Offensive Signs

A "Sign Carrier" arrives at a "Press Conference" or "Demonstration" that offends one or more
of our constituencies. (We're an umbrella organization - we have a variety of Coalition Members with a variety of Sensibilities) These could range from simple MISSPELLINGS [English Teachers might wish to Correct] to Vulgar or Truly Offensive examples;
Neo-Fascists for Peace, Vivisectionists for Peace, or (your favorite hate-group here)

The sign or might be "ON-OUR-SIDE" but expressing an unpopular or fractious side issue or carrying an a sign that might be ill-considered or offensively stated. "F**k Bush", or "Abortionists for Peace" or "NAZI's for UN Inspections". maybe they would be amenable to reasonableness and dialogue but I want to address those situations where they are not prepared to accept our critique. Vulgar and offensive illustrations should also be considered in this category. While the majority of the activist community can be "counted" on to display some sensitivity to the beliefs and values of others, some due to the "open recruitment' of the "counter culture" communities; it would seem inevitable that there will be some broadly offensive signage coming to a protest near you.

Scenario Two: Stupid and Offensive Dialogues

A demonstrator (ostensibly who shares generally an anti-war stand) might decide that he/she would shout obscenely at those who object to our anti-war protest - yelling at cars, exchanging hand gestures with passing motorists engaging in abusive exchanges. While they are "on our side" they fail the diplomatic test, and resort to "gutter exchanges" rather than taking the high road of pleasant bon ami, and good natured, polite exchange.

Scenario Three: Counter Demonstrations/Demonstrators /  Provocateurs

While some might wish counter demonstrators be kept at arms length, and we might even anticipate that a sympathetic law enforcement officer might assist us in isolating or separating
two counter demonstrating groups; (Miami Police certainly have experience, in such scenarios) we might find ourselves with a less than sympathetic law enforcement team, whose sympathies lie more with the counter demonstration, than with our "anti-war" message and might decline to separate or even turn a "blind eye" to friction that might be generated.

Should the war fever increase, there will be counter demonstrators we should game - out what a range of "preferred" tactics would represent the "optimum" response. We are all human, all have our own unique limits of tolerance of insult and abuse. I would suggest that we should begin to discuss what techniques we would endorse as a group to diffuse these situations and develop some strategies for reducing the "temperature" of any such confrontation.

In Summary

We have been fortunate that these issues have only begun to arise and I think it productive that we discuss and prepare some general guidelines that we might "aim at" as the optimum response in such situations. Realizing that we are all subject to conditioned responses that few can resist even temporarily.

Points Proposed for Consideration

1. We are dissenters - we should be compassionate and understanding that a broad range of opinion are welcome and necessary

2. We cannot have a board or commission to "clear" or "certify" what signs or messages
are approved or are appropriate.

3. While we might hope that all anti-war protesters, uphold the highest standards of decorum and dialogue - in reality that is unrealistic and ultimately as offensive to free speech as those who would "hide us" and censor our speech offensive to the warring class.

4. While it might be hoped, that all who joined us at a given protest on a public street might be attentive, to the most delicately offended among us, this is also unrealistic, impractical and generates more potential for disruption which only weakens what must of necessity be a broad coalition of opinions.

5. While one might hope that those whose dialogue or signage is confrontational or deemed offensive, might be amenable to a well reasoned critique of their message, it is impractical to demand adherence to some standard official message.

6. Dissent is by its nature ultimately confrontational, and it would behoove us to keep all of our interaction with counter demonstrators as low key, polite and "cool" as possible.

7. Freedom to protest, freedom to speak, freedoms that we demand, must be not only for those who agree with us, but we above all must understand, that as we require such freedoms, it is incumbent that we support the rights of our fellow citizens to dissent as well. If we fail to welcome other such "contrarian" opinions then we fall to the miserable  hypocrisy of other sunshine patriots, who will grant you every right, as long as you do not choose to exercise it.

8. Development of a team for confrontation reduction. These must be examples of tolerance with long, long slow fuses, and the ability to calm, and defuse tense situations. We should try to identify those among us who have these rare skills, and I would say, these are almost entirely non-self selecting. I think it worthwhile for this group to begin some "gaming exercises" that might prove useful should our efforts continue. Once OVERT hostilities commence, our current ranks will swell, as will the ranks of those who oppose us generally.
Invariably this will exacerbate each of the potential problems I've outlined.

In Summation: Proactive discussion, dialogue about sensitivities, discussion of optimal tactics which might be employed to engage "friendly" as well as counter demonstrators
would be useful. Since this movement is young many of these problems have just begun to surface. Although some of us have had experience with these issues before.


Problem: Dissent Correctness/Tolerance Boundaries
Solutions: should be discussed then implemented
Suggestions and Tactics Discussed and Deployed

"We must hang together, or we shall most assuredly hang separately"
Ben Franklin