An essay appearing at the Daily Kos http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/12/29/1049670/-Occupy-Boston:-Wheres-the-Empathy reveals that Level 3 sex offenders convicted of preying on children were present at the Dewey Square encampment with the knowledge of some of the organizers. No disclosue was made until after the closure.A shocked mother learned that her young daughter had come into contact with a child predator. In the post-Dewey Square phase of the movement, the mother proposed to the General Assembly that Occupy Boston discourage the presence of Level 3 sex offenders–those determined most likely to reoffend. Shockingly, the GA deadlocked.
In the 1980’s when some in the gay community argued that advocates of sex between adults and minors should be included as a part of our civil rights movement, a critical mass of leaders and grassroots activists said no. The North American Man-Boy Love Association was disinvited from participation in the annual Pride parade. In the years since it has become clear that our movement would have floundered had we not taken a strong stand against the participation of adult “boy-lovers.” If the Occupy movement cannot learn from the experience of other grassroots movements, it will not succeed in transforming society.
It’s one thing to disown an organization like NAMBLA and not let them join your movement, but another thing to try to ban individuals from public space.
her young daughter to hang out. Did she not realize how many of Boston’s chronic homeless had taken up residence at the camp? Or perhaps not realized that among the chronically homeless are some Level 3’s? Not sure about this business- with all due respect to Ms. Spenser it struck me as a little concern-trollish.
Unsafe conditions on public property practically obligate the police to intervene. I remain convinced that the Occupy movement was structurally unsound given the insistence of many on a Wild West atmosphere. The fact that the occupiers could not control exposure to danger on their turf means they couldn’t possibly include the 99% on whose behalf they claimed to act. The movement needs to reevaluate its M.O. to broaden its base of support.
and wouldn’t let them hang around downtown Boston by themselves. Common sense stuff. That’s all I’m really saying. Furthermore, “level 3’s” live in scattered locations throughout the city. They’re allowed to go to the grocery store, the post office, etc. This lady’s kids, if left to roam the city, are almost guaranteed “exposure” at one time or another. I just don’t know what she expected, or why she thinks her child was in any unusual danger if she supervised the child as I normally would among strangers in any public place.
…is that members of the homeless community tried to police the site, only to be accused of authoritarian behavior. As a result predators (most of whom were banned from the shelters) found the site a convenient place for drinking and drugging. The police response (other than amusement) was to contain the thugs in the encampment, arresting only those who blatantly broke the law in plain sight.
As a result, Dewey Square was essentially Predator Central after the second week.
There was nothing covert about this, and it goes far to explain why my more credible work-ethic activist acquaintances kept their distance from Occupy Boston.
I suspect that some of the opposition to discouraging the presence of Level 3 sex offenders came from folks who give no credence to governmentally-created categories like child predation. The strong anarchist presence at OB comes to mind. One anarchist group that used Occupy Boston to get attention was “Black and Pink,” a trans advocacy organization that opposed the recently passed trans civil rights bill because they object to penalty enhancement for hate crimes. I’ve often wondered what principled anarachists would do to rein in child predators and trans-bashers, and Tuesday’s GA gave some indication: teach kids and potential targets karate. That is to say, vigilantism. Such positions are a poison pill for broad-based support for the movement, and repel more of the 99% than they attract.
Was Occupy supposed to a) know there were sex offenders present, and b) remove them?
…by the homeless people at the site; and yes upon being identified and their identities confirmed by checking against the online sex offenders registry, they should have been removed.
I see where you’re coming from, but I think it’s a lot to ask of a protest movement, and I’m not sure the sex offenders posed any danger, with so many other people around.
In order to be successful, movements have to be self-policing. In the case of Occupy Boston, members of the homeless community dealt with some of the more predatory types, let us say, informally and firmly, because the sex offenders (among others) were in fact dangers to the naive upper middle class boho majority at the occupation.
Long story short: there was a lot of off-site asskicking to protect the protesters.
I think common sense has to temper the expectations too.
So you think that it’s common sense that a parent shouldn’t include a child in a protest movement? When my parents were hippies protesting whatever the F in the 60s, they sure as hell brought me in my stroller. But now we’re so “progressive”, we don’t have the guts to draw a line at including known level 3 sex offenders, and we have to be realistic about not involving our children?
-Does that make Occupy completely fringe that they can’t draw that line?
-Does that mean we progressives now have lost sight of the forest through the trees, and can’t self-regulate?
Just as I would expect a tea party rally to find anyone carrying a weapon or a racist sign and get rid of them, I expect the same from our side. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
That to me is common sense.
“So you think that it’s common sense that a parent shouldn’t include a child in a protest movement?”
Who said that?
If I am with my child, I can keep her safe. Do you honestly believe that there were no sex offenders in the protests your parents took you to? Sexual predators are not a new development. Does your child ever ride the T? Go to the mall? Do you want the T and the mall to take measures to keep sex offenders out? What measures do you suggest?
Your “common sense” looks like irrational fear to me.
I bet they did. That’s called common sense, in the days before there was technically such a thing as a “Level 3”, but everyone still knew that not all strangers were nice. I think Occupy has even less of a legal right to exclude people from public spaces than they have to Occupy those spaces in the first place. I think it’s wading into Animal Farm territory to start with this exclusionary stuff, even with level 3’s. If someone is violent or commits a serious in a camp, for God’s sake let the real cops handle them.
But i will say it’s way easier to exclude someone with a visible sign than someone with a criminal record. Protests are expansive by nature. But I don’t really see the equivalence to the Tea Party.
I also agree with farnkoff that Occupy had no legal right to act. Whether they were obligated to do something is another question.
There is a consensus that it is the duty of adults to keep children safe, and to care for them, among most, if not all healthy adults. However, where there is neither authority, nor a set procedure or policy, how does one remove other adults from a public space? In fact, as some may know some 10 hours of discussion has gone on so far about this, working on a policy while acknowledging there is no “court” system in Occupy, or even a charter or written constitution, but rather horizontal democracy, proposals made and past and retained. There is no Occupy police force, Occupy Court – so both the authority or ability of enforcement is rather lacking. Further, “level 3” are all posted on the internet – whether or not all such determinations are accurate. Paul is correct, though, that Occupy had no way (again – no means of enforcement, no control over who else choose to use a public space) to exclude anyone. Consensus driven feedback, yes. But “control” would have required a kind of ownership and enforcement that, in fact, did not exist. To the extent that people watched out for one another (kind of what Paul talked about) in an old fashioned way, what else could the encampment do? I should point out that no one put Level 3 sex offenders on a bus to another Occupation (think Cardinal Law and putting predatory priests on a metaphorical bus to another church) and that the Occupy community is trying to deal with the issue of how to keep one another, and any involved minors, safe. To that end, policies and procedures used at Community colleges, churches, and other locales are being examined, but all of these also rely on external enforcement (call in the police) because control requires enforcement.