In response to a recent wave of arrests at the Occupy Boston campsite, protesters have ratified a Good Neighbor Agreement to govern the procedure for removing a person from Dewey Square.
The proposal, ratified by Occupy Boston’s General Assembly last weekend, is part of a larger ongoing effort by the protesters to enhance safety within the camp.
“The trust between Occupy Boston and the general public has to be restored, readdressed and rebuilt,” said Carlos Ashmanskas, in a message published by the Safety Working Group of Occupy Boston.
In the message, he said that it is Occupy Boston’s responsibility to ensure its environment is safe.
“To enable and ignore the problems are only further derailing our message that we are putting out to the general public,” he said.
Despite recent arrests, Boston Police Department spokesperson Officer James Kenneally said that Occupiers have not misbehaved too much.
“For the most part, folks at Occupy Boston have been well-behaved,” Kenneally said. “There have been a few isolated incidents related to drug activity, but other than that, they have acted peacefully and reasonably.”
Members of the Safety Working Group and about 20 protesters had an impromptu meeting on Saturday, where they voiced their concerns about the camp’s current situation and shared stories of arrest, theft and violence at Occupy Boston.
At the meeting, Safety Working Group member John Ford said that while he was patrolling the camp, he confronted a man armed with a club who then smashed a chair in front of him.
Occupiers then said they wanted to start a collection for the purchase of flashlights and better walkie-talkies for the Safety group in case of similar incidents.
Ford said maintaining a strong community is important in keeping Occupy Boston safe, and that protesters should join the Safety Working Group, which has about 25 members.
The Safety group distributed copies of the Occupy Boston Good Neighbor Agreement, which governs the conduct of protesters living at the campsite.
Among other requirements, the agreements states that protesters living at Occupy Boston must abstain from drugs and alcohol, maintain a zero-tolerance policy for violence and verbal abuse and maintain a zero-tolerance policy for abuse of personal of physical property.
Another community-oriented device instituted to enhance safety at the campsite is the use of a “rainbow blockade” to remove protesters who violate the Good Neighbor Agreement.
“Rainbow is used when we have to evict someone,” said Franklin, a member of the Safety team, who asked to keep his last name anonymous. “We will have our arms linked and in front of us, and we will push them out forcefully.”
Franklin also said it has been difficult to remove troublesome protesters in the past.
“People have been taking advantage of us, but there’s not much we can do,” he said. “It’s an open, public environment.”
Duncan, an Occupier living at the campsite who asked to keep his last name anonymous, said that there are specific requirements for the removal of a protester under the newly ratified proposal.
“The only grounds that we have so far for immediate removal are if you have a violent altercation with someone, or if you brandish a weapon,” Duncan said.
Duncan said that a different process has been set up for people deemed to be habitual problem-causers, but do not fall under the grounds for immediate removal.
He said that to remove someone, a group of mediators confronts the person and then determines whether the protester can stay based upon the situation.
“We give you three strikes,” said Joseph, another protester living at Occupy Boston who asked to keep his last name anonymous. “We have to play fair. We got to do things right, but on the third strike you are history. You are banned from the camp.”
Duncan said that Occupy Boston’s measures are preventative.
“A lot of people here are on violence road and we have to detour them from that path before they reach smackdown city,” said Duncan.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
What gives the occupier the right evict someone from public property which they have no right to be at themselves? How is this “rainbow blockade” not assault and battery? This mediator business doesn’t sound like due process to me. These people are a joke.
No you’re a joke.
No right to occupy? Did you graduate high school in America? Let’s see, I think it was 7th grade that I was taught the very 1st amendment was about the right to congregate and demonstrate and speak out against the government. This is Federal Law and Federal Laws area para-local laws and therefore supersede and override local laws. It’s been decided and discussed by local and federal judges many times over the past 100 years. Maybe you need to go back to school, or maybe you need a smart person to explain those civics classes to you, a tutor if you will?
On a side note, I think it was ridiculous of them to only include the violent occupiers as the ones who have to be thrown out when it’s really the druggies that are giving the movement a bad name across the country. Big oversight, or….they left that part out on purpose?
“What gives the occupier the right evict someone from public property which they have no right to be at themselves?”
Your question is based on a false premise. The occupiers have a First-Amendment right to peacefully assemble, which supersedes local curfew laws.
The people can collectively decide on what behavior is unacceptable. This is democracy in its purest form. I congratulate the Occupy movement for its fair and innovative self-policing. The “troublemaker” problem has hurt previous movements, which could not or did not address it.
Joey’s premise is only incorrect if a court finds public property usage rules unconstitutional (e.g. in violation of the 1st amendment). A mere claim that usage laws are superseded in theory is not a rule of law. One court has already established that there are two issues to be resolved before such a case could be heard: first, who can make the claim if no one represents Occupy and it is unincorporated? Second, does the act of camping constitute protected assembly (i.e. isn’t the General Assembly the “assembly” part of Occupy, not the sleeping)? Now, whether or not land usage rules are unconstitutional, some extralegal body (e.g. Rainbow) has no authority let alone no right to evict anyone from public space for “verbal abuse.” In fact, physically pushing the “verbally abusive” speaker is battery, and the actual police must protect his or her right to assemble and speak in public just as much as he must protect Occupiers’ legal rights. If Occupiers actually believe that some expression ought to be forcibly banned from public space when that expression is deemed “abusive” or offensive, and that such rights should be stripped from whomever they so dislike without due process of law, then Occupiers are either hypocrites or don’t realize that people find some of their expressions “abusive” and offensive.