#OccupyCal UCB Chancellor Birgeneau resigns! Let's win all our demands - BAMN mtg Thursday

From: Ronald Cruz
Date: Tuesday, March 13, 2012
Subject: VICTORY: UCB Chancellor Birgeneau resigns! Let's win all our demands - BAMN mtg Thursday
To: Ronald Cruz


Victory for the Movement—Birgeneau Resigns!

Keep Fighting to Win All Our Demands!

BAMN Meeting Thursday (3/15) 7:00 pm, Room 141 Giannini Hall, UCB

 

In a major victory for the new student movement, UC-Berkeley Chancellor Robert Birgeneau announced today that he will resign at the end of the year. (BAMN press release below.) This has been one of the top demands of the movement. What we now need to do is fight to realize the other demands of the movement: doubling underrepresented minority student enrollment at UCB, dropping the charges against protesters, and reversing the fee hikes, cuts, and privatization at UCB.

Come to BAMN’s meeting this Thursday. Our proposed agenda is to plan two major initiatives this spring:

A. Direct Action on April 6 to demand (1) the end to the political witch-hunt and that UCB and the District Attorney drop the criminal charges against November 9 protesters and (2) immediate doubling of underrepresented minority student enrollment at UCB for this year’s incoming class.

B. Coordinating a slate for UC-Berkeley student government: the Defend Affirmative Action Party (DAAP). We need leaders in the ASUC who will be the voice of the movement to defend public education and who are committed to building the movement.  Come to Thursday’s meeting and learn more about running and supporting the DAAP slate.

- Yvette Felarca, Northern California coordinator of BAMN (Coalition to Defend Affirmative Action, Integration, and Immigrant Rights and Fight for Equality By Any Means Necessary)

BAMN PRESS RELEASE:

Movement celebrates victory today: UC-Berkeley chancellor forced to resign

Students also demand that Birgeneau withdraw the criminal charges filed against Nov. 9 protesters before he leaves
 
BAMN and other movement activists are celebrating the movement’s victory today forcing the resignation of UCB Chancellor Robert Birgeneau.

At the press conference will be YVETTE FELARCA, the lead plaintiff in the lawsuit brought against UC-Berkeley for police brutality from November 9, BAMN’s Northern California coordinator, and now a defendant facing criminal charges from Birgeneau and the Alameda County District Attorney for being at the November 9 protest.

“The new student movement demanding the preservation of public education and the restoration of affirmative action has won a major victory today,” Felarca said. “Chancellor Birgeneau’s resignation has been one of the top demands of the movement ever since he authorized police to beat me and countless other protesters who were standing up for public education on November 9, 2011. Birgeneau had to go. No chancellor can survive after doing what he did to his own students.”

“Birgeneau’s resignation is a confession that his policies of privatization, police brutality, and prosecutions have been a disaster,” said Monica Smith, BAMN attorney representing many protesters from November 9. “Before he leaves, he needs to withdraw the criminal charges he has brought against November 9 protesters and bring this political witch hunt to an end.”

“This victory is the result of the increased social power that students now have to determine the character of our education and the policies of this society,” said Matt Williams, UC-Berkeley senior and BAMN organizer. “On April 6, 2012, students will take direct action to double underrepresented minority student enrollment for the fall class and demand that all charges stemming from the November 9 protest be withdrawn and dropped—UC-Berkeley is a public university and must be democratically run and opened up to all of California.” 

<>

-----------------------------

this came from the BAMN email announcements list.

Federal Receivership: Good or Bad for Occupy Oakland?

There has been a lot of talk about federal receivership for the Oakland Police Department in the past few weeks, and considering much of the readily available content online via YouTube, various blogs, and live streams, many would say that is a well deserved fate for many recorded incidents.


Thinking about all the defensive statements from Oakland Mayor Jean Quan and Police Chief Howard Jordan, one would be inclined to think that the Occupy Oakland protesters are really crazy and/or violent and should be jailed, or forcibly put in mental institutions for their behavior. It’s unfortunate that these same individuals have the power to send out highly publicized press releases that broadcast their damaging statements against people demanding social change and governmental responsibility at the very least.


However, there are some interesting facts that I have yet to see covered on CNN, or other means of Corporate Media....


For More please visit: http://ripperhollow.com/federal-receivership-good-bad-occupy-oakland/

@OakTownMike Gives His Position of Streaming Protests!

Our Position on Livestreaming Protest Depends on Our Theory of Social Change
By Michael Siegel (@OaktownMike)
 
I have recently found myself in an online discussion with various people involved in publishing live video footage of Occupy Oakland protests.  At issue is whether it is fair to call a person a police informant or “snitch” if they broadcast footage of protesters committing unlawful acts.
 
Of course, because we are having this conversation over Twitter, and not across a table, the tone of our conversation is regrettably hostile, and probably not productive.  I thank @BellaEiko for inviting us to publish commentary via her blog.
 
Stepping back from our back and forth, and looking at the bigger picture of law enforcement, electronic surveillance, Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the prison industrial complex, I realize that the dispute within Occupy Oakland regarding livestreaming is really a proxy for the political divisions that are increasingly emerging within our movement.
 
I would characterize this division as a split between liberals and radicals.
 
The radical position here is a belief that the law is illegitimate, in whole or in part, and that our movement has no interest in exposing our people to police investigation or incarceration.
 
The liberal position requires a certain amount of faith in the law, and a belief that certain lawbreakers within Occupy Oakland (i.e., property vandals or bottle throwers) are properly subject to criminal sanctions.
 
Thus, whereas a radical videographer would decline to film certain conduct by protesters, and would change focus if inadvertent filming occurred, the liberal videographer would continue filming.  The former would believe that there is no good reason to expose anyone to police prosecution.  The latter would assert that each of us chooses whether or not to commit criminal acts, and to the extent that we do so, we are rightly exposed to incarceration.
 
The radical position is founded in a belief the law in the United States is illegitimate, in whole or in part.  From this view, the system is founded upon selective law enforcement, designed to benefit the 1% and a white supremacist ruling class.  The law is corrupt because it began with the genocide of sovereign peoples, because it justified chattel slavery and indentured servitude, and because it applies post-Civil War civil rights laws to provide increasing power for corporations and their elite backers.  The prison system – the ultimate destination for those subject to police enforcement – is a gulag of political prisoners and victims of race and class-based oppression.
 
The liberal position, on the other hand, must begin with a faith in our ability to manipulate the current economic, legal, and political system in a way that is fair.  In this vision, we are a few reforms away from an equitable society; the police are largely performing necessary functions on behalf of the community; and the prison system is largely populated by people who deserve to be there.  The liberal argues that, to the extent that a protester injures an innocent party, the law will give them a just consequence.
 
Now, I say all of this, while favoring a more radical position, but also acknowledging that we have a real issue within the Occupy movement, in the sense that there is not accountability for people who violate community agreements or expose other participants to unwanted criminal sanctions.
 
But to develop accountability as a movement, we need to nurture the bonds of solidarity.  We need to develop common agreements and processes of restorative justice.  We need to develop an organization, or multiple organizations, where we provide each other with mutual aid and support, and also criticism and accountability.
 
Accountability does not involve exposing our people to incarceration or even deoprtation.  The prison-industrial complex rehabilitates almost no one, and instead perpetuates an unjust social order that we, as a movement, have committed to resist.
 
I hope that livestreamers within the Occupy movements will balance ideals of “freedom” and “transparency” with a real appreciation for the consequences of their documentation.  The police agents that watch these streams are directed to pursue a particular agenda – one that has failed to create a safe or equitable society.

Response to MotherJones Article http://bit.ly/x95Kti

I am writing this before school to clear a couple things up. Not to bash the author of this article for I don't think he did a horrible job based on our conversation. There are a few things however I would like to clear up so he we go.

1) "Many of the Oaklanders see it as their duty to fight back. In October, Oakland police critically injured a peaceful protester, the former marine Scott Olsen, when a projectile shot from police lines at an Occupy march downtown fractured his skull. Video shows police lobbing a flash-bang grenade into a group of protesters who were trying to help him. "The police are being paid to protect them, but they're attacking them," says Jessica, a 28-year-old Occupy Oakland member who tweets under the name @BellaEiko. "Most people feel that kind of nullifies the contract.""

The contract I speak of is the social contract that basically is the permission given by the people to be policed and pay for it with their tax dollars. This contract seems to be invalid within the City of Oakland whether it is Occupy related or not. When more people feel victimized, criminalizes or intimidated by the police who are supposed to protect them, the social contract is terminated organically. This will be seen in the reactions of citizens, and has been seen. With the Oakland Riders case, and the federal take over in a few weeks, obviously there are problems with the Oakland Poice Department as a whole. One has to wonder how much good will a federal take over be anyway. The Occupy Wall Street movement gained momentum and continues the fight against corporate greed & GOVERNMENTAL CORRUPTION. So if the entire government is corrupt, how much help can Oakland really expect to get?

2) "The upshot is that ballot measures to put more cops on the street are a tough sell in Oakland even when crime is high. And to this day, many Oakland residents equate calling the police to snitching. "You can see the Black Panther mindset becoming more and more present in the Occupy movement by the actions that are being taken during the marches," says the occupier Jessica, who is black. "On Saturday, for example, when the police came out with shields and gas masks, there were protesters out there that had shields and gas masks. They were ready as well. You can see that the militant stance of the Black Panther Party is being emulated. It may actually, at some point, graduate to the carrying of firearms.""

So, I was talking about self defense. I was talking about the fact that the protesters had shields and masks, and the police had guns along with smoke bombs and teargas. You can see the self defense mindset of the Black Panther Party arriving from the abuses the police department subjects protesters to. I don't think Occupy will ever be about violence, it isn't now. What I was talking about was the probability of people using 2nd Amendment rights to protect the 1st. It's all about self defense. Unfortunately the people are protesting against those in power of not only the place and govnment, but media as well. This allows for lies to be spouted in the mainstream media to make it seem like the police were responding to violence instead of instigating it (once gain, not attacking Josh Harkinson). Instead, maybe I should have been more clear about this, over a span of years if the voices of the people continue to be muted, the attacks on protesters continue to elevate in violent nature, and the media continue to lie about what's happening; then yes I think it might graduate to the 2nd Amendment being used. Like a line of legally armed, well trained militia just standing there looking at the police making sure they don't attack those who are gathered peacefully. There is nothing illegal, or bashing in that statement. No endorsement for violence should be interpret here. If anything this is a possible and legal way to make the violence stop.

When I was growing up, my Dad used to say to me "If there are 2 men in a room and only 1 of them has a gun, then only 1 of them has the respect. But if they both have guns, there is equal respect in the room." The alternative to this is to only let the police have tasers and pepper spray, but we have seen examples of that not going very well either. Some may or may not agree with this analogy, but this is my opinion and I'm entitled to it. I welcome the discussion in comments about gun rights, ownership and proper time for using it to defend yourself.

3) "While critics complain that many militant protesters come from outside of Oakland and don't have its best interests at heart, occupiers like Jessica see room in the movement for a "diversity of tactics," especially ones that target property owned by the 1 percent."

When things got trashed at the Oscar Grant marches, I thought that was crazy. Why do that? This is the Occupy Movement, against corporate greed. So although, you're not going to catch me breaking a window out, I can still understand that corporations are being attacked. In all ways possible, by all types of people. Corporations are multinational, so a Bank of America in San Francisco is the same as one in New York. Even if the 99%ers that work there are nice and hand things out to protesters, some still just hate the corporation you work for andso it's a target regardless.

The more interesting and in my opinion productive question to ask here is how does Occupy hurt the 1% without hurting those who have to work for them to pay to afford their lives? This is why it's so difficult to get and keep community support. Strikes that shut down jobs make it so people aren't making the money they planned to. With most living paycheck to paycheck this is not the best side effect. However, there are some jobs and products and services that have had a sudden spike. Coffee, battery packs, bandwidth etc are all in high demand among other things like gas masks, vinegar and chalk.

4) "You can see the Black Panther mindset becoming more and more present in the Occupy movement by the actions that are being taken during the marches," says the occupier Jessica, who is black. "

Ok so I know that I have dark skin, I'm not saying that I'm ashamed of being part Black and all but I don't really appreciate the written "Jessica, who is black" comment. I was raised by my Grandmother who was Japanese. So if anyone wants to use my cultural background to solidify a point I was making as my observation, please clarify how I identify. I am Creole and Japanese. I can trace my family from both sides to the original settlers. I have black blood because like many here I have slave blood. I had to address this statement because my skin color has nothing to do with the fact that I have made this observation. I would say it was more my ability to think critically after analyzing a situation.

Do I regret doing the interview and the things that were said? No. It's my opinion based on basic speculation for one possibility of the future.