Occupy London reveal their true colours

Saturday November 19, 2011

We need a battle of ideas not a ‘safer space’ for debate, says Patrick Hayes

In general, Occupy London makes a virtue out of having no specific proposals. The reasons for this vary but, according to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange at a recent Frontline Club event, it’s because if the movement was to come up with “one central proposal”, then it would probably “end up being wrong”.

At the same event, Occupy London spokesperson Naomi Colvin pointed out: “[W]e’re not putting together a proposal for the society we want to see. We’re setting an example by actually building a society we want to see.”

To get a better understanding of the society Occupy wants to see, it’s necessary to analyse their rules of engagement, the processes they adopt for themselves in their tent city. One of the most striking examples of this I’ve seen is their 13-point ‘Safer Space’ policy which they put in place to regulate debates and discussions that take place at the camp:

1. Racism, as well as ageism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, ableism or prejudice based on ethnicity, nationality, class, gender, gender presentation, language ability, asylum status or religious affiliation is unacceptable and will be challenged.

2. Respect each other’s physical and emotional boundaries, always get explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries.

3. Be aware of the space you take up and the positions and privileges you bring, including racial, class and gender privilege.

4. Avoid assuming the opinions and identifications of other participants.

5. Recognize that we try not to judge, put each other down or compete.

6. Be aware of the language you use in discussion and how you relate to others. Try to speak slowly and clearly and use uncomplicated language.

7. The group endeavours as much as is feasible to ensure that meeting spaces are as accessible as possible to the widest range of people.

8. Foster a spirit of mutual respect: Listen to the wisdom everyone brings to the group.

9. Give each person the time and space to speak. In large groups, or for groups using facilitation: Raise your hand to speak.

10. Respect the person; challenge their behaviour.

11. If someone violates these agreements a discussion or mediation process can happen, depending on the wishes of the person who was violated. If a serious violation happens to the extent that someone feels unsafe, they can be asked to leave the space and/or speak with a person or process nominated by those present.

12. Whilst ground rules are collective responsibility everyone is also personally responsible for their own behaviour.

13. Occupy London is an alcohol and drugs free space.

The reason for such an extensive list is that the Occupy campers want to “operate and conduct our discussions in a safe anti-oppressive space – whether offline or online – that is welcoming, engaging and supportive.” They see this as being paramount because – they believe – the more inclusive they are, “the stronger and more representative the results will be.”

In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. In imposing such officious restrictions upon what can and can’t be said; what can and can’t be consumed; even how people conduct themselves physically; Occupy London has inadvertently produced a sure-fire recipe for strangling the life out of political debate.

Rather than Occupy protesters just saying what they think, instead they have to go through a massive mental checklist of rules and restrictions before they utter a word, lest they commit a “violation” and face being “asked to leave the space”.

And the checklist itself is deeply restrictive. Let’s leave to one side the hideously officious political correctness (what does it even mean to be “ableist”?) and patronising instructions such as “speak slowly”, the rules reveal three extremely dangerous attitudes held by the Occupy movement:

Firstly that people can’t be trusted to negotiate their own relationships informally without strict guidelines being imposed. Sometimes, quite naturally, people jump into debates and want to make points. Waiting your turn doesn’t always make sense. And, in making a hard-and-fast rule out of “always get explicit verbal consent before touching someone or crossing boundaries”, the ability of people to navigate both physical and emotional exchanges by themselves is damaged.

Sometimes you want to give someone a hug. Perhaps they’re crying, or you’ve been having a passionate exchange. Is Occupy really suggesting that you need to have “explicit verbal consent” before doing so? Such an approach can drain all the warmth and spontaneity out of interactions, leaving them cold and frigid and preventing people from trusting their instincts.

Secondly the emphasis on not passing judgement effectively renders any constructive debate – or really any debate whatsoever – impossible. How can you debate if you can’t pass judgement? Judgement is essential in terms of establishing whether an idea is good or bad. Otherwise what you end up lapsing into a vicious relativism where everyone’s ideas are equal.

But – of course – everyone’s ideas aren’t equal: some can give you an outstanding insight into the world, some have potential but need development, while others are half-baked and some are simply rubbish. As an extreme example, if someone proposed burning down St Paul’s in protest of Occupy’s eviction order, such a proposal should be strongly criticised and it should made clear on no uncertain terms that that’s a bad idea. No-one in their right mind would pat this person on the back and accept their view was as equal as anyone else’s. If you foster a climate of “mutual respect” where all ideas are deemed to be equal, you will go nowhere. It’s only through the cut and thrust of debate that the truth will out and ideas can develop.

Seeing “respect” in such a way is actually deeply disrespectful. If I say something naive or incorrect, I rely upon my friends and colleagues to point it out, so I don’t keep making the same mistake ad infinitum. A true climate of respect is one of criticism, where you don’t just celebrate someone’s failings, but instead believe in them enough to become better people.

Moreover such a non-judgemental approach is fundamentally insincere as, by the very nature of the Safer Space rules, judgement is passed. If you’re ageist, sexist or transphobic, then you’re out. Occupy London will not tolerate intolerance of any kind.
Finally it’s simply no fun. Some of the best debates I’ve had have been complemented, even fuelled, by alcohol. The insistence upon being an alcohol and drugs free-zone (and no smoking signs are also scattered across the camp) is both unnecessary and puritanical.

Judging from the ‘Safer Space’ rules, the society Occupy London seems to want to see is one where our behaviour is strictly monitored and regulated; where we cannot speak our minds freely for fear of giving offence; where competition and robust debate is outlawed and where we can’t even drink or give people spontaneous hugs. A very closed, illiberal, backward, cold society.

While Occupy London supporters intentionally keep their proposals vague to give the impression they speak for the “99 per cent”, from the way in which they choose to regulate their existences in their shabby tent city, their true colours are revealed. And it becomes blatantly obvious they don’t represent the majority of the country at all.

Patrick Hayes is head of press and promotions and the Institute of Ideas and a reporter for Spiked Online