Editor’s Note: This site was attacked early on the morning of 1-16-15 w/the goal of deleting the following images of alleged perpetrators and victim. The hacker(s) used the ip # 99.101.5.121 and Chrome as their browser. Windows 7 was used as the OS and AT&T as the internet service provider. (Does this sound like anyone you know w/motive?–if so, leave a comment as to who, etc.) The images are safely stored offline and, of course, were restored for the public’s benefit. If convicted, the accused could face up to life in prison. Notice was filed an exceptional sentence is being sought in this case. Judge Sheldon was affidavited (removed) by one of the defendants (Shivers). Bob Brungardt, esq. is the attorney of record representing/defending Tibbits. Both defendants were released on $75,000 bond/bail. A protection order and no contact order to prevent harm to the child has been entered by the court. Restitution for emergency medical/hospital costs incurred by the infant (Avery Denise Michelle Tibbits) is being sought from each of the defendants. Speedy trial has been waived by both defendants. The trial is currently scheduled to begin sometime in early to mid-spring of 2015.

Chad Allen Lester Tibbits, 21

Katarina M. Shivers/Tibbits, 20, w/child

Katarina M. Shivers/Tibbits w/newborn

by Natalie Johnson (reporter for Mason County Journal)

Shelton, WA. — A Union couple pleaded not guilty, Tuesday, to charges they beat and starved their 2-month old child, Avery Denise Michelle Tibbits.

Chad Allen Lester Tibbits, 21, and Katarina M. Shivers, 20, were arrested Monday evening on suspicion of assault of a child in the 1st degree, and criminal mistreatment in the 1st degree. Katarina may be a descendant of Ezra Meeker, the  founding pioneer of Puyallup, WA. and where the Meeker Mansion historical site is open to the public today.

Both made their first appearance in Mason County Superior Court on Tuesday afternoon where they were formally charged, entered their pleas and were each granted $75,000 bail.

Chad Allen Lester Tibbits w/baby, Avery Denise Michelle Tibbits

While neither has any violent criminal history, Mason County Prosecutor Mike Dorcy cited the “devastating injuries” to the child when asking for bail.

According to court documents, the 2 defendants are charged with intentionally committing assault against the child and criminally mistreating the child, or “withholding any of the basic necessities of life,” between Feb. 22 and April 28.

Katarina M. Shivers/Tibbits taking Selfie w/newborn

The maximum penalty for assault in the first degree against a child is life in prison.

According to probable cause documents prepared by the Mason County Sheriff’s office, occupants of the  home, where Shivers and Tibbits lived, called 911 at 11:50 pm on April 28 to report that a baby was “barely breathing.”

Expectant Mom, Katarina M. Shivers/Tibbits , 20 w/Chad Allen Lester Tibbits, 21

Medic units responded and called law enforcement when they found signs of abuse.

The 66-day-old baby was taken first to Mason General Hospital, then airlifted to Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center with head trauma and a fractured skull, fractured ribs, legs, bruising, dehydration, one collapsed lung and one partially collapsed lung, and other injuries and chronic conditions.

30 SE Mill Creek Rd, Shelton, WA 98584-8318

Some of the injuries showed healing, according to court documents.

The child, who is also underweight, due to “chronic nutritional neglect,” according to the probable cause report, is now recovering at  Seattle’s Children’s Hospital, Dorcy said.

According to court documents, Tibbits and Shivers told detectives that the baby caused many of her own injuries.

Katerina M. Shivers/Tibbits w/Avery

Doctors at Harborview Medical Center concluded that the parents’ explanations for the baby’s injuries were “unreasonable”.

Avery Denise Michelle Tibbits

Post Partum Depression (PPD), also called post natal depression, is a type of clinical depression which can affect women after childbirth. Symptoms may include sadness, low energy, changes in sleeping and eating patterns, reduced desire for sex, crying episodes, anxiety, and irritability. While many women experience self-limited, mild symptoms postpartum, postpartum depression should be suspected when symptoms are severe and have lasted over two weeks.

Although a number of risk factors have been identified, the causes of PPD are not well understood. Hormonal change is hypothesized to contribute as one cause of postpartum depression. The emotional effects of postpartum depression can include sleep deprivation, anxiety about parenthood and caring for an infant, identity crisis, a feeling of loss of control over life, and lack of support from a romantic or sexual partner.” Many women recover with treatment such as a support group, counseling, or medication.

Studies report prevalence rates among women from 5% to 25%, but methodological differences among the studies make the actual prevalence rate unclear. Among men, in particular new fathers, the incidence of postpartum depression has been estimated to be between 1% and 25.5%.

Symptoms include sadness, fatigue, changes in sleeping and eating patterns, reduced libido, crying episodes, anxiety, and irritability. Although a number of risk factors have been identified, the causes of PPD are not well understood. Many women recover with a treatment consisting of a support group or counseling.

Symptoms of PPD can occur anytime in the first year postpartum.

These include, but are not limited to, the following:

• Sadness
• Hopelessness
• Low self-esteem
• Guilt^[5]
• A feeling of being overwhelmed
• Sleep and eating disturbances
• Inability to be comforted
• Exhaustion
• Emptiness
• Anhedonia
• Social withdrawal
• Low or no energy
• Becoming easily frustrated^[5]
• Feeling inadequate in taking care of the baby^[5]
• Decreased sex drive

Postpartum depression usually begins in the first few months after childbirth. In Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fourth Edition it is defined as depression with onset within 4 weeks after childbirth. Postpartum depression can also affect women who have suffered a miscarriage. It usually begins around two weeks after childbirth. It may last up to several months or even a year.

Psychosis

Postpartum psychosis is a separate mental health disorder which is sometimes erroneously referred to as postpartum depression. It is less common than PPD, and it involves the onset of psychotic symptoms that may include thought disturbances, hallucinations, delusions and/or disorganized speech or behavior. The prevalence of postpartum psychosis in the general population is 1–2 per 1,000 childbirths, however the rate is 100 times higher in women with bipolar disorder or a previous history of postpartum psychosis. Bipolar disorder and, to a lesser extent, schizophrenia have elevated prevalences in postpartum psychosis. Previous research looked at the relationship between childbirth and postpartum psychosis. Using data on 54,000 births over a 12-year period, researchers found that psychiatric admissions were seven times more likely in the first 30 days after childbirth than in the prepregnancy period and among women who developed postpartum psychosis after childbirth, 72%–80% had bipolar disorder or schizoaffective disorder and 12% had schizophrenia. Indicators of a possible bipolar diagnosis include a history of missed or misdiagnosed mood episodes, any previous mania or hypomania, and a family history of bipolar disorder or postpartum psychosis.

Treatment for Postnatal Psychosis is essential; it will not go away without medical attention.

Effects on the parent-infant relationship

Postpartum depression may lead mothers to be inconsistent with childcare. Women diagnosed with postpartum depression often focus more on the negative events of childcare, resulting in poor coping strategies (Murray). There are four groups of coping methods, each of which is divided into a different style of coping subgroups. Avoidance coping is one of the most common strategies used (Murray). It consists of denial and behavioral disengagement subgroups (for example, an avoidant mother might not respond to her baby crying). This strategy however, does not resolve any problems and ends up negatively impacting the mother’s mood, similarly of the other coping strategies used (Honey).

• Avoidance coping: denial, behavioral disengagement
• Problem-focused coping: active coping, planning, positive reframing
• Support seeking coping: emotional support, instrumental support
• Venting coping: venting, self-blame

Multiple factors must be considered when evaluating the capacity of a seriously depressed mother to provide a safe-enough care giving environment that can support the healthy development of her baby and her relationship with that baby. Such factors, including maternal attachment history, present social supports, insight, and ability to accept help are often best considered by an interdisciplinary professional treatment team that includes infant mental health specialists or other mental health practitioners with experience in working with children and families.

Avery Denise Michelle Tibbits

Causes

The etiology of PPD is not well understood. It is sometimes assumed that postpartum depression is caused by a lack of vitamins. Other studies tend to show that more likely causes are the significant changes in a woman’s hormones during pregnancy. Yet other studies have suggested there is no known correlation between hormones and postpartum mood disorders, and hormonal treatment has not helped postpartum depression victims. Further, fathers, who are not undergoing profound hormonal changes, suffer PPD at relatively high rates. Finally, all mothers experience these hormonal changes, yet only about 10–15% suffer PPD. This does not mean, however, that hormones do not play a role in PPD. For example, in women with a history of PPD, a hormone treatment simulating pregnancy and parturition caused these women to suffer mood symptoms. The same treatment, however, did not cause mood symptoms in women with no history of PPD. One interpretation of these results is that there is a subgroup of women who are vulnerable to hormone changes during pregnancy. Another interpretation is that simulating a pregnancy will trigger PPD in women who are vulnerable to PPD for any of the reasons indicated by Beck’s meta-analysis as summarized above.

Profound lifestyle changes brought about by caring for the infant are also frequently claimed to cause PPD, but, again, there is little evidence for this hypothesis. Mothers who have had several previous children without suffering PPD can nonetheless suffer it with their latest child. Plus, most women experience profound lifestyle changes with their first pregnancy, yet most do not suffer PPD.

In 2009, researchers at the University of California, Irvine, reported that the levels of placental corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) during the 25th week of pregnancy may help predict a woman’s chances of developing postpartum depression.

Risk factors

While the causes of PPD are not understood, a number of factors have been suggested to increase the risk of PPD:

• Birth-related psychological trauma
• Birth-related physiological trauma
• Elevated prolactin levels
• Oxytocin depletion
• Formula feeding rather than breast-feeding
• A history of depression
• Cigarette smoking
• Low self-esteem
• Childcare stress
• Prenatal depression during pregnancy
• Prenatal anxiety^[20]
• Low social support
• Life stress
• Poor marital relationship
• Infant temperament problems/colic
• Maternity blues^[20]
• Single Marital Status
• Low socioeconomic status
• Unplanned/unwanted pregnancy

Of these, formula feeding, a history of depression, and cigarette smoking have been shown to be additive effects.

These factors are known to correlate with PPD. “Correlation” in this case means that, for example, high levels of prenatal depression are associated with high levels of postnatal depression, and low levels of prenatal depression are associated with low levels of postnatal depression. But this does not mean the prenatal depression causes postnatal depression—they might both be caused by some third factor. In contrast, some factors, such as lack of social support, almost certainly cause postpartum depression. (The causal role of lack of social support in PPD is strongly suggested by several studies, including O’Hara 1985, Field et al. 1985; and Gotlib et al. 1991.) Anthropologists Kruckman and Stern tested the idea cross culturally, and their pioneering study determined six ways in which postpartum rituals, including the use of the postpartum ritual, la cuarentena, in Chicago Latina mothers, to protect or cushion the expression of mood disorders.

In addition to Beck’s meta-analysis cited above, other academic studies have shown a correlation between a mother’s race, social class and/or sexual orientation and postpartum depression. In 2006 Segre et al., conducted a study “on the extent to which race/ethnicity is a risk factor” for PPD. Studying 26,877 postpartum women they found that 15.7% were depressed. Of the women who suffered from PPD, African American women suffered at a rate of 25.2%, American Indian/Native Alaskan women at 22.9%, Caucasian women at 15.5%, Hispanic women at 15.3%, and 11.5% for those reporting Asian/Pacific Islander. Even when “important social factors such as age, income, education, marital status, and baby’s health were controlled, African American women still emerged with significantly increased risk for…PPD”.

These above factors are known to correlate with PPD. This correlation does not mean these factors are causal. Rather, they might both be caused by some third factor. Contrastingly, some factors almost certainly attribute to the cause of postpartum depression, such as lack of social support.

Not surprisingly, women with fewer resources indicate a higher level of postpartum depression and stress than those women with more financial resources. Rates of PPD have been shown to decrease as income increases. Women with fewer resources may be more likely to have an unintended or unwanted pregnancy, increasing risk of PPD. Single mothers of low income may have fewer resources to which they have access while transitioning into motherhood.

Studies have also shown a correlation between a mother’s race and postpartum depression. For race, African American mothers have been shown to have the highest risk of PPD at 25%, while Asians had the lowest at 11.5%, after controlling for social factors such as age, income, education, marital status, and baby’s health were controlled. The PPD rates for American Indians, Caucasian and Hispanic women fell in between.

Sexual orientation has also been studied as a risk factor for PPD. In a 2007 study conducted by Ross and colleagues, lesbian and bisexual mothers were tested for PPD and then compared with a heterosexual sample. It was found that lesbian and bisexual biological mothers had significantly higher Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale scores than heterosexual women in the sample.^[26] These higher rates of PPD in lesbian/bisexual mothers may reflect less social support, particularly from their families of origin and additional stress due to homophobic discrimination in society.

Segre et al., also found a correlation between a mother’s social class and PPD. Not surprisingly, women with fewer resources indicate a higher level of postpartum depression and stress than those with more financial resources. Rates of PPD decreased as income increased as follows: Women with fewer resources are also more likely to have an unintended or unwanted pregnancy, further increasing risk of PPD. Beck (2001) concurs with this, stating that these women are at risk for PPD because they may experience stressors such as financial difficulties. Single mothers of low income may have fewer resources they have access to while transitioning into motherhood.

Likewise, a study conducted by Howell et al. in 2006 confirms Segre’s findings that women who are not Caucasian and in lower socioeconomic categories have more symptoms of PPD.

In a 2007 study conducted by Ross et al., lesbian and bisexual mothers were tested for PPD and then compared with a heterosexual sample. Ross et al. found that “lesbian and bisexual biological mothers had significantly higher Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores than the…sample of heterosexual women.” The Ross study suggests that PPD may be more common among lesbian and bisexual mothers. From a study conducted in 2005 by Ross, the higher rates of PPD in lesbian/bisexual mothers than heterosexual mothers may be due to less “social support, particularly from their families of origin and…additional stress due to homophobic discrimination” in society.

Research suggests that PPD is a functional component of human reproductive decision-making, research supports the notion that PPD caused mothers to decline investment in their offspring.

Human infants require an extraordinary degree of care. Lack of support and insufficient investment from fathers and/or other family members will increase the costs borne by mothers, whereas infant health problems will reduce the evolutionary benefits to be gained. If ancestral mothers did not receive enough support from fathers or other family members, they may not have been able to afford raising the new infant without harming any existing children, or damaging their own health (nursing depletes mothers’ nutritional stores, placing the health of poorly nourished women in jeopardy).

For mothers suffering inadequate social support or other costly and stressful circumstances, negative emotions directed towards a new infant could serve an important evolved function by causing the mother to reduce her investment in an overly taxing infant, thereby reducing her costs. Numerous studies support the correlation between postpartum depression and lack of social support or other childcare stresses. Kruckman, using observations from anthropological field work, suggests that supportive rituals and knowledge, if projected to the mother in a meaningful and sincere fashion, can affect the hypothalamus, pituitary and adrenal function and the production of endocrine signal molecules, and reduce the expression of anxiety or panic in postpartum women.

Mothers with postpartum depression can unconsciously exhibit fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions toward their children, are less responsive and less sensitive to infant cues, less emotionally available, have a less successful maternal role attainment, and have infants that are less securely attached; and in more extreme cases, some women may have thoughts of harming their children. In other words, most mothers with PPD are suffering some kind of cost, like inadequate social support, and consequently are mothering less.

In this view, mothers with PPD do not have a mental illness, but instead cannot afford to take care of the new infant without more social support, more resources, etc. Treatment should therefore focus on helping mothers get what they need.

VIOLENCE

A meta-analysis reviewing research on the association of violence and postpartum depression showed that violence against women increases the incidence of postpartum depression. About one-third of women throughout the world will experience physical and/or sexual violence at some point in their lives. Violence against women occurs in conflict, post-conflict, and non-conflict areas. It is important to note that the research reviewed only looked at violence experienced by women from male perpetrators, but did not consider violence inflicted on men or women by women. Further, violence against women was defined as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women”. Psychological and cultural factors associated with increased incidence of postpartum depression include family history of depression, stressful life events during early puberty or pregnancy, anxiety or depression during pregnancy, and low social support. Violence against women is a chronic stressor, so depression may occur when someone is no longer able to respond to the violence.

Prevention

Early identification and intervention improves long term prognoses for most women. Some success with preemptive treatment has been found as well. A 2013 Cochrane review found evidence that psycho-social or psychological intervention after childbirth helped reduce the risk of postnatal depression. These interventions included home visits, telephone-based peer support, and interpersonal psychotherapy.

A major part of prevention is being informed about the risk factors, and the medical community can play a key role in identifying and treating postpartum depression. Women should be screened by their physician to determine their risk for acquiring postpartum depression. Also, proper exercise and nutrition appears to play a role in preventing postpartum, and depressed mood in general.

In the US, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recommends that the first prenatal visit include screening for depression, stress, support, and whether the pregnancy was planned. However providers do not consistently provide screening and appropriate follow-up. Currently, Alberta is the only province in Canada with universal PPD screening which has been in place since 2003. The PPD screening is carried out by Public Health nurses in conjunction with the baby’s immunization schedule.

Pregnant, nursing and postpartum women are strongly encouraged to seek the medical advice of their obstetrician, primary care physician, registered dietitian, or midwife regarding optimal nutrition during pregnancy and after birth.

The following nutritional information may be beneficial in achieving a well-balanced diet during and after pregnancy, but studies are needed to confirm their role in preventing postpartum depression.

Omega 3 Fatty Acids: Some experts believe that postpartum depression can be attributed to depletion of omega 3 fatty acids from the mother’s brain to support development of the brain of the fetus or breast fed infant. This can be prevented by ensuring that sufficient omega 3 fatty acids are provided in the mother’s diet. Good natural sources of omega 3 fatty acids include edible linseed oil, certain fish, grass fed rather than grain fed meat, and eggs from chickens fed on flax seed or other feed high in omega 3 fats. Omega 3 fatty acids can also be purchased in capsule form as a dietary supplement.

Omega 3 fatty acids can be found in a wide variety of foods. Some examples follow: 3 ounces of most meat products contain 25 grams of protein, 3 large eggs have approximately 19 grams, and 3 ounces of Swiss cheese have about 15 grams.

Water: One of the most important roles in any diet (especially for pregnant and nursing mothers) is that of hydration. Physicians may recommend that pregnant women consume ten 8-ounce glasses of water every day. Mothers who are nursing are strongly urged to drink a tall glass of water, milk or juice before sitting down to breastfeed their child. Women should consult with their physicians about caffeine and alcohol consumption postpartum.

Nutrition: A pregnant and postpartum woman should speak with her physician for information about, and a recommendation for, a daily prenatal/postnatal vitamin supplement.

Vitamins: Some limited research has indicated that the intake of B vitamins, specifically riboflavin, can help reduce the chance of post partum depression. B vitamins are water soluble and must be replenished each day. B-6 vitamins are also important to maintain the proper plasma levels and helps control the omega 3 to omega 6 ratio.

Diet: If a woman finds herself with a loss of appetite or other eating disturbance, she should consult her physician. This may be a sign of postpartum depression and therefore should be discussed with a doctor.

Treatment

Numerous scientific studies and scholarly journal articles support the notion that postpartum depression is treatable using a variety of methods. If the cause of PPD can be identified, as described above under “social risk factors”, treatment should be aimed at mitigating the root cause of the problem, including increased partner support, additional help with childcare, cognitive therapy, etc. Non-professional interventions can be effective.

Women need to be taken seriously when symptoms occur. This is a twofold practice: First, the postpartum woman will want to trust her intuition about how she is feeling and believe that her symptoms are real enough to tell her significant other, a close friend, and/or her medical practitioner; erring on the side of caution will go a long way in the treatment of PPD. Second, the people in whom she confides must take her symptoms seriously as well, aiding her with treatment and support. Partners, friends and physicians may notice changes in a postpartum mother that she may not. Knowing that PPD is treatable with a variety of methods can make persistence in seeking treatment easier.

Various treatment options include:

• Medical evaluation to rule out physiological problems
• Cognitive behavioral therapy (a form of psychotherapy)
• Possible medication
• Support groups
• Home visits/Home visitors
• Healthy diet
• Consistent/healthy sleep patterns

An experienced medical professional will work with a postpartum mother to develop a treatment plan that is right for her. This plan may include any combination of the above options, and might include some discussion or feedback from/with a partner. If a woman suffering from PPD does not feel she is being taken seriously or is being recommended a treatment plan she does not feel comfortable with, she will want to seek a second opinion.

A 1997 study conducted by Appleby et al., confirms that postpartum depressed mothers’ symptoms promptly improved at similar rates when treated with cognitive behavioral therapy or the antidepressant fluoxetine. “A group of 61 depressed mothers completed a 12-week treatment program with or without the antidepressant plus one session versus six sessions of counseling.” Improvement followed after “one to four weeks of either treatment”. The findings of Appleby et al.’s study conclusively showed that combining counseling with drug therapy did not add to the improvement of just drug therapy or just counseling. This suggests that counseling is equally as effective a treatment for PPD as medication, and that “the choice of treatment [psychotherapy vs. medication] may…be made by the women themselves”. Other forms of therapy (like group therapy and home visitors) are also effective treatments for PPD.

A woman will want to discuss the various treatment options available with her physician and, if considering drug therapy, should speak about which medications are safe to take while breastfeeding.

Treatment for PPD can reduce the length of suffering and its severity. Untreated, the Baby Blues may go away on its own (and does in most cases). PPD may or may not go away without treatment. Speaking to a health care provider as soon as symptoms occur is the safest way to ensure prompt treatment and return to normal life.

According to The National Institutes of Mental Health, studies show that the childbearing years are when a woman is most likely to experience depression in her lifetime. Approximately 15% of all women will experience postpartum depression following the birth of a child. When the mental health of the mother is compromised, it affects the entire family.

Epidemiology

Postpartum depression and illnesses similar to it are found across the globe, with rates of incidence varying from 11% to 42%.

Society and culture

The Malay culture holds a belief in a spirit known as Hantu Meroyan that resides in the placenta and amniotic fluid. When this spirit is unsatisfied and venting resentment, it causes the mother to experience frequent crying, loss of appetite, and trouble sleeping, known collectively as “sakit meroyan”. The mother can be cured with the help of a shaman, who performs a séance to force the spirits to leave. Some cultures believe that the symptoms of postpartum depression or similar illnesses can be avoided through protective rituals in the period after birth. Chinese women participate in a ritual known as “doing the month” in which they spend the first 30 days after giving birth resting in bed, while the mother or mother-in-law takes care of domestic duties and childcare. In addition, the new mother is not allowed to bathe, wash her hair, leave the house, or be blown by the wind.

EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY

Research suggests that PPD is a functional component of human reproductive decision-making, supporting the notion that PPD allows mothers to decline investment in their offspring when resources are limited.

Human infants require an extraordinary degree of care. Lack of support and insufficient investment from fathers and/or other family members increase the costs that are borne by mothers, whereas infant health problems reduce the evolutionary benefits to be gained. If ancestral mothers did not receive enough support from fathers or other family members, they may not have been able to afford to raise the new infant without harming any existing children, or damaging their own health (nursing depletes mothers’ nutritional stores, placing the health of poorly nourished women in jeopardy).

For mothers suffering inadequate social support or other costly and stressful circumstances, negative emotions directed towards a new infant could serve an important evolved function by causing the mother to reduce her investment in an unaffordable infant, thereby reducing her costs. Numerous studies support the correlation between postpartum depression and lack of social support or other childcare stressors. Kruckman, using observations from anthropological field work, suggests that supportive rituals and knowledge, if projected to the mother in a meaningful and sincere fashion, can affect the hypothalamus, pituitary and adrenal function and the production of endocrine signal molecules, and reduce the expression of anxiety or panic in postpartum women.

Mothers with postpartum depression can unconsciously exhibit fewer positive emotions and more negative emotions toward their children, are less responsive and less sensitive to infant cues, less emotionally available, have a less successful maternal role attainment, and have infants that are less securely attached; and in more extreme cases, some women may have thoughts of harming their children. In other words, most mothers with PPD are suffering some kind of cost, like inadequate social support, and consequently are mothering less.

In this view, mothers with PPD do not have a mental illness, but instead cannot afford to take care of the new infant without more social support, more resources, etc. Treatment should therefore focus on helping mothers get what they need.

See also

• Antenatal depression
• Psychiatric disorders of childbirth
• Sex after pregnancy

by Kristian Williams (published 2-20-14)

A year ago, on February 28, 2013, at an event titled “Patriarchy and the Movement,” I watched as a friend of mine attempted to pose several questions based on her experience trying to address domestic violence and other abuse in the context of radical organizing.

“Why have the forms of accountability processes that we’ve seen in radical subcultures so regularly failed?” she asked.  “Is there a tension between supporting a survivor’s healing and holding perpetrators accountable?”  

At that point she was, quite literally, shouted down. An angry roar came up from the crowd, from both the audience and the panelists.  It quickly became impossible to hear her and, after a few seconds, she simply stopped trying to speak.

The weeks that followed produced an atmosphere of distrust and recrimination unlike anything I had experienced in more than twenty years of radical organizing.  A few people were blamed for specific transgressions.  (My friend was one: she was accused of violating the venue’s “Safer Space” policy, “triggering” audience members, and employing “patriarchal mechanisms” in her statement.)  Others were called out for unspecified abusive or sexist behavior.  And a great many more were alleged to have supported or defended or coddled those guilty of such offenses.

The ensuing controversy destroyed at least one political organization, and an astonishing number of activists––many with more than a decade of experience––talked about quitting politics altogether.  I know people who lost friends and lovers, often not because of anything they had done, but because of how they felt about the situation. Several people––mostly women, interestingly––told me they were afraid to say anything about the controversy, lest they go “off-script” and find themselves denounced as bad feminists.

Questioning

One might expect that in the midst of conflict questions about how we address abusive behavior and hold each other accountable would seem particularly relevant.  Instead, in a statement released after the event, the unnamed “Patriarchy and the Movement” organizers tried to bar such questions from being raised at all. They wrote:

We also feel that framing the discourse around survivor’s needs as ‘political disagreements’ or ‘political arguments’ is in of itself sexist––as it pretends that this conversation should be emptied of subjective narrative, or that there is an equal playing ground in the conversation because the conversation itself isn’t about real power, or that this conversation itself isn’t already racialized and gendered. It is also problematic, in that it suggests that there is a neutral or objective rationality in this debate, rather than the possibility that the debate itself and the content of the debate is a socially contingent result of prevailing power dynamics. [If this line of argument isn’t from a religious ascetic, it’s a distinction without a meaningful difference. It sounds like a lyrical line from ‘Nearer My God To Thee’, with the only question remaining being what brand of greater r@dical ‘purity’ will bring salvation most quickly.]

If political framing does all that––assumes objectivity, equality, ahistoriocity, race and gender neutrality, and an absence of power––then it becomes hard to see how political discussion is possible, not only about gender, but at all.  On the other hand, if political discussion relies on those conditions, then not only would it be impossible, it would also be unnecessary.  For it is precisely the disputes over truth, the contested facts of history, identity, inequality, and power that give politics its shape, its content, and its significance.  The second sentence of the above quotation contradicts the first:  the argument runs that this discussion cannot be political, because it is necessarily political.  

Their statement continues:

There are direct consequences to these ‘debates’, and there [are] physical bodies involved. As survivors and feminists, we must become cautious when our bodies[,] our safety, and our well-being, as well as our needs around our bodies, safety, and well beings, become the subject of ‘political debate’. For us, there is more at stake here than just the merits of a ‘debate’. Our bodies, safety, health, personal autonomy, and well-beings are at stake. We do not agree with people having a ‘political argument’ at our expense. The outcome could be life or death for us.

That is true: There are serious consequences to the debate about accountability.  There are lives, and not merely principles, at stake.  But rather than being a reason not to argue these issues, that is precisely the reason that we must.  

If politics means anything, it means that there are consequences––sometimes, literally, life or death consequences––to the decisions we make.  When it comes to war, climate change, immigration, policing, health care, working conditions––in all of these areas, as with gender, “bodies, safety, health, personal autonomy, and well-beings are at stake.”  That is why politics matters.

Fallacies

While attempting to elevate feminism to a place above politics, the organizers’ statement in fact advances a very specific kind of politics.  Speaking authoritatively but anonymously, the “Patriarchy and the Movement” organizers declare certain questions off-limits, not only (retroactively) for their own event, but seemingly altogether. These questions cannot be asked because, it is assumed, there is only one answer, and the answer is already known. The answer is, in practice, whatever the survivor says that it is.

Under this theory, the survivor, and the survivor alone, has the right to make demands, while the rest of us are duty-bound to enact sanctions without question.  One obvious implication is that all allegations are treated as fact.  And often, specific allegations are not even necessary.  It may be enough to characterize someone’s behavior ––or even his fundamental character––as “sexist,” “misogynist,” “patriarchal,” “silencing,” “triggering,” “unsafe,” or “abusive.”  And on the principle that bad does not allow for better or worse, all of these terms can be used more or less interchangeably.  After all, the point is not really to make an accusation, which could be proved or disproved; the point is to offer a judgment.  Thus it is possible for large groups of people to dislike and even punish some maligned person without even pretending to know what it is, specifically, he is supposed to have done.  He has been “called out” as a perpetrator; nothing else matters.

This approach occludes––and herein, perhaps, lies its appeal––the complexities of real people’s lives, the multiple roles we all occupy, the tensions we all embody and live out, and the ways we all participate in upholding systems of power even as they oppress us.  

Under this schema, it is taken for granted that no survivor is ever also an abuser, and no abuser is the survivor of someone else’s violence.  Naturally, no past victimization can justify or excuse present abuse, but the strict dichotomy implied here too neatly defines the past away; by the same reasoning, it also forestalls the potential for future healing or growth.  

What it offers, instead, is a reassuring dualism in which survivors and abusers exist, not only as roles we sometimes fill or positions we sometimes hold, but as particular types of people who are essentially those things, locked forever into one or the other of these categories, and (not incidentally) gendered in a conventional, stereotyped binary.  Each person is assigned a role and, to some degree, reduced to their position in this story.  One is only a perpetrator/abuser; the other is only a victim/survivor.  They are each defined by the suffering they have caused, or the suffering they have endured––but never by both.

A double transformation occurs.  Patriarchy ceases to be a mode of power and system of social stratification and becomes, instead, identified with the behavior of an individual man and is even thought to be personified by him.  At the same time, both perpetrator and survivor are depersonalized, abstracted from the context and the narratives of their lives, and cast instead as symbolic figures in a kind of morality play.  

Our scrutiny shifts, then, from the abuse to the abuser, from the act to the actor.  Instead of seeking out ways to heal the harm that has been done, we invest our collective energy in judging the character of the man responsible.  Support for the survivor is equated with, and then replaced by, castigation of the perpetrator.  These displays of moral outrage serve above all as pronouncements of the innocence and testaments to the virtue of those who issue them.  And as such, they have a way of becoming weirdly obligatory.  Since we are not asking whether some particular person committed some identifiable act, but instead whether he is fucked up, then it makes a certain kind of sense to think that anyone who “coddles,” or “defends,” or “supports,” or even just likes him–– or who merely fails to denounce him––must take a share of the blame.  So there is a powerful impulse to line up on the “right” side, to join in the denunciation before one finds oneself called out as well. [The same dynamics are found at work in the mob psychology of prison gangs, et al, even our criminal ‘justice’ system. This is well known and used by agent provocateurs.]

Implications

The ideology at work here is self-defeating, producing a movement that is less, rather than more, capable of handling the issues surrounding sexual assault, domestic violence, and other effects of patriarchy.  Barring questions from discussion does not encourage learning or improvement.  And an atmosphere of public shaming provides strong incentives for people who have done wrong not to admit to it or try to atone.  The charged environment makes things harder for those who take on accountability and support work; it stigmatizes individuals who willingly enter into accountability processes; and it may reduce survivors of abuse, their experiences, and their needs to political symbols used by others to advance some specific ideological line.  

The politics involved are also deeply authoritarian, barring from consideration a range of questions concerning authority, accountability, punishment, and exclusion.  Its advocates effectively claim a monopoly on feminist praxis and exclude other feminist perspectives.  And so they silence those who disagree––literally, in the “Patriarchy and the Movement” episode.

In the situation I’ve described here, these moves are being made in the name of feminism, but there is no reason to believe the pattern will stop there.  The same tactics are available to any identity politics camp, or any ideological sect seeking to rid itself of bourgeois influences, or pacifists wishing to make a total break from the culture of violence, or environmentalists looking to escape from civilization, or really anyone whose radicalism consists of decrying other people’s purported shortcomings.  The obsessive need for political conformity, the mutual fault-finding that animates it, and the sense of embattled isolation that results––combined with a kind of self-righteous competitiveness (on the one hand) and a masochistic guilt complex (on the other)–– practically guarantees the sort of internecine squabbling we’ve seen emerge, not only in Portland, but in Oakland, Minneapolis, and New York as well.  

The totalitarian impulse has found its expression, and it has proven so destructive, in part because we have consistently failed to find the means for handling disagreements, for resolving disputes, for responding to violence [some glory in it], and (yes) for holding each other accountable.  Without those tools, we rely––far too often––on ideological purity tests, friend-group tribalism, peer pressure, shaming and ostracism, as well as general shit-talking and internet flame wars.  Such behavior has been part of our political culture for a long time.  

It is unsurprising, then, that our tendency is to push people out, rather than draw them in; but when we do that, our capacity for meaningful action diminishes.  A cycle of suspicion and exclusion takes hold.  As we grow less able, and even less interested, in having an effect on the larger society, we become increasingly focused on the ideas and identities of those inside our own circle.  We scrutinize one another mercilessly, and when we discover an offense––or merely take offense––we push out those who have lost favor.  As our circle grows ever smaller, minor differences take on increasing significance, leading to further suspicion, condemnation, and exclusion––shrinking the circle further still.

We behave, in other words, not like a movement but like a scene––and a particularly cliquish, insular, and unfriendly scene at that.

Visions

At issue here are strikingly different visions of what a political movement ought to be.  

In one vision, a movement and the people who make it up should be in every respect beyond reproach, standing as an example, a shining city on a hill, apart from all the faults of our existing society.  To achieve this perfection, we have to separate the sheep from the goats, the good people from the bad, the true feminists from everyone else. This outlook produces, almost automatically, a tendency to defer to the dogma of one’s in-group. It is not enough simply to do the right things; one must also think the right thoughts and find favor with the right people. […to LOVE ‘big brother’]

In contrast, in the other vision, a movement should attract people to it, including damaged people, people who have done bad things [e.g. Saul of Tarsus], and those who are still in the process of figuring out their politics.  It will require us, therefore, to address sexual assault and other abuse by actually engaging with the people who do such things.  We have to struggle with them as much as we struggle against oppression.  

Neither approach is likely to be easy.  They each face the challenge of developing a feminist praxis in the midst of a sexist society.  But where one vision imagines that the authors of that praxis must be individuals free of the taint of patriarchy, the latter begins by acknowledging that we are all shaped by the forces we struggle against and that we are implicated in the systems of power that oppress us.  The first seeks to defeat patriarchy chiefly through exclusion; the latter, through transformation.

The question we face, in other words, is this: Do our politics aim at purity or change?

***

Bio: Kristian Williams is the author Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America, American Methods: Torture and the Logic of Domination, and Hurt: Notes on Torture in a Modern Democracy. He lives in Portland, Oregon.

Portland, OR — It’s looking like another annual free for all at PSU’s Law & Disorder Conference this year.

The schedule is listed elsewhere on this blog; the the fireworks have already begun on their FB Event page replete with denunciations of well known author, self described anarchist and invited speaker Kristian Williams. His critics threaten to make his experience there “Hell” if he’s permitted to speak and to trash/disrupt the event if they don’t dissuade the organizers.

The organizers, for their part, have taken to deleting comments on their page by the respective factions in an effort to turn down the heat and prevent the event from imploding before it even begins.

The text of the acrimonious exchanges is too long to re-post even a small part of its entirety here, but the following is an example of the tensions and cliched tropes that have entered the invective there:

5th Annual Law & Disorder Conference May 9-11th 2014
All events will be held at Portland State University 
Smith Memorial Student Union Building (SMSU) 
1825 Southwest Broadway, Portland, OR 97201

Dave Negation’s comment on Kristian Williams’ article ‘The Politics of Denunciation’ in its entirety is below. Please note that the pertinent links were embedded, and so don’t show up here. You will need to go to the comment thread to follow the links, but if context is what you want, it’s for sure useful.

One common response to Kristian Williams’ piece is that,whatever the specifics of what occurred in Portland, Williams’ piece is nevertheless valuable and makes some good general points. I disagree. It is extremely difficult to pry apart the content of Williams’ piece from facts about what happened in Portland. Williams’ account is utterly dishonest, and his article obscures Williams’ own role in what occurred. On the occasions where political content may be examined separately from Williams’ distortions, his commentary plays to typical sexist caricatures, such as of women as manipulative and unreasonable. The article is also unbalanced in its emphasis on doubting survivors. Williams does not argue for generalized suspicion, butwants suspicion to be focused on survivors. In other contexts where suspicion develops, Williams portrays this as a destructive breakdown of trust that is harmful to the community.

A longer criticism of Williams’ article is necessary, because to the extent that his politics are clear (and potentially separable from context) they are very bad indeed. In general, however, Williams’ article is not good faith contribution to discussions about gender, patriarchy and abuse. Rather, it is an attempt to circulate lies about what occurred in Portland and to harass a local survivor and her supporters. Williams’ motivations are much clearer once we examine some of his distortions as well as Williams’ own role in the events he wrote about. Providing such context is the task of my comments here.

Williams omits that he helped to edit the anti-survivor statement that was read aloud at the Patriarchy and the Movement event. In conversation, Williams admits to having helped prepare the statement. However, Williams writes his “Politics of Denunciation” article as though he was some sort of neutral bystander to the entire scene. Furthermore, Williams characterizes the prepared statement as being about the personal experience of Eleanor (who read it aloud) “trying to address domestic violence and other abuse in the context of radical organizing.” This is a tortured way to put things, to say the least.

The statement signed by ex-Bring the Ruckus (BTR) members Geoff and Eleanor was a direct response to the survivor’s experience plus Peter Little’s name having being mentioned. (See one version of the statement here.) The ex-Bring the Ruckus statement begins: “A lot has been said this evening regarding our comrade Peter Little and his behavior.” Note that this was a prepared statement, so it is clear that it was to be issued just in case Little’s name got mentioned at the event. The statement claimed that Geoff, Eleanor and the rest of the ex-BTR crew considered the matter to be closed, and that they wished to present general points so as to move away from “personalized attacks on comrades.” It is clear, firstly, that the statement co-edited by Williams portrayed the underlying situation as being about “personal attacks” not anything of substance. (To be clear about Williams’ relation to Bring the Ruckus: Williams was not a member but he worked closely with that organization.) Secondly, the more general points within the statement were a way of speaking about the specific situation without actually going into details, or they were red herrings to divert from the situation at hand.

When Eleanor, either going off-script or reading from a version of the statement that was different from the one subsequently circulated online, made a comment along the lines of “we think it’s important to be critical of survivors” (proximate quote, the ex-BTR intervention was not recorded) this comment was understood as a jab at the survivor, phrased in the typical indirect style of Portland Bring the Ruckus. People gasped and were upset because they understood the ex-BTR statement and Eleanor’s comments as an attack on the survivor, even though it was passed off as some sort of general comment (and then later denied altogether by Eleanor, despite a room full of people having heard her speak.)

Here, I should say something quick about the underlying situation. There is certainly more to say, but this is just a quick version for those who do not want to trudge through the various accounts online. Peter Little is not being accused of intimate violence against the survivor; they were never intimate. The issue is that Peter Little hijacked an “accountability process” regarding an abusive friend of his, with Little then portraying himself as the voice of the process while breaking all understandings that the “process” was founded on.

Instead, Little used his power and his self-presentation as the voice of “accountability” to demean and try to ostracize the survivor. As a result, Little was asked to leave the process, having in effect already sabotaged it.

The great majority of those involved in the process have, by this point, spoken out regarding Little’s behavior and identified it as highly damaging. Little continues to besmirch and organize against the survivor to this day, and has continued to escalate despite many opportunities to change his behavior.

As far as anybody can tell, Little’s actions are due to a grudge he has held against the survivor ever since she–long before the situation of abuse– made a snarky comment critical of Little and Bring the Ruckus.

It is simply not acceptable to use situations of abuse instrumentally, as a way to exact revenge upon a survivor for petty grudges and quarrels. Yet this is precisely what Peter Little did. (Peter Little’s own account is that he was acting gallantly to save a child from the survivor’s wrath, a threadbare and insulting story.)

Back to the Patriarchy and the Movement event: the ex-Bring the Ruckus statement was clearly an attempt to shut up a survivor and those who had supported her. Williams turns the situation on its head when he suggests that it was some sort of “totalitarian” feminism that was engaged in “silencing.” (Following some shock and uproar, Eleanor was given space to politically defend her statement, which she could not do.)

After the Patriarchy and the Movement event, Eleanor and Geoff even made an insincere apology for their intervention, admitting that “We can see how this was interpreted as an attempt to shield an individual and felt [like] silencing.”

Now, Williams has changed the narrative to his BTR friend having been “silenced” and, in fact, being a victim.

The apology made by Eleanor and Geoff was a cynical political move from the start, but their online post at least demonstrates what was actually considered as “silencing” at the time. The anti-survivor nature of the ex-BTR statement was not only noted by the organizers of the Patriarchy and the Movement event, but also by the Red & Black Café (where the event was hosted), the Patriarchy Resistance Committee of the Portland branch of the IWW, as well as other observers.

With all this in mind, how was the statement read by Eleanor actually about her “experience trying to address domestic violence and other abuse in the context of radical organizing” as Williams alleges?

As stated earlier, Williams’ wording is tortured. One of the reasons why people were so appalled by the statement signed by Eleanor and Geoff, is due to Geoff and Eleanor’s earlier role in this situation. Trying to address Little’s harmful conduct discretely, the survivor’s supporters attempted to talk with Bring the Ruckus about what was going on. The result was a meeting with Geoff and Eleanor, which is now Eleanor’s “experience” referred to by Williams. Yet the “personal experience” in that case is not one of opposing abuse, but rather of betraying a survivor! This needs to be further spelled out.

Bring the Ruckus constantly emphasized how everyone who knew of the situation needed to be quiet about it. The survivor’s close support did not accept the initial demand of Bring the Ruckus, which was: in order for BTR even to meet with you and hear you out, you must not talk to others about this matter. The survivor’s support team refused such a gag order, but tried to stay mostly quiet thereafter so as to create a situation favorable to what was needed: de-escalation, an apology from Little, and damage limitation. Instead, the BTR circles (including the clique which remained in Portland after that organization’s formal disbanding) from that point onwards just made excuses for Little and decided that the survivor was really the problem, for having dared to have a problem with their favored commissar.

It was protracted efforts against the survivor which led to one of her supporters finally talking about the situation openly at Patriarchy and the Movement, because relative quiet on this issue had only been used against the survivor. Prior to Patriarchy and the Movement, the ex-BTR people certainly did not practice the discretion which they expected of everyone else.

The survivor was presented by Little and his associates as [a] “political liability” to anybody who would listen (the phrase itself is vague, but was used for the purpose of borderline COINTELPRO-jacketing, when the survivor was not simply portrayed as crazy.)

In context of such ongoing efforts, the pre-written statement from Geoff and Eleanor (with Williams’ assistance) was a way of communicating to the survivor that their clique would throw all their efforts into opposing anyone who did not shut up. Williams had already been recruited for the purpose of their intervention, helping with the statement in case Little’s patriarchal behavior got referenced at the anti-patriarchy event.

Williams had not even heard from the survivor or her supporters before he threw himself into the conflict. So much for Williams’ pose of wanting “political discussion” or for people to examine situations critically!

Williams’ article claims to be about “The Politics of Denunciation” yet ignores the actual denunciation that has taken place since [the] Patriarchy and the Movement [event].

Soon after the Patriarchy and the Movement event, ex-BTR cadre[s] telephoned their contacts coast to coast in order to denounce the survivor. Within a couple of weeks of the Eleanor and Geoff pseudo-apology, Peter Little recruited his allies, Don Hammerquist and Janeen Porter, to issue a 2,700-word statement against the survivor to all their contacts on an international “revolutionary” listserv.

Hammerquist and Porter made clear that they would not tolerate any challenge to their account not backed by “supporting evidence,” while they broadly circulated lies from Peter Little without any proof except Little’s word for it! Those who could offer evidence contradicting Porter and Hammerquist’s repetition of Little’s dangerous claims were banned from the listserv. Also involved in harassment of the survivor was Seattle’s Black Orchid Collective, who wrote not one but two pieces on the topic, the final one wondering why the survivor’s supporters had not turned to them for help!

Peter Little’s new organization Hella503 also circulated a fantastic “report” against the survivor to their contacts. (When Hella503 began, it featured several alumni of Portland Bring the Ruckus, which suggests some of the pressure on the group to work against the survivor.)

None of these actions consist of “denunciation” to Williams, apparently.

Finally, it is ironic that at the start of Williams’ article as posted on Libcom, a “Trigger Warning” has been added to beginning of the text, presumably by some editor. (Libcom article [is] offline at time of posting here.)

A glance at Williams’ article will show that the word “triggering” is used in the article twice, both times in quotation marks. Williams’ article suggests that when people use the term “triggering” this is just to get what they want and to stop conversation.

Good luck involving survivors in your efforts, if that is you how you view things. You will need all the luck you can get.

Amicus Curia [says]:

Finally, a coherent more comprehensive case is offered for public consumption. It’s easy to see why the two factions are at sword’s point: their methodologies for resolving conflict/disagreements suck!–deeply.

It’s a case of a ‘hung jury’ where (much like the Anita Hill-Clarence Thomas case) some believe the alleged victims, others believe the accused. Then there’s the allegation certain prepared statements were coached or even written by Williams.

This is so reminiscent of the corruption in our judicial system. Rather than a genuine effort to seek the truth, each side (as typical in trials by combat) tries to WIN–at all costs. The dysfunction in the r@dical scene reflects that which is inherent in the greater legal/social context and our courts. One can even see the litigious nature of our society mirrored in the r@dical scene.

Get over it!

This piece is more thoughtfully explained and provides some sympathetic light with which both factions can be viewed. If you believed a victim of abuse, you’d be outraged when his/her character/credibility was disparaged or questioned, just as many were when Anita Hill was attacked by Clarence Thomas’ supporters. Yet that’s inherently the nature of what passes for our judicial system–one most people use as their model for resolving conflicts. It is a model taking its origins from trial by combat where the assumption is made God will protect the innocent, but in reality, might makes right. It’s most definitely NOT ‘revolutionary’, but archaic.

This ‘might makes right’ paradigm saturates r@dical group dynamics, just as is evident here. The ‘politics of denunciation’ is but an extension of that model just as our court system and trials are. Whoever is the most persuasively slanderous/libelous carries the day because the system is designed that way and our politics (both mainstream and r@dical) mirror this anachronism.

If Williams takes the time to dissect this stinking corpse, so much the better. Perhaps he has chosen the wrong horse to ride in on. Even scholars make mistakes. KW may have made one in choosing this particular situation to shed light on the problem. But the problem exists and Williams is to be commended for at least attempting to expose it. If his analysis is found wanting, he should be given a 2nd chance to correct it and make it accurate WITHOUT intimidation or threats of disruption or making his appearance “Hell” for him. Anything less is a regression back to the time of the divine right of kings and combat as the arbiter of truth/innocence.

Voltaire is erroneously attributed as having said, “I may not agree with what you say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” Still, the sentiment remains valid. What ails the r@dical community and what Williams criticizes is its penchant for a metaphor resembling trial by combat. i.e. denunciation.

Amicus Curia (also says):

It’s late. I’m unlikely to take the time in the future to give an illustration of a personal nature to serve as a window of understanding that might cut through all the polemics. So here’s my best effort, for now, if I don’t fall asleep first:

A conflict arose between a public official and myself. Eye witnesses (4) who say the incident of which SHE complained characterized her as a drama queen. She was a juvenile probation officer for Thurston County well known to the courts, schools, and parents in the community–a pink collar ghetto since it’s the locale of the State Capital. Biases in favor of public officials run amok there. Sara Dotson was counting on just that and, no doubt, the fact she was a woman and her alleged assailant a large male. She used that sword until it shattered while she was wielding it.

A young mother (Amy Cunningham) had a recalcitrant adopted underage daughter who wanted the Social Security payments from her dead adopted father sent directly to her instead of her mother. This came to a head when Amy (having been informed of what her legal rights as a parent were) demanded a couple harboring her runaway teen return her to her home before the school year began. This prompted the teen to file a petition for emancipation with the assistance of none other than Sara Dotson. The teen was not employed, was immature for her age, could not support herself without public assistance/Social Security, had a long track record of lying and stealing from her family (and neighbors), and successfully manipulated the local Social Security office. Worst of all, Amy had a traumatic brain injury with chronic symptoms from an accident some years earlier including what’s medically termed transient short term amnesia. In other words, she couldn’t remember, often, what had happened or been said 5 minutes ago.

Amy was disabled and an example of why the federal ADA was passed by Congress–a powerful law designed to eliminate the rampant discrimination suffered in every nook/cranny of our society by those with disabilities. Amy could not afford an attorney to defend her parental rights, which were at risk in the Petition for Emancipation action her adopted teen daughter had brought. She asked for my help. I sought no compensation from her as I’d watched her grow up with my daughter as her best friend. She’d been in my home numerous times and I liked her. But, I digress–on to the fabled land of white patriarchy.

Amy appeared in court, as did her daughter before Thurston County Family Court Commissioner Thomas–a woman…and a hack for someone sitting on the bench controlling the most critical intimate parts of people’s family life. The daughter had (I pointed out in private) failed to have Amy served according to court rules for original process. Amy pointed this out when it came her turn to be heard by Indu Thomas. Amy demanded 15 days notice (which she hadn’t gotten). “Where did you get the idea you were entitled to that?” challenged Thomas. “It’s in the RCW’s,” Amy quietly demurred. 

Thomas was unfamiliar with the very State law she was expected to adjudicate. She granted the continuance and directed both the teen and her mother speak (separately) with Sara Dotson, the woman who had been assisting the teen from the outset, with the expectation Dotson would provide the court a report outlining the situation/conflict. 

Christina (the teen girl) entered Dotson’s office first–in tears because the judge had granted a 2 week continuance AND because she’d been given a copy of her FB photo showing her holding an open container of beer in an automobile along w/her friends–not exactly a sterling example of maturity for a teen seeking emancipation.

Outside the courtroom, as we waited for Christine to emerge, with her entourage of ‘witnesses’ waiting in the hall along with Amy’s and myself, I asked her, “So what did the judge say?” “I don’t remember,” Amy replied. “But, Amy, this isn’t good. Your representing yourself. I though I heard the judge [commissioner] say she was granting a continuance. What date did she continue it to?” I prodded. “I don’t remember,” Amy repeated. “But…” I started. “Look, Amicus, it’s NOT that I don’t WANT to remember, I just CAN’T!” she admonished.

Amy seriously needed a lawyer to prevent the court from terminating her parental rights and destroying her family. She’d called me to help, and I agreed to accommodate her as was her right under the federal ADA. When Christina emerged, her face still red from tears of embarrassment and rage, Amy was motioned to enter Dotson’s office as we sat together in the hallway.

She got up and I got up to accommodate her. Dotson moved like a shark toward me to block my path from accompanying Amy. I tried, several times, to explain to Dotson (it turned she already KNEW this from conversations with Christina) Amy had a disability that required accommodation…and she could choose who she wished to assist her. “You’re not her lawyer,” snorted Dotson. “I don’t need to be to accommodate her,” I retorted. 

Nevertheless, Dotson blocked my path through the door to the anteroom to Dotson’s, et ux, office. There was a sign on it which said “Authorized personnel only”. I never crossed the threshold and could not since Dotson was standing in the doorway preventing me from entering it. I remonstrated with Dotson, explaining again Amy’s disability and need for accommodation. Amy confirmed this. Dotson remained intransigent. My voice was never raised, I made no physical threatening gestures, I uttered no threats, I did not resort to name calling or epithets or profanity. I remonstrated with Dotson for Amy’s sake, but to no avail. Dotson would not allow me to accompany/accommodate Amy. At one point, I offered an audio recorder to Amy to take with her so she could recall the conversation within later. Dotson pushed this aid and my hand away from Amy before closing the door between us leaving Amy on the inside, myself and Dotson on the outside. Dotson then stomped to the top of the 2nd floor banister to call a black female sheriff’s deputy to evict me from the courthouse hallway. As she did so, I attempted to take her photograph in this public area, which she, in turn, attempted to thwart.

I was escorted out of the building and ‘trespassed’ unlawfully (without due process). Four eye witnesses soon signed sworn statements confirming I had NOT threatened this public official (a felony in WA State), contrary to her later assertion and repeatedly shifting statements, each designed to parry, in turn, the objections to her inconsistent story. She was the complaining witness and there were no other eye witnesses to back up her lies. Nor, interestingly, was she every asked to record a statement to the investigating detective who worked only a few feet from her office…not even a sworn written statement. Nevertheless, an EX-PARTE order of probably cause was issued by Judge Tabor, a man who literally had a history of almost bankrupting the Thurston County Sheriff’s budget as a deputy prosecutor years earlier in search of WITCHE’S COVENS. (There’s an interesting 2-part article detailing this some years ago in the Paul Ingram as reported in the New Yorker magazine, “Remembering Satan”, also: http://www.religioustolerance.org/ra_ingra.htm)

THE CASE: 
“The 1988 charges against Ingram caused an absolute sensation among people who follow ritual abuse cases. This was the first known instance of a person actually pleading guilty to Satanic Ritual Abuse. Ingram was a sheriff’s deputy in Olympia, WA, and local official in the Republican party.”

“This inmate is innocent. There has never been any credible evidence that he led a satanic cult that murdered 25 babies. There has never been any credible evidence that he abused his children. Paul Ingram is simply the victim of Washington State’s most successful witch-hunt.” -Tom Grant-

Still, the rest of the hearings and discretionary rulings (after Judge Tabor recused himself in response to a motion objecting to his track record as witch persecutor general) were had before women presiding judges, including Judge Murphy, Judge Casey, and Judge Pomeroy, and deputy prosecutor Jennifer Lord–all women, BTW.

By the time the phony class-B felony charge (intimidating a public official) was filed, Amy had been denied an attorney after having twice noted up a motion before Thomas to have the court appoint one, especially given her disability and prospect for having her parental rights terminated. In the end, they WERE terminated, Indu Thomas refused to even acknowledge the properly brought on motions for court appointed counsel, and Amy’s family was decimated–she essentially disowned her daughter as a result of the court’s interference, manipulation and lies by her teen daughter, the the abuse of process she had to endure. Her rights under the ADA were egregiously violated, and her advocate, the man who was accommodating her had to defend himself against a trumped up felony charge (and 2 misdemeanors) maliciously acted on by a drama queen’s professional co-conspirators: Jennifer Lord and Detective Roland, both of whom couldn’t have worked closer on a daily basis unless they’d been sitting in Dotson’s lap! 

In the end, this bald attempt to pervert justice was defeated, WITHOUT having to go to trial, on the basis of pro se motions filed before judge Murphy who had opportunity, over time as the weeks ensured to take the measure of the defendant and his credibility. The crux of his case rested on two prongs: 1) How is it unlawful to do what one’s required to–in response to the charge(s) arising out of Dotson’s unsuccessful anti-harassment civil action, and 2) The complaining witness (Dotson) was exposed through a series of motions, evidence, and affidavits as a manipulative lying drama queen who’d calculated the defendant would never get a fair trial in her home town and workplace. 

When judge Murphy granted the defendant’s motion for a change of venue (to Mason County) the prosecution’s case, already teetering, collapsed and Lord filed a motion to dismiss WITH PREJUDICE, again EX PARTE without notifying the pro se defendant, and having the order entered AFTER Murphy had approved a change of venue before the very witch hunting judge (Tabor) who’d already recused himself from the case and had refused to officiate during the marriage of gays after the law in Washington State permitted it.

Where am I going with this long litany that only skims the surface of a court drama that resembled watching your grandmother wrestle and alligator and WIN!? Well, it resides in the often important detail of what you DON’T hear rather than what you DO. Where was the white male patriarchal privilege in all this? Sure, an factually and innocent pro se male defendant prevailed, but it was women who were initiating phony charges (or ONE, anyway), an arrogant female prosecuting attorney who ignored the sworn written statements of 4 eye witnesses to the incident referenced in the probable cause ex parte proceeding, and woman judges who allowed the defendant to go forward with standby court appointed counsel while he represented himself, and judge Murphy granting a rarely successful motion for a change of venue (15 such in WA State in 2010 out of 50,000 criminal cased filed that year). If THAT’s ‘partriarchy’, where do I find a substitute?

And was the woman ‘survivor’ telling the truth?–no way. She couldn’t even tell the SAME story twice. Four eye witnesses contradicted her. Upon pre-trial examination, when handed a blueprint of the 2nd floor of Thurston’s Family Court, and asked WHERE the defendant was standing when he supposedly ‘trespassed’ beyond the threshold of the “No Unauthorized Personnel” door, her mark and explanation indicating the same made no sense–was physically and obviously impossible considering measurements of the width of the doorway, and where the parties were standing (or alleged to be standing by Dotson).

The hoopla over the ‘institution of patriarchy’ ignores what’s going on, right now, in the real world and power centers saturated with corruption, as much by women apparatchiks as men! Men get shafted every day in Thurston’s Family Court…and so do women! It’s not right. Something must be done about it. But it’s going to be difficult to change it if the call for change isn’t supported by all the victims of it. Vilifying/denigrating half of them will only allow the corruption to continue. You want to talk about women being victimized? Talk to Amy. She can give you an earful. Want to talk about men being victimized for trying to accommodate a disabled young mother?–talk to me. I’ve documented it and am continuing to investigate it.

Finally, criticize Kristian Williams for his analysis, if you like, but don’t interfere with his right to speak or the right of others to hear him.

Portland, OR (5-9-14 to 5-11-14 @ 6:30 pm) — The same venue (PSU) that, last year, resulted in women tabling for DGR (Deep Green Resistance) being assaulted, their literature being defaced, and their advocate having food and trash hurled at him soon thereafter, is hosting a sequel in the Student Union building from May 9th – 11th, billed as the 5th annual Law & Disorder Conference–FREE and OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. And while the organizers assert they have a ‘safer place’ policy, they did nothing to intervene in the assault on the women last year or to hold those responsible accountable. Nor did any of the men present who witnessed the assault lift a finger to stop it. Perhaps the constant barrage of shaming men has finally reached the threshold of converting them into self loathing males. Once upon a time, men would have defended/protected women from assault by a couple of self-aggrandizing male thugs. Not anymore–at least in the sick world of crotch debates and lifestyle (A)narchists. No, in fact, the assault has since been justified on the pretext the DGR line on gender (or cross-gender) politics was incorrect, the assailants described as ‘women’.

Currently, Kristian Williams, a prolific author, professed anarchist, and well researched theorist, is scheduled to speak at the event, but is under attack from obsessive identity politics f@natics. So far, the organizers have refrained from responding to posted threats to create “Hell” for Mr. Williams if he is allowed to give a presentation at the conference. Given the limp response to assault and disruption last year, it’s anyone’s guess how far the organizers will allow the intimidation to go. Mr. Williams would be well advised to bring his own security apparatus. Any controversial speaker at this event would be as well. These are d@ngerous elements. They’re proud of being able to intimidate and bully their way to forcing others to submit to their wishes no matter how great a violation of protocol or civil rights it may be.

So, what’s on the agenda for this crowd of carnivores?

May 9 – May 11 Starts at 6:30pm · Ends at 6:00pm

Smith Memorial Student Union

Olympia, WA. @ Sylvester Park (5-1-14) — Another balmy day in the park with temperatures in the mid-80’s, blue skies, and about 50-60 idlers sucking up each other’s company on the ultra-green turf. There were the usual glares and stares at photojournalists, but the mood was mostly mellow–nothing like last year’s much more crowded venue replete with an army of law enforcement, weapons, clubs, attack dogs, masks, and the expectation something ‘big’ was planned. In the end, nothing dramatic happened, there were no arrests, and despite all the attention, no lasting resolution came of it all.

This year’s celebration was of an even lower key by an order of magnitude at least. Bruce and Nora tabled for preserving what’s left of the environment. ACAP’s (TESC’s Abolish Cops And Prisons student group) acolytes arrived. Both dropped banners from the gazebo’s banister, where the public was forbidden to go while it remained padlocked. More and more public facilities in Olympia are locked to prevent citizens from using them, particularly the homeless.

Songs were sung, speeches were given–courtesy of Mike Coday’s PA system. The cause was focused, mostly, on accentuating the positive and constructive remedies rather than smashing the state/private property. The WSP acted professionally and with great restraint, only pausing at one point late in the afternoon to admonish ACAP to stop blocking the park’s sidewalks with their literature and displays. ACAP pretty much ignored them and the police did not attempt to create a confrontation over it. WSP remains the best trained Washington law enforcement agency. One youth was heard asking, “So, where’s the action?” “Seattle,” came the reply.

Mainstream media (some) showed up to cover whatever came of all this. Photojournalists shook hands and introduced themselves to one another. War stories were swapped. No photojournalists were harassed, intimidated, bullied, assaulted, or robbed on this occasion. It remained a pleasant day, unusually sunny, and comfortable. Scott Yoos arrived to report on the event. Mary Spokane was present. Some Green Party advocates came. Mrs. Coday enjoyed the camaraderie in her husband’s company who shared his tattoo with the camera at one point. The WSP police looked young, fit, and attractive on their bicycles. Occasionally, a sheriff’s cruiser or City of Olympia police vehicle would slowly drive by. No one was ordered off the gazebo, despite the lack of a ‘permit’ and lock on it . The park had been cleaned. Common sense, if not good will, dominated the scene.

Olympia, WA @ Sylvester Park & BOA (4-30-14) — A day in the park across from the elegant sandstone old State Capitol building was almost perfect except for a few quirks in some of the denizens there, one in particular. He’d done 17 years in prison, he told the photographer, and was suffering from PTS syndrome. It was a balmy afternoon, the temperature at 82 degrees, a light breeze, benches to sit on, a water fountain, emerald green manicured grass and very light traffic. What could be more perfect?

Well, a couple of things, maybe more. Like Seattle, Olympia isn’t known for it’s hospitality when it comes to bathrooms or public toilets. Sylvester Park has none. Starbucks, across the street does, but the combination is only given to paying customers. Bubble Island, next door, offers apologies, but no relief. The public restrooms at Heritage park a few blocks away are fenced off for renovations, the gazebo in the park is barricaded and locked against potential public use (accompanied by WSP harassment for anyone who steps over the low wrought iron barrier to try), the wooden towers on the public boardwalk park are padlocked shut to prevent the public from enjoying them, and all the city’s public restrooms are locked promptly at 5:00 pm daily, reportedly to prevent the homeless and drug addicts from using them.

Too Manicured, too much nice gear to be ‘homeless’

Hip Hop Culture

Spring Fever

Young Lions

An employee at  Bubble Island explained it was the owner’s policy to refuse the public (even customers) the use of his toilet. Olympia is schizoid on this issue, preferring to remain in the stone age when it comes to public health. Nightly, its dispatcher calls patrol units after receiving various complaints ranging from “homeless woman defecating behind a dumpster” to “white man dancing in the street”. Officer Clancy is, no doubt, anxious to speed to the scene of the dumpster before she gets away. The city imagines locking the public toilets will prevent people from doing ‘bad’ things (needles/syringes)…at least there. So the needles now appear in parks, on parking lot pavement, the sidewalks and street corners. No medical treatment facilities for treatment of drug addicts are apparent. The police are charged with arresting and housing them in jail–not exactly an optimal situation to treat drug addiction or those with mental illness. Still, it’s popular with the ‘tough on crime’ set.

Nice Gear

Bikes, Camping Gear, and Guitars

Family Affair

Camera shy much?

Why city residents tolerate the padlocking of public and recreational facilities they have purchased with their hard earned tax dollars remains a mystery. The Artesian well on 4th is now fenced off too for gentrification. Community cynics suspect once completed, it too will be burdened with attenuated hours like Sylvester park where anyone visiting it after dark may be cited or arrested for trespass. Time will tell, but the historical track record of the municipality isn’t good. Right now, friends of the well must choke down the rubber taste of the water as they draw it from a hose the city has run through the chain link fence to prevent access to it. One local resident, when asked, while filling her 5-gallon container, how she felt about the fence replied, “I hate it!”

Festive or Restive?

Back lit highlight

Blond Sounds the Alarm

Suspicious Glares

Gearing Up

Quite a number of the homeless were sleeping on the lush grass, basking in the sun. Street sense has revealed the police do not harass them there during the day like they do at night when they’ll be forced to find less visible respite since the City of Olympia passed an ordinance criminalizing anyone found sleeping/’camping’ on public property anywhere within its limits. The City tried to prevent a young Native American minister from feeding the hungry in a vacant parking lot twice a week. Ben refused to heed their admonishment, and so far the City’s administrators have not moved to confront him. Ben happens to have the support of virtually all the Pacific Northwest tribes. A few of the town’s naysayers argue those being fed aren’t truly needy, but are simply ‘hanging out’ as a social outlet. Others, including Ben, are convinced not feeding the poor is NOT an option! Ben won’t back down. In an era when food stamps and others safety nets are being cut/eliminated, Ben may have better intuition than the town’s elected officials.

Barefoot in the Park

Sylvester park had considerable trash this day near one bench replete with broken shards of glass from what appeared to be Christmas ornaments embedded in the lawn. The upkeep is expensive when slobs abuse it. Spending over $200,000 annually on its maintenance, the State (current owner) would like to give it to the City of Olympia. So far, the town hasn’t taken the bait. Add to that the cost of arrests for those cited in the park for violations which currently fall to the WSP, and the State’s liability begins to soar.

Trash & Broken Glass detract from Sylvester Park

A large group of young people were gathered in the park, “just chilling” according to one. One older gentlemen who lives on the street claimed 90% of them were homeless, stating he knew many there. Initially, considering they were young enough to be in school, it was early afternoon on a school day and Wednesday found most people with jobs at work, this opinion made sense, But the youths were too clean and had too much shiny gear and other assets to resemble hard core homeless. They weren’t the bored youth who show up downtown on Friday evenings or Saturdays for lack of anything else to do. But, they did resemble the kind of lifestyle (A)narchists and hip hop fans who show up for May Day gatherings. Moreover, they demonstrated the same kind of paranoia about street photography many (A)narchists nurture. Time and again their misapprehensions about photojournalism needed to be addressed.

A Fleeting Spring Moment

Easy Rider

Starbucks Window Display

One somewhat older man (pictured herein) aggressively approached the photographer, explaining he’d done 17 years in prison. He wasn’t asked why. He claimed to ‘know’ it was illegal to photograph in public without the consent/permission of the subject. When disabused of this misinformation, he refused to accept the facts while becoming more aggressive until he was invited to discuss where the legal boundaries lie with ‘experts’ on the matter. After asking who that might be, he was told the police were required to be knowledgeable enough about the law to enforce it. He stated he didn’t want to talk to the police (911) and left in a huff.

Kicking it in Olytown

No cameras were seen in this crowd

Ex-con Glowers at Photographer

2 Hazards of Street Photography

17 Years in Prison made him an expert in photojournalism law

Mainstream media in a crew are seldom, if ever, challenged in this manner. Perhaps independent photojournalists appear to be ‘low hanging fruit’ more easily intimidated. Appearances can be deceiving. Moreover, public parks/spaces are not venues belonging only to the strong or most menacing. It is vital for the public to reclaim them by exercising their rights there rather than relinquishing them by abandonment. Street photography has the virtue of not only exercising 1st Amendment rights, else we risk losing them, but by removing effective anonymity from those who would violate the rights of others in these public spaces. The state has demonstrated it can/will not protect these spaces and the public. Thus, the public MUST take responsibility to preserve them and protect themselves. This is best accomplished by removing such public venues and those who frequent them from the shadows. It is hoped that crowds and masks will not serve to shield those intent on committing crimes on May Day from accountability in Olympia.

This Man’s Attire is more consistent with ‘homelessness’

Leaving in a Huff

Oly’s Downtown Bank of America Branch

The ‘chalking’ of Oly’s Bank of America was scheduled to begin at 4:00 pm. After waiting a half hour, hope was fading anyone would show up at all. A walk around the block found no one, but some side streets had their own stories. Traditions Cafe proudly displayed a poster supporting the “People’s House”.  Sidewalk cafe diners schmoozed with their families. A long abandoned downtown nursery and greenhouse was returning to nature. There were a lot of empty storefronts and an interesting antique store displaying flowers set on an artistically unvarnished wooden chair left on the sidewalk.

Bank of America’s interior was photographed seconds before exiting to avoid being ejected. There were bulletproof walls and plexiglass shields between the customers and tellers. It had all the charm of an execution chamber. Exterior cameras surveilling the street commanded strategic points on the upper corners of the building. Text emblazoned on its glass entryway warned anyone entering for any reason other than banking was trespassing, cautioning the police had been so advised. But, like so many ill informed street elements who erroneously believe they have more control over public streets/spaces than they are entitled to, the bank demonstrated it too was a bully, but relied on the police to threaten and intimidate where no law had been broken.

In a Family Kind of Way

At Your Service

A Touch of Class

Once These Bones Danced As Quick As Foxes

Art Deco

Two intrepid souls with a box of multi-colored chalk sticks finallyarrived to write the words of the prophets virtually on the bank’s doorstep. “War Profiteers” greeted pedestrians as they entered while “Hi There” on the  bank’s glass door tried to put customers at ease. Other sidewalk messages urged citizens to take their money to local credit unions and expressed great antipathy toward the war mongering corporate behemoth.

A few young ladies sauntered by and even wavered when urged to express their opinions on the concrete. The City of Olympia had handed out chalk to children for just such purposes only days earlier during the Procession of the Species. Still, as it turned out, the bank was not amused. Ultimately, however, there were no takers and the two who arrived to express their displeasure with BOA were the only ones with chalked fingers when they left. Before they managed that, an interesting interlude occurred which revealed the relationship, as the bank sees it, between itself, the police, and citizen dissidents.

No Comments

No Takers to Add to the Sidewalk Script

Anti-Chalk Brigade to the Rescue?

The photojournalist on hand noticed a man conservatively dressed talking on a cell phone while sitting on the edge of the bank’s concrete flower box around the corner. Not knowing what his relationship was to the bank, if any, or the police, his picture was snapped along with others as they happened by. He was heard, shortly thereafter, reporting by cell phone, that a photographer had taken his picture and describing him. The adjacent wall made the conversation easy to hear.

About the time the two chalk artists were preparing to leave, one got out his tablet to take a few digital photos. A large employee of the bank came out the door and appeared to inspect the the front and side of the building, perhaps for photographers, before reentering the premises. The gentleman photographed earlier had ducked inside, perhaps to complain. And, although the bank had large surveillance cameras mounted on its walls to monitor people on the street, she confronted the chalking dissident while he held his tablet camera in hand, to threaten him with the police if he’d been or intended to photograph ‘customers’.

First, she had the wrong guy as this photographer had now positioned himself across the street for a better camera angle. Second, the man she accosted had not broken any laws, nor had this photographer by recording faces on the street. Still, her attempt at intimidation spoke volumes as to who the police work for in reality and what their corporate masters expect of them. It was like looking at the privilege of the nobility through a time warp into colonial America. She felt at liberty, once she’d escorted the complaining ‘customer’ to safety after determining the coast was all clear, to bully the chalk bearer.

A moment of levity occurred when a city firetruck tanker drove by the scene. For an instant, speculated was made they had been summoned to pressure hose the chalked text from the sidewalk. It would have made a great photo-op, but it was not to be. Evidently, the firemen had more important business elsewhere.

“The words of the prophets are written on the subway walls, tenement halls…and echo in the sounds of silence.” -B. Dylan-

Ian Finkenbinder (aka: Ian Awesome/Fisher?) is a self described HIV positive ‘angry queer’ who maintains a blog and lives in the Seattle area near his family on Mercer Island. His published sentiments about the Portland State (PSU) incident last year where Deep Green Resistance (DGR) women, a radical environmentalist group who rejects the notion that transgender men are ‘women’, were assaulted and had their literature defaced and stolen while on the campus.

Mercer Island

Finkenbinder has an alibi to allegations he was involved in that assault. He was with  5 friends, he says, dining on his deck in Seattle at the time. Having engaged in some terse online exchanges and taken the measure of the man, Ian’s credibility is highly suspect. The violence the women experienced closely parallels his often repeated philosophy. Mr. Finkenbinder’s account of the incident reeks of gloating and familiarity.

The following excerpt taken from his blog he maintains (oneangryqueer.blogspot.com) is posted to preserve it for possible litigation and illustrative of the mindset so common among violently inclined (A)narchists, particularly those with gender identity issues:

 Deep Green Resistance: Transphobic Liars, Grasping at Straws

Well, this has been an interesting week.This year’s Law and Disorder conference, a radical political gathering in Portland, was particularly spectacular. While the program certainly had its merits and the organizers can likely call the event a success, the schedule was overshadowed by the controversial attendance of one organization and the community response to their presence.Deep Green Resistance, a “radical” environmentalist group led by such figures as Derrick Jensen and Lierre Keith, were tabling at the event. Their environmentalist politics weren’t the problem, though. Deep Green Resistance advocates a hardline “radical feminist” stance on transgender issues, essentially denying that “transgender” exists, instead equating all trans women as “men” who are posing as women in order to infiltrate female spaces, deny their socialized privilege, and rape “real” women. Or something. It’s pretty disgusting (click over to Decolonizing Yoga’s breakdown of their transphobic stances here). Anyway, they had literature to that affect at the conference, and some queer anarchists decided to confront them on the issue that weekend. The queers involved in the confrontation issued a statement that says:

On the first day of the Law and Disorder Conference in Portland, two anarchist genderqueers* approached the Deep Green Resistance Table to inform the two women of Lierre Keith’s rampant transphobia. The people who confronted DGR were met with transphobic claim after transphobic claim, upholding the gender analysis held by their leaders. An argument ensued in which members of DGR denied the validity of trans identities. Offended by this, one of the genderqueers took a paint pen out and defaced the official Deep Green Resistance book written by Aric McBay, Lierre Keith and Derrick Jensen. While said person was marking the book, a member of DGR grabbed the book back and was smudged by the pen. The person with the pen, knowing that DGR members are known for snitching (see Derrick Jensen & FBI and Lierre Keith & the pieing incident) and grabbed a stack of Lierre Keith zines and was not seen again.

Later that day, three anarchist genderqueers were sitting in the lobby of the Smith Memorial Hall of PSU laughing about how those transphobes got their book fucked up. While the queers were loling, a member of DGR** approached and started arguing with them. The DGR member even asserted that DGR believes that transpeople do not experience violence based on their trans identity. When he was challenged and given the tragically long list of transwomen murdered at the hands of transphobes, he had no retort. While he was walking away a burrito and some trash sailed through the air and landed on his head. Someone started a chant “DGR ARE TRANSPHOBES” and a dozen or so joined in. Laughter ensued!

The next day, near the end of the conference, a group of about 15 to 20 people approached the same two women from the first day and started a discussion about transphobia espoused by the group and it’s leaders. Some people yelled, others wrote down lists of zines and books to read so the members of DGR could educate themselves about the validity of transpeople and the daily oppression of transpeople. The DGR members decided to pack up their table at that point and go home. The DGR women proceeded to call Comczar Jensen and High Counselor Keith about their hurt feelings.

Deep Green Resistance and all of their fucked transphobic ideas will be confronted by anarchist queers at every turn. Get used to it.
*We do not believe that only trans people can confront transphobia. If the fact that the people who confronted them were genderqueer brings more legitimacy to the confrontation, then so be. DGR should be confronted by people of many identities in many ways for a multitude of reasons.

**This cult member was not one of the two women who were originally confronted at the DGR table.

The incident has sparked a Facebook shitstorm, with radfems spouting their transphobic idiocy, anarchists responding with humor and outrage, and even Twitter harassment from Cathy Brennan, DGR supporter and transphobic bigot extraodinaire:

So yes, I was involved in the online discussion of what occurred. However, Deep Green Resistance then published an interesting statement that, frankly, included something that made me howl with laughter.

Since the events of May 11 and 12, threats against DGR have escalated to include threats of arson, beheading, bricks to the head, and rape.

The videos here were taken on Sunday. Below in italics are the direct words of the woman who took the video. She is the woman who Ian Awesome, aka Ian Finkenbinder, assaulted on Saturday. Ian has supported violence publicly in the past.

This publication will assist those seeking to hold the assailants of the DGR women accountable.

You can find the entire statement here.

Imagine my surprise… because I wasn’t even there. I didn’t even know about the conference until the controversy erupted. At the time of my alleged assault, so effortlessly placed right next to allegations of  rape threats (I’m absolutely positive they’re not trying to accuse me of being a would-be rapist, right?), I was having dinner with five other people. On my deck. In Seattle. A three-hour drive away.

Well, my burrito-throwing arm must be a lot stronger than I thought…

I can’t imagine what these people are thinking. I took place in the online debate, to include telling these disgusting human beings how horrible their politics are. However, I was nowhere near the conference, and am a distinctive-looking enough person that it would be hard for people to mistake someone else for me. I can only conjecture that they started looking for queer anarchists who appear in the media, grabbed a picture from an interview I did over a year ago, and decided to lie about who I am and what I do.

To be frank, this is an attempt to intimidate and harass voices who speak out against them online. That’s cool. It doesn’t work on me, and I don’t know anyone who these lies would sway.

So I’m not going to get into a debate of what violence is or isn’t, or what I have supported in the past (no, I have never ever stated support for violence, if you click on the link they provide I say nothing of the sort), but I would like to discuss violence and radical response to it, and how transphobia rightfully enrages those it affects.

Because let’s be real, transphobic politics actually feed a larger culture of violence and destruction against trans* people. When we deny someone’s identity and essentialize them to the sum of their body parts (IE, the “every person with a penis is a man”), we are actually reducing them to something less than normal, less than human. Tell me, are you more likely to assault a human? Or an inhuman object of ridicule?

In essence, the stance DGR takes against trans* folk actually and actively increases and empowers a culture that enforces gender assignment, victimizes them on the basis of their identity, and results in real-world physical, state, and institutionalized violence.Their politics aren’t a difference of opinion– they are a literal assault on trans* people. Frankly? A marker to the hand and a burrito to the head are not an immature response to a difference of opinion. It’s a legitimate expression of rage, it’s resistance to the violence these politics engender, it’s a BASH BACK, and a humorous one to boot.

Dear DGR: Not only are you losing focus– who the fuck even talks about your environmental work anymore? Do you even do any?– but you’re lying. I wasn’t there. I didn’t throw a burrito. I didn’t deface anything, much less anyone’s hand. The weakness of your position is frankly leaving you grasping at straws, attacking anyone you can for whatever you can make stick. What next, are you going to call the cops on me, as your bullshit group of people is so fond of doing?

While I’m owed a serious apology (sticking my picture next to allegations of rape threats is fucking disgusting, you creeps), I’m not bothered about the mischaracterization of myself as offering resistance to this bullshit.

Do I support that resistance, though? Do I support a lone, airborne burrito? Do I support bashing back?

Fuck, yeah.

UPDATE: 

Left comments on both the website that initially published this statement and on Cathy Brennan’s website, which reblogs the statement with my picture, and thus far I have been ignored in requests for retraction. The original post, in fact, did not allow my comment with this piece to go through moderation.  -Ian Finkenbinder-

Editor’s NOTE: [The editorial staff at this publication condemns all violence, bullying, and intimidation instigated or carried out in our colleges, universities, parks, and public spaces whether it is directed at women, transgender folks, men, photojournalists, the police, minorities, without regard to their race, religion, creed, political beliefs, or immigration status. The right to be safe and to exercise not only our inalienable, but civil rights, is absolute. It does not depend on the political posturing of any individual or group no matter what the pretext. Nor will those who work for Soul Snatcher ™ Productions turn a blind eye to felony assaults committed in their presence, or refuse to aid, assist, or cooperate with the aggrieved parties. It is said, a litigant is entitled to every man’s evidence. This well established legal principle is respected here and those involved with this company will not turn their back on it or the truth or the opportunity to demonstrate/reveal that truth in a court of law. Perpetrators are advised to take notice or ignore this warning at their peril.]

And from the Seattle PI (by Levi Pulkkinen):

Protesters march on the streets of Seattle on May Day. Photo: SOFIA JARAMILLO

A 30-year-old emergency room technician accused of punching a Seattle police officer.

A Seattle artist, previously convicted of drunkenly destroying construction equipment, now said to have spit in the face of another Seattle cop.

A photographer long involved in Occupy Seattle, alleged to have grabbed an officer who was attempting to arrest another May Day protester.

Among the hundreds who took part in Tuesday’s protests, the trio are the only ones who’ve been publicly identified as suspects in felony-level crimes. (Seattlepi.com does not generally name suspects unless charges are filed.)

A 23-year-old Vermont man suspected of vandalizing the old federal courthouse in Seattle’s downtown is currently in federal custody. He could face charges as early as Thursday for destruction of federal property.

Still, pre-May Day warnings from the mayor’s office that agitators might be “coming to Seattle” to riot or hijack the annual march don’t appear to be supported by the arrests thus far.

Speaking Wednesday after all three protesters appeared in court, an organizer of the protests described all three as “very great participants in Occupy Seattle.” Of the seven arrestees identified by police, all except the Vermont man have obvious ties to the Seattle area.

Police, though, have suggested that more arrests may be coming in the days ahead.

Beginning around noon on Tuesday, masked, black-clad men and women launched a vandalism spree that also saw police and bystanders attacked. Vandals are believed to have also thrown a rock through the window of Mayor Mike McGinn’s Greenwood home late in the day.

Among the vandals’ targets were a block of shops near the Washington Convention Center, a Wells Fargo Bank office and – somewhat inexplicably – the William Kenzo Nakamura Courthouse on Fifth Avenue, a federal building used sparingly since the new downtown U.S. Courthouse opened in 2004.

Speaking Wednesday, Seattle police officials said a task force formed to investigate the  violence will be reviewing hours of video taken during the protests.

“I am convinced there are a lot of people who will be spending some quality time in prison for what they did yesterday,” Seattle Police Chief John Diaz said.

Prison doesn’t appear to be on the horizon for any of the three protesters now accused of attacking Seattle officers. While none has been charged, each is suspected of third-degree assault; were any to be convicted on that charge, none is likely face more than three months in jail.

At an initial court appearance Wednesday, a King County prosecutor described all three suspects as having helped to turn a peaceful protest violent by attacking officers.

Speaking following the hearing, Occupy Seattle organizer Ian Finkenbinder described all three as “comrades” to the Occupy movement and suggested the allegations against them are “spurious and trumped up.” He also declined to condemn Tuesday’s vandalism spree.

“I believe people are very angry right now,” said Finkenbinder, who went on to describe the arrestees as “great participants in Occupy Seattle.”

Police contend a 23-year-old Central District man, one of the three facing potential felony charges, spit in a police officer’s face after the officer demanded he hand over a wooden pole with metal bolts fixed to it.

“These poles had already been used by many protesters to cause tons of damage to the downtown core of Seattle, and were used in assaults,” a Seattle detective told the court, describing the man’s arrest at 4:30 p.m. in the 100 block of Pike Street.

Court records show Tuesday’s arrest was the man’s second of the year.

At 5 a.m. on New Year’s Day, the man was arrested at a Capitol Hill construction site after breaking the windows on two excavators there.

He told police at the time that he was intoxicated and “exploring.” He later admitted to the vandalism, plead guilty to a pair of misdemeanor charges and was sentenced to 25 days on home detention and community service; he also received a one-year jail term that was suspended on the condition that he not break the law again.

Hearing from prosecutors and the man’s private defense attorney, King County District Court Judge Anne Harper ordered he be held on $10,000 bail.

The other two felony suspects – a 28-year-old Wallingford man and a 30-year-old West Seattle woman – were released under the condition that they stay out of downtown Seattle for the time being.

The Wallingford man was arrested at 4:40 p.m. near the intersection of First Avenue and Pike Street during a large disturbance there. Police contend he grabbed an officer’s hand while the officer was attempting to make room for another arrest; according to police statements, the man’s action hurt the officer.

Described by his attorney as a photographer with a long history of documenting Seattle protests, the man was released without bail.

The woman, an emergency room technician working in Bellevue, is alleged to have punched an officer in the chest as the officer was attempting to form a barrier in the same location as the other incidents. According to police, the officer pulled the woman to the ground and arrested her at the scene.

Waiting to receive more information from Seattle police on two other suspects, city prosecutors have charged 19-year-old Jack Tierny with unlawful use of a weapon following allegations that Tierny was carrying a fixed-blade knife during the protest.

Police contend Tierny had the knife sheathed on his fanny pack during a noon protest at Westlake Center.  According to officers’ reports, Tierney, a California man, said he came to Seattle from Olympia to protest; he allegedly told police he was carrying the knife as a “utility tool” because he “spends a lot of time traveling in the woods.”

King County prosecutors have until Friday to charge or release the sole suspect currently in state custody. The Vermont man suspected of smashing windows at the federal courthouse also is expected in court in coming days.

Olympia, WA (4-26-14) — A break in the Pacific NW April showers gave a pleasant respite except for the last 15 minutes of the procession when gentle rain graced the parade route as it snaked through the downtown streets of Olympia around Sylvester Park terminating by the fountain park near Heritage Park.

The Procession was considerably shorter than it has been previously. Whether this is due to there being fewer species than in years past or the failure of negotiations between Eli (the core organizer behind the Procession) and the City of Olympia administration is uncertain. Eli refused to place the City’s logo on any/all posters for the procession–insisting the event would remain non-commercial as always. The City’s administrators, in turn, withdrew the normal annual funding they’d previously contributed, drew a procedural distinction between the Procession and Art Walk, even though the former draws far more people downtown by an order of one or two magnitudes, and now mandates the organizers go through the City’s expensive cumbersome permit process, unlike what’s the consideration given Art Walk by the municipality. In short, the reduced funding and additional expense placed on the organizers has created a shortfall. The workshop space, utilities, supplies, and high permit fees now imposed by the City have set some high hurdles to be cleared. It’s not at all certain they can be.

Eli has given almost 20 years to the Procession. He feels it’s time for him to hang it up after two decades though he doesn’t appear to have groomed a successor.

Olympia may come to regret its passing. In fact, Eli is counting on just that to bridge the impasse. The benefits the business community and the municipality derive from the Procession are obvious despite the extra expense of police overtime and street cleanup.

The positive energy was intense. Smiles were abundant. Children were happy. Visitors spent money in local businesses. Nobody felt shortchanged, other than possibly City Manager, Steve Hall, by the lack of the City’s logo in the venue. It may be time for a new City manager–one who can see the light, not to mention the dancing in the street and the steady beat for new blood in an archaic City administration.

“…In world war II, six million they fried. But, the Germans now too have God on their side.”                          -B. Dylan-

Why anyone would want God on their side is a bit of a mystery when considering far more people have been killed in the name of God than Satan. Nevertheless, the U.S. Constitutional mandate for a separation of Church and State continues to be challenged in certain locales such as the following:

Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1:
No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court. (Is ‘miscegenation’ still on the books there as a criminal offense?)

Maryland, Article 37:
That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
(Wait what?!?!?!? No religious test ought ever be required… yet one is?!?!?)

Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
(Catch 22 for this one, people of Mississippi! Just say you believe yourself as to be the supreme being of your world… What could they say to that omission????)

North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8:
The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4:
No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2:
No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

Texas, Article 1, Section 4:
No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Olympia, WA @ Media Island (4-24-14) — This short clip is from a 4-hour presentation by Bill Moyer, a powerful motivational speaker & graduate of TESC, teaching non-violent tactics emphasizing creative defense of the environment and organizing opposition to its destruction–good stuff. His illustrations were instructive as was his style. He offers 1-week long workshop camps at his home on Vashon Island for $200. Registration can be found on backbonecampaign.org.

2 Free Spirits