Who is the Occupy Oakland Media Collective?

Recent articles have quoted Shake Anderson and others as a representatives of Occupy Oakland apologizing for past actions of the movement. This includes an article in the Oakland Tribune and another by Kevin Zeese, an activist in Washington, DC.

Anderson and the Occupy Oakland Media Collective claim to be on an “apology campaign” to defend  Occupy Oakland from the “Oakland Commune.”

First, the Oakland Commune is simply a nickname for the camp at Oscar Grant Plaza and the community that grew out of it, no more, no less. It is a term of endearment used by Occupy Oakland participants, not some separate shady organization.

More importantly, Anderson is a member of the “Occupy Oakland Media Collective” which publishes the HellaOccupyOakland.org web site, which is separate from OccupyOakland.org.

The Occupy Oakland Media Collective does not represent Occupy Oakland.

Far from it.

From January to March, the Occupy Oakland Media Collective–then known as the “OO Media” committee–met in secret while pretending to have a transparent committee open to all, eventually expelling members of the committee who did not agree with an article they published on their web site.  The article in question ridiculously and offensively accused an Arab-American activist in Occupy Oakland of being both a terrorist and a federal agent–based on “evidence” from a Department of Defense anti-terrorism document!–that was briefly published on hellaoccupyoakland.org.

The racist nature of this accusation was contradictory to everything the Occupy movement stands for. The Occupy Oakland General Assembly voted to distance itself from the group in March 2012.

That resolution is posted here:

1. Last Saturday, an offensive, irresponsible and dangerous article titled
“Occupational Awareness” was posted on the OO Media web site. Occupy
Oakland denounces the article. The article contains personal attacks on an
individual in Occupy Oakland that are untrue and unsubstantiated, and that
are extremely dangerous to him and to the movement.  The article appeals
and legitimates a fantasy of “terrorist threat” that has consistently been
used by the state to repress and silence protest, and to create false
“enemies,” and uses classic racist tactics of racial profiling to do so.
This article is not only a serious danger to the person attacked, it is a
danger to our movement and it  requires immediate action.

Rather than abide by this resolution, the Occupy Oakland Media Collective renounced the General Assembly–which passed this vote of over 140 people with 90% supporting–and decided to go its own way. They chose to leave Occupy Oakland rather than apologize for their offensive behavior and now have a highly restrictive membership policy which is an affront to the open-air organizing that took place in October and November of 2011 at Oscar Grant Plaza.

The Occupy Oakland Media Collective now claims to represent Occupy Oakland, speaking on behalf of the movement claiming that the tactics of the “Oakland Commune” turned people off. But these new “official” representatives played no serious role in organizing any of the mass actions. However,  they have done much to take credit for them and even, it seems, profit off of them.

Occupy Oakland does not have a position for or against vandalism and activists have varying attitudes toward this tactic. The Occupy Oakland Media Collective hopes to attract attention to themselves over this issue while doing nothing to clarify the distinction between a few broken windows compared to massive police repression, assault and arrests. The Occupy Oakland Media Collective  is playing directly into the hands of the opponents of the Occupy movement in the media, in City Hall and even vigilantes who call on Oaklanders to “beat the shit out of anarchists/vandals.”

The only true representative of the movement is the General Assembly. The General Assembly has spoken against the Occupy Oakland Media Collective. They do not represent Occupy Oakland, so please do not quote them as doing so.

The General Assembly no longer has large enough attendance to reach quorum–requiring at least 75 people–so it cannot speak for itself. The Occupy Oakland Media Collective, which is literally a handful of people, have attempted to fill the void. They can do what they wish, but claiming to be Occupy Oakland is utterly disingenuous.

Many of the activists who made up Occupy Oakland have continued organizing around school and library closures, prisoner solidarity, feminist marches, anti-police violence protests, labor solidarity and other actions while the Occupy Oakland Media Collective does what it only knows how–increase its web traffic by claiming to be something that it is not.

drone

Say no to drones in Alameda County!

Local Residents and Civil Rights Organizations Resist Sheriff’s Attempts to Deploy Drones Over Alameda County

Press conference to highlight concerns including invasion of privacy, militarization of police forces, restriction of free speech and political expression

At a press conference to be held on the steps of Oakland City Hall on Thursday, October 18, at 11:00 a.m., Alameda County residents and legal advocacy organizations will announce their efforts to resist the Sheriff’s announced plans to deploy aerial surveillance “drones” for undisclosed law enforcement purposes.

“Community members intend to pursue city and county legislation to prohibit the use of drones to spy on Alameda County residents,” stated Mary Madden, an Oakland resident. “The Sheriff’s idea is a threat to our privacy, and a deterrent to those of us who participate in community and political activities.”

The ACLU of Northern California has sent County Sheriff Ahern a public records request, asking for basic information about why drones are needed, how much they would cost to acquire, operate and maintain, and how the drones would be used.  “Drones should not be used for indiscriminate mass surveillance,” said Linda Lye, staff attorney with the ACLU-NC.  “Transparency is key.  Right now, we don’t know what, if any, safeguards the Sheriff intends to follow before deploying unmanned surveillance aircraft into our skies.”

Critical Resistance, a national organization that has helped organize against the use of gang injunctions in Oakland, has also condemned Sheriff Ahern’s plans for drones. “The idea of using military equipment in policing is one more step in the militarization of Bay Area police activities,” stated Rachel Herzing, of Critical Resistance. “Extending police powers to monitor and surveil local residents within communities that already have a high level of distrust of the police can only generate more tension and resentment toward police forces, while further criminalizing our families and neighbors.”

The Electronic Frontier Foundation originally sued the FAA under the Freedom of Information Act to get information on all public and private entities that have applied for drone authorizations and has since filed many public records requests to local law enforcement agencies to find out more about drone use. “Drones will give law enforcement an unprecedented ability to spy on Americans, and the law has not kept up with the technology,” said Trevor Timm, activist for EFF. “Before any law enforcement agency operates drones in American skies, we need binding privacy safeguards and transparency requirements that explain and control their use. Police should need a warrant to use drones for surveillance on any individual, and agencies need clear data use and retention standards that explain how and for what purpose surveillance footage and data are being used, with whom its being shared, and when it will be deleted.”

Screen shot 2012-03-22 at 10.07.32 AM

Occupy Oakland’s “secret solidarity camp” survives first night

On the night of March 21, members of Occupy Oakland set up camp in Mosswood Park, which they renamed Huey P. Newton Park (#HPNP) after the co-founder of the Black Panthers.  The camp was formed in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street’s re-encampment, raided by NYPD.

The night before, autonomous activists met at Snow Park to plan a reoccupation. They announced their plans on Twitter. Before they arrived, police were already on the scene. Clearly the police had read the tweets or were tipped off by someone who had.

The next night, occupiers kept mum about the true location of the new camp, making jokes on Twitter about possible campsites.

At 7am, after the encampment’s successful first night, the location was announced publicly. The camp lasted the night in the cover of the sunken amphitheater, surrounded by redwoods.

With eight tents and 20 occupiers, they moved onto the wet grass and invited everyone to join them.

At about 9am, the camp received a visit from Sgt. A. Steinberger, who quizzed occupiers on their intentions. He told them they could have four tents up, no more. Occupiers questioned what law placed a limit on tents. (The policeman also requested an #OO pin for his souvenir box.)

Later police would return in larger numbers to inform the activists that all their tents must come down, as the discussion with Sgt. A. Steinberger led them to believe occupiers had “intent to stay overnight” (California Penal Code Section 647 (e) Lodging).

Occupiers took down the tents, and the police stuck around for a while. Two police officers told activists that they had to put away their food. When questioned, they explained that the food could not be left out on a flattened tent. Occupiers heckled the police, and the food remained.

Eventually the police left, presumably to return at 10pm when the park closes to the public.

Soon the media joined Occupy Oakland, then left them to enjoy their day discussing the broken system, the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence.

Press conference on police attacks against Occupy Oakland

greendoula @ USTREAM: .

Participants and supporters of Occupy Oakland’s January 28 “Move In Day” gathered in front of City Hall to speak about what really happened when protesters were kettled and threatened by police. The February 1 press conference featured comments from those arrested, beaten, chased, and denied medical treatment while in jail, and those who witnessed these acts taking place. Members of the media received a press release detailing the day’s actions and conduct of the police. Thus far, the media who claimed Occupy Oakland was attempting to occupy YMCA or that people failed to follow dispersal orders have printed no retractions.