Safer spaces, false allegations, and the NYC Anarchist Bookfair

Safer space policy at The Free Hetherington - but what next?

I've written this blog in response to another thread on this site, discussing the safer spaces policy at the NYC Anarchist Bookfair 2012, and why I'm not convinced we need to be too preoccupied with the possibility of false rape accusations.

TRIGGER WARNING: sexual violence

I didn't want to get into the conversation or to post on the thread in question. In the past eight months, I've had so many private and public discussions about sexual assault, and specifically assaults carried out within the radical left and perpetrated by (mostly, but not entirely) men who would call themselves comrades and indeed feminists, I felt too exhausted and apathetic to add my voice to the discussion. I disagreed with a lot of what was being said by good friends of mine, and I'd rather ignore it, and just go off on my holiday to NYC and forget about it.

I'd been in town for about 24 hours when I got to the anarchist bookfair, and one of the first people I saw there was a man who sexually assaulted a friend of mine. At this point I realised that discussions about safer spaces, sexual violence, and our response to these issues as a community aren't something I am going to be able to avoid any time soon. The shitty reality is that sexual assault, as well as sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, queerphobic and other socially conditioned, oppressive bullshit (intentional or not) is not unusual. As communists, we can all agree that this kind of behaviour is A Bad Thing, 1 but the disagreement comes when we're talking about what we do about it.

Disagreement came pretty quickly once someone reproduced a letter sent by the Safer Space2 team at the NYC Anarchist Bookfair. The letter read as follows (emphasis added):

Quote:
Hi [REDACTED].
I am writing to you on behalf of the 2012 NYC Anarchist Book fair Safe(r) Space Group to let you know that a request has been made that you not attend this year. The policy at the event, posted at http://www.anarchistbookfair.net/saferspace, is in place to create a supportive, non-threatening environment for all. This means that anyone may be asked to not attend. No blame is placed, no decision is made, we simply ask that you not attend to prevent anyone from feeling unsafe.
We understand that being asked not to attend is not easy, and we don’t take it lightly. You may not know why you are being asked not to attend or who all is requesting this, or you may feel the situation is totally unfair. Our goal is not to decide right or wrong but to maintain safety at the fair. Some situations are gray and sometimes based on simple misunderstandings, but regardless of the reasons, no matter what your defense, we still ask that you not attend this years book fair. Not attending is not an admission of guilt. In fact, you not attending is a statement that you respect everyone’s safety at the fair and are taking a positive step to uphold that principle.
We also understand your need to know why you are being asked not to attend. However, the book fair is not the place to resolve conflict. Please, do not approach anyone at the fair who you think is responsible for the request that you not attend, or anyone that you think may have made this request before the fair. This violates our commitment to keeping everyone safe.
We realize that this email is formal. We chose to email you because we want to remain as neutral as possible in this position and situation, as well as to give you the space in which to process this request in whatever way is most comfortable and safe.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact me. Again, do not contact anyone without their consent, especially any survivors. You can field all questions through me or I can put you in contact with other safer space members.
Thanks for helping us keep it safe,
[REDACTED]/ NYC Anarchist Bookfair Safer Space Team

Responses on the forum thread were initially negative, it was called “ridiculous”, “insane”, and was said to “give insight into a collective mental process that is fundamentally at odds with even the most basic notions of justice and reason”.
The main line of criticism seemed to me to be that the letter

  • Doesn't detail allegations and could be confusing for the recipient
  • Doesn't give the recipient a right to reply or provide their side of the story
  • By providing anonymity to the person who requested the recipient be asked not to attend the bookfair, this letter paves the way for abuses of power and a slew of false allegations.

I don't think the letter is without fault, nor do I think that people objecting to it are apologists for sexual assault by default, and I'd like to make that quite clear. I decided to go and chat to the safer spaces team at the bookfair. They weren't some shadowy clique plotting people's downfall in a backroom somewhere, I met a few women sat at the very entrance to the main room, with a clear sign indicating who they were, and arm bands making them easily identifiable. They had formed a group called Support New York who are

Quote:
dedicated to healing the effects of sexual assault and abuse.  Our aim is to meet the needs of the survivor, to hold accountable those who  have perpetrated harm, and to maintain a larger dialogue within the community about consent, mutual aid, and our society’s narrow views of abuse. We came together in order to create our own safe(r) space and provide support for people of all genders, races, ages and orientations, separate from the police and prison systems that perpetuate these abuses

They were friendly and constructive, and gave me a whole load of resources about responding to sexual assault in radical communities, as well as email contacts, and the possibility of hosting some kind of workshop or talk in Scotland over the summer. They confirmed that the letters were sent out ahead of the NYC Anarchist Bookfair at the requests of survivors of (almost always) sexual or domestic violence.

Criticisms of the letter
I'm going to focus on the final criticism I outlined above, because I think the first two are fairly easily dealt with by noticing that a) the letter does not seek to publicly defame anyone, or limit their participation in anything other than the bookfair, and b) a contact name and email is provided, with an invitation to raise any questions or concerns. I agree this could be made clearer, and perhaps a hint at the kinds of processes the recipient may be able to engage in should they want to clear all of this up would be useful.

The letter isn't perfect, but nor is it the Inquisition, or particularly Kafkaesque – there's no trial, no never ending process, no anonymous unreachable state bureaucracy: it's a letter from a person with a name and an email address that welcomes a response, that asks someone to not go to a two-day event.

Onto false allegations then. It's clear from reading the responses to the letter that the fear of false allegations of rape strike a chord, and it's easy to see why. The rape culture we all live in is supported by a media that loves to go to town on rape allegations, and makes heroes of men accused of rape (Assange, Polanski... dare I say Tupac? Yes, yes I do). The vindictive, crazy woman who wrongly accuses an innocent man of rape and ruins his life is a long standing trope, rooted in misogynistic assumptions and rape myths, given another airing recently by Plan B on his last album. Even women whose rape allegations do make it through court are often disbelieved (for some more pop culture misogynistic vitriol, have a look at the #JusticeForChed hashtag on Twitter, or google “Free Mercston”).

So I can see why a letter like this makes people nervous, or worried that false accusations of sexual assault might start to become a way for anarchists etc to undermine each other3 Loads of false allegations that will then be made public and be used to irreparably damage innocent men's reputations. I find this conclusion both really problematic, and really unlikely.

Having said that, I can see why people might be worried about false allegations of sexual assault, but it frustrates me that this seems to be such a high priority when pro-active measures are taken to tackle sexual assault within the radical left. Because surely, by now, there is a better understanding of the kind of shit someone has to go through to make an allegation of sexual assault. False allegations of sexual assault are not common, for lots of reasons, and it would take a hell of a lot more than a small group of sympathetic radicals at a bookfair to change that.

Speaking out about domestic and sexual violence is really hard, and the majority of assaults go unreported – anyone who read any of the #ididnotreport hashtag on twitter4 a few months ago will have been moved by the sheer number of people having the same reasons for never telling anyone about sexual assault. Rapists and abusers are more often than not our friends, associates, even family members and lovers. Sexual assault can involve so much power-play and coercion the survivor can often be unclear about exactly what happened. A survivor will often blame themselves (after all, there's a whole society to back up the abuser when they tell you it's your fault, or that you enjoyed it, or that what they did was normal and acceptable, and that no one will believe you anyway). When people do disclose abuse, the pressure to self-censor, to not make a fuss, is fucking overwhelming. When you're trying to get through something that traumatic, the idea of having to constantly explain yourself, justify your actions and responses over and over again (but why didn't you punch him? Why did you sleep in the same bed afterwards? Why have you only said this a year later?), and to eventually face down your abuser and their supporters when they say you're full of shit and you can't prove anything anyway, that's enough to make you think very carefully indeed about speaking out.

And speaking out for what? If a survivor does go to the police, they're going to face all that shit and worse, plus the possible disapproval of comrades for getting the police involved in the first place. Worse still may be the police's response if you happen to be queer, trans, sex working, a drug user... Even if your case does get to court (maybe after an internal physical exam, after all your clothes have been taken in for DNA testing, after you've had to answer over again exactly how much you had to drink that night), the court is almost guaranteed to be a nightmare, your chances of securing a conviction are slim, and they'll probably be out in 2.5 years anyway. If you don't go to the police, there'll be another group of people who take that to mean you're making it up, and as far as I know in the UK, there are not many people in the radical left who are experienced or confident in facilitating accountability processes5.

I could say a lot more about how stressful and ultimately unrewarding speaking out about sexual assault is, but I hope you get the point I'm trying to make. There are so many barriers to speaking out, the idea that one small group of people sending a letter asking someone not to come to a bookfair would “encourage loads of false allegations” seems so many, many steps away from the situation we find ourselves in right now, where we as a movement are desperately ill equipped to respond to disclosures of sexual assault. I can only try to reassure you that this hypothetical day where your comrades who are the most likely to suffer sexual violence are so numerous and confident and powerful and supported enough to do damage with false allegations even if we wanted to (we don't) are a long way off – we can't even deal with really straightforward cases of assault. No one wants to make false allegations of sexual assault.

Beyond safer spaces: what do we do when..?
Drawing up a safer spaces policy for your event, organisation, or space is easy enough6, but deciding what happens when someone violates that agreement is clearly a controversial issue.

I don't think anyone has, yet, come up with a clear, easily replicated model for dealing with these issues in our communities and networks, and recent events over the last few years in the UK have lead to lots of positive, productive discussions about our collective response to sexual violence. This weekend I was at a national meeting for the Anarchist Federation, where both the women's and queer caucuses discussed a need to gather resources and think carefully about how these issues might be tackled in the future should they need to be; discussions about safe space and responses to it's violation have been going on in Edinburgh, Glasgow and London of late in response to various events including a gang rape at Occupy Glasgow.

We're all learning, none of us quite know what we're doing. Letters like the one sent out before the NYC Bookfair are not perfect, but if your main concern when you read it is that rape culture will be so powerfully overturned that women will not only start to speak out about sexual assault, but also make it up, your priorities are wrong. How many incidents of sexual assault and discriminatory behaviour within the radical left do you know about, and how many false allegations have you ever heard of?7 The real, immediate and fucking serious problem here is abuse. Maybe, just maybe, some false allegations might come about as a result of this. As I've said, I find this pretty unlikely, and I don't see how a letter like this would make dealing with false allegations any harder than it (hypothetically) would be already.

I'm not arguing for all responses to sexual violence and other oppressive and discriminatory behaviour to be beyond criticism or debate, but for those of us who live every day with the effects of past attacks on our bodies and autonomy, and continue to be in public spaces where we are confronted with our own abusers and those we know to have abused others, there's a certain urgency to this issue that (with all due respect) may not be felt by those who are not particularly vulnerable to discrimination and violence, or those whose involvement in radical politics does not involve a lot of face to face interaction.

In my experience, the kind of uncritical, DO SOMETHING!!!1!! responses I hear most often are along the lines of “why don't we just kick his head in?”, “cut his fucking balls off”, to the milder “why don't you just go public and make sure no one works with him again?”, or combinations of the above. Tempting as these may be, they don't solve anything. And besides, no one's head ever gets kicked in, and attempts to excommunicate people never quite seem to come off either. Our responses remain inadequate and abuse continues, often unchallenged.

At some point, we as a movement will hopefully grow beyond a relatively small network of people who all know someone who knows someone, and we might not be able to deal with these issues through mutual contacts and informal channels as we currently (ineffectively) do, and we are going to need to find ways to do this. So why are we wasting time thinking up hypothetical ways that something like this might possibly maybe be abused and then throwing the whole thing out, instead of thinking about how we might use this model or improve it to deal with issues we have all dealt with in our communities?

No one wants to talk about sexual violence, and even fewer people would be willing to mentor an abuser through any kind of accountability process, restorative justice, or any of the other models of dealing with abuse beyond the castration/excommunication model. There will no doubt be people who already knew, or inferred from the above that I have survived several incidents of sexual violence and would perhaps politely suggest that maybe I am biased or not objective. But then you'll need to make your minds up: either you want women and queers and people of colour to take the lead on prioritising and tackling this stuff, in which case you'll have to accept that our lived experiences of violence and discrimination will of course inform our views, or you're going to have to get your hands dirty and engage in proactive discussions, which may well lead to you actively confronting and following up the people who perpetrate violence and discrimination8.

  • 1. although some people may wish to defend their right to make racist, sexist, homophobic etc jokes, because we all know they're a communist and don't really mean it. Luckily, Polite Ire has taken the trouble to explain exactly why that's bullshit.
  • 2. People have been questioning the use of “safer” vs “safe” – afaik the reason “safer” is used is because even with all these policies and communist awareness and so on, discriminatory behaviour and violence continues to occur, and nowhere can quite be guaranteed as “safe”.
  • 3. I originally quoted a post from the thread here from Steven. which was out of context as he points out below, so I've removed this to avoid confusion
  • 4. many of the tweets have been collected here
  • 5. if you are, PM me, I can think of a shitload of people who'd want to talk to you
  • 6. although don't be surprised if you find people resisting this, dismissing the need for it, or ridiculing you for being activisty/a feminist/a liberal/any other damning anarcho insult, there's a whole lot of unlearning yet to be done
  • 7. the woman in the movie Matewan doesn't count, she's a fictional character
  • 8. Or preferably do both of these, actually

Posted By

Ramona
Apr 26 2012 00:12

Share


  • Letters like the one sent out before the NYC Bookfair are not perfect, but if your main concern when you read it is that rape culture will be so powerfully overturned that women will not only start to speak out about sexual assault, but also make it up, your priorities are wrong.

    Ramona

Attached files

Comments

Black Badger
Apr 27 2012 23:43
Quote:
People on anarchistnews calling this "left-wing fascism" and saying "COINTELPRO subtext is written all over it" make me cringe at some of the people in the world who call themselves anarchists.

Part of the reason for that is anonymous posting. There are a million and one assholes who post there (and not just there!) who are obviously not anarchists. There are about three or four actual content-filled comments worth reading and possibly responding to, but, as is the case with every comment section after an article, you have to plod your way through a load of dross to find them. I usually just bypass anything with fewer than three sentences.

Arbeiten
Apr 28 2012 01:26
radicalgraffiti wrote:
This has been reposted on anarchistnews.org http://anarchistnews.org/content/safer-spaces-false-allegations-and-nyc-anarchist-bookfair

What an utter cluster fuck. I wouldn't expect any less from Anarchist News.....

cantdocartwheels
Apr 28 2012 11:17

Good blog post ramona.

And yeah sure we can all point fingers at anarchist news because its an easy target with its open posting policy but i am still absolutely disgusted by a lot of the behaviour on that original thread.

Emma2012
Apr 29 2012 06:06

I've been thinking a lot lately about these kind of processes and I do sort of agree with the "just do something" sentiment. I've been sexually harassed and assaulted by other activists and not once was the process afterwards (if there was one) even close to satisfactory. I've also witnessed many female friends being victimized and often ending up having to leave organizations themselves because it was the only way to get distance from the perpetrator.

However, I do think that false allegations could be a real problem. The incidence is incredibly low. But from what statistics I've seen it's similar to false reporting of any other crime (which is also incredibly low), this wasn't including cases that were found "not guilty" but only proven false allegations.

I personally have seen two women make false allegations of domestic violence against partners. I know this because I was living with them and witnessed the incidents involved and later heard them telling versions of the stories which were either vastly exaggerated or completely false. In one case I think it was a sort of revenge after a break-up and in the other I think the woman had psychological problems. I've also seen men do it but it was generally in the context of trying to cover up there own violence which I think falls into a whole different category.

I knew one women who made rape allegations against several men over the time I knew her. I originally believed her and went to a lot of effort to support her in every way I could. However it eventually became apparent that she was actually having some kind of psychotic episode as her allegations became more and more extreme and eventually involving supernatural elements. I don't know if some of the accusations were true or if they were all false. But a number of them were clearly complete delusions.

All these women were/are my friends. I had every reason to believe them. So when I say that I believe the allegations to be false it's not without a lot of thought and 100% certainty.

And I do think that cliques are a real issue. A friend of mine was accused of basically being a rapist by such a clique because he was going out with someone they didn't want him to (also a friend). His supposed victim was going out with him quite willingly and was extremely angry about the accusations. But despite this it kept going until he was driven out of the group.

I do realise this is just four incidents and pales in comparison with the number of real assaults and harassment I've witnessed/heard about. And maybe it's unusual to have witnessed so many false claims, but I don't think so.

Also I am concerned that if it is known that there is a process for barring people from various events that just involves writing a letter to the organizers, and where there is no right of reply, then it would be very easy for the state to abuse this.

petey
Apr 29 2012 23:33

two comments on emma's thoughtful post:

Emma2012 wrote:
I do realise this is just four incidents and pales in comparison with the number of real assaults and harassment I've witnessed/heard about. And maybe it's unusual to have witnessed so many false claims, but I don't think so.

1: the number of assaults certainly exceeds the number of false accusations. but that is irrelevant to the reality of the victimization of people falsely accused. too many posts in these two threads suggest that since the number of false accusations is smaller, they can be ignored, as if victims of a certain type should just suck it up.

2: no, it's not unusual to have witnessed a number of false claims.

it goes without saying that no victim of sexual abuse should ever have live with the torment of seeing the attacker left unaccountable anywhere, but especially in a milieu which is working to minimize differences in social power.

Nate
May 1 2012 05:21

Petey, I don't think anyone is saying false accusations should be ignored. I've had a loved one falsely accused of assault by an abusive partner, to the police, resulting in massive stress and expense. That's a huge problem and not something to pretend is acceptable. I do think that "you can't come to the anarchist book fair" is really, really mild as these things go. If the safer space policy was a "kick the ass of whoever is reported" I wouldn't support it, but all it says is "you can't come to this short event."

Personally if the choice is between the current arrangement where abusers get to push victims and survivors our, or a situation where some false accusations happen but more survivors can attend, I think that's an acceptable though unpleasant tradeoff. I'd say that's true even if there were equal numbers of people affected either way (as in, if there was one false accusation made for every survivor who could more comfortably attend), because in this case I think the punishment (unable to attend anarchist bookfair) is milder than having to deal with a former abuser. And I think it's really unlikely that there would be this kind of one-for-one frequency. False accusations happen, but less frequently than assault and harrassment do.

Not really related but I'm unconvinced that anarchists can actually do meaningful accountability processes to handle this stuff. Part of what I like about this safer space policy is that it's just trying to make survivors comfortable and welcome and isn't trying to handle everything else to do with this stuff. At least some of this (the aftereffects of abuse and assault, let alone meaningfully working with abusers in a restorative way) seems to me way, way beyond what anarchists are able to happen. We might as well try to do amateur surgery, this stuff is about as complex as that in my opinion, and should be treated with similar level of seriousness.

smidge
May 2 2012 10:34

Ramona - thanks for the post. Really good, and I want to express some of kind of respect for you being open about being a victim too. I think thats really impressive.

smidge
May 2 2012 10:36

I think I wrote that inadequately but I hope you get what I mean.

happychaos
Sep 6 2012 06:42

Does anyone have a link to libertarian workshops/training on dealing with abuse, processes for dealing with it, restorative justice, best practices etc. I would really appreciate any links. Thanks heaps.

Simon

Ramona
Sep 6 2012 11:20

Hey simono,

There's some really good resources and links here. Support New York facilitate accountability processes, the New York based Coalition for Safer Spaces have some good stuff. Philly's Pissed have a lot of really good resources, although they're no longer active and direct people instead to Philly Survivor Support Collective. I'm sure any of these groups would be happy to talk to you further about any other questions or resources, I hope that's helpful!

Leo
Sep 19 2012 17:47
Quote:
The main line of criticism seemed to me to be that the letter

Doesn't detail allegations and could be confusing for the recipient
Doesn't give the recipient a right to reply or provide their side of the story
By providing anonymity to the person who requested the recipient be asked not to attend the bookfair, this letter paves the way for abuses of power and a slew of false allegations.

While all these are true, I think my biggest criticism of trying to handle a situation like this is that it is the sort of thing which is going to be ineffective.

Why? Because someone who reads this letter and decides not to attend a meeting as such is more likely to be someone more to the innocent side of the gray area, at least that is. I do understand that these people would be a small minority, and I imagine most who received this letter attended anyways. And those who do attend the meeting despite this letter would almost universally be the ones who should be out.

Either someone is banned or not. Half measures never work. And a sexual offender or rapist who gets this letter isn't going to be deterred, because it asks them not to come but implies that there won't be any real consequences if they do. Why? Because, as difficult as it might be to accept this, sexual offenders and rapists are human beings too, with their psychologies and pschological justifications. Especially in radical communities, most probably a majority of them don't see themselves as sexual offenders or rapists, and it is not difficult for them to justify theirr actions, with the whole predominant patriarchal mentality.

The fact that the writer of the original post witnessed a sexual assult and the fact that this letter was produced in the bookfair itself, creating a dispute, also mentioned in the original post, clearly demonstrates this in my opinion.

So what is the alternative?

Quote:
In my experience, the kind of uncritical, DO SOMETHING!!!1!! responses I hear most often are along the lines of “why don't we just kick his head in?”, “cut his fucking balls off”, to the milder “why don't you just go public and make sure no one works with him again?”, or combinations of the above. Tempting as these may be, they don't solve anything. And besides, no one's head ever gets kicked in, and attempts to excommunicate people never quite seem to come off either. Our responses remain inadequate and abuse continues, often unchallenged.

This may well be true in the US - it certainly isn't true to the same extent in Turkey. An extreme example is the PKK, who has banned its male and female members from entering any sexual or romantic relationship, to the point of punishing them for "the adultry of the eye", in other words looking at each other - there's always been rumors from former members that it's a very different story for the leaders . Evidently, most of the left has no such attitude, but on the level of membership, men who do sexually assult or rape women in these groups do in an overwhelming majority of the cases, at least get kicked out. Of course, patriarchal attitudes are extremely strong - probably a lot stronger than the American radical millieu when it comes to language and mentality. Again, obviously all this is a result of Stalinist/Trotskyist, top to bottom disciplinary practices, which tends to bend substantially when it comes to the leaders.

I don't think kicking them in the head would solve anything either and attempts to. But the fact is that deterrance is effective. I'd say a clear ban of known offenders, a serious warning about anyone who intends to sexually or physically assult anyone and an active work towards being able to identify and kick them out in such events would be a better way to deal the situation.