A Statement of Rights and Freedoms

redstickgreen wrote:Hello everyone,

I am new to the forum, but was so happy to discover it via the Occupy Philly site. I live in Baton Rouge, where there is not yet a General Assembly (though a protest is planned for 10/22, our local, primary election day). In some ways I feel terribly distant from New York, Boston, Philly, D.C., Seattle, as I imagine millions of Americans in remote or largely conservative places must also feel. But I find these times and events inspiring, and I post this in solidarity, hoping to participate in these important days.

Much has been written, online, in various corporate and independent media, about three features of the thought driving the Occupy movement. One common feature is the statements of grievances, the foundation on which we may build. The second, which in many narratives follows from the first, is the growing movement for statements of demands, with which I fully empathize. Posts in many other sections of this forum (specifically, Declaration Topics), lay the exciting framework for a concrete policy agenda which, if implemented, would bring meaningful change to the country. The third is about process: statements of solidarity and democratic, consensus-building approaches.

But I believe that drawing a straight line from grievances to policy and process may take some unnecessary risks, and that these could be damaging to the long-term health of this movement. Not only might it make policy reactionary (and, worse, potentially short-sighted), but it does not clear a path for growth and evolution beyond the grievances and demands of this particular moment. Would we truly be satisfied if today's demands were met tomorrow? What, in fact, is the world we want to see?

In other words, this is a case for first principles, for core values, for a statement of rights and freedoms. Just as the early Philadelphia delegates laid down a statement of the specific and universal truths they collectively acknowledged and held dear, I believe that this movement would add credence and durability to its efforts by drafting one, too. It could serve to help us push our own thinking deeper, to raise the bar, to draw like-minded folk to the cause by laying out a cohesive aspiration toward a different reality.

I think that, individually, the statements we each would draft to this end would likely look different. I am sharing my own first attempt, pasted below (and to which I will provide a link -- it's a public Google doc -- once my 7 day waiting period has expired), simply as an example of what I mean and in the hope that it could start a conversation about how we might articulate something -- not grievances, policies, or process, but a vision -- about the place we are trying to go.

So, I would ask the group: do you agree? Disagree? And, if this seems like a sensible approach, to what extent could we create an online venue for crafting, sharing, and building national consensus around a set of principles?

In solidarity.


Toward a Revolving World

In a world where the good of many is sacrificed for the benefit of few; in a world where corporate money dresses as an individual person; in a world of abundant information and fallacy; on a delicate planet populated with fragile organisms; in a world of abiding goodness; in a self-respecting world; in a world of differential power:

-

The revolution we want is positive. It recognizes the good world, knows what it wants, and proclaims its intent unabashedly.

The revolution we want is cohesive. Its whole is stronger than the sum of its parts, and each part is necessary to the whole.

The revolution we want is practical. It does not sacrifice people for ideas. It may, therefore, be long, gradual, or take many years to bear fruit.

The revolution we want is tolerant. It condemns ideas or actions, not people.

The revolution we want has soul. It does not avoid, nor does it become rapt with, a sense of spirit and sanctity.

The revolution we want knows itself. Its vehicle for self-knowing is history, and it makes deliberate choices.

The revolution we want moves with urgency.

-

For too long, justice has been imprisoned behind the bars of negative language, framed and hung by reactions to systemic problems or injustices. The impetus to recognize injustice is worthy, but a successful economic, political, and social agenda must go further: it must proactively assert what is better. Hope and organization inspire more than anger, fear or despair.

-

The creators of the American democracy made history when they planted the confident seed of a small set of unassailable and universal rights. Groups of patriots have since deepened the national roots, sending shoots down to the water tables of liberty in the struggle for civil rights and economic and environmental justice. Collectively, their brave actions sprang from Greece, from Rome, from thought that was centuries old. Today, the tall tree they tended remains -- but, as is necessary in any living democracy, it bears growth and adaptation to a new environment.

-

As a working construct, we hold these freedoms and rights to be true and necessary:

-the right to self-determination and self-governance
-the right to free speech
-the right to free and equitable education for all
-the right to clean air, water, and soil
-the right to a healthy ecosystem
-the right to clean elections, free from financing and advertising by any entity that is not a citizen
-the right to government that advocates for the voiceless and needy
-the right to responsible infrastructure
-the right to hunt and to protect
-the right to equitable health care
-the right to clean food
-the right to privacy
-the right to economic mobility
-the right to equality before the law
-the right to due process and appeal
-the right to an empathetic government
-the right to elective credit and debt
-freedom to love
-freedom of knowledge and information
-freedom of faith
-freedom of safety and equitable protection
-freedom of the body
-freedom of congregation
-freedom from unlawful imprisonment
-freedom of movement and travel
-freedom from predation

_


We, the undersigned, together affirm that these inalienable rights and freedoms are our shared first principles; that they guide our actions; that action, not words alone, will change our world.

We sign in solidarity with our sisters and brothers around the globe.

We welcome all.

_

Admin wrote:My thoughts on each right/freedom..... thanks for posting.

-the right to self-determination and self-governance
Hear hear! Liberty for all. The freedom to make our own decisions so long as we are not violating the rights of others. I believe this is the foundation for any civilized society.
-the right to free speech
Absolutely necessary. Undisputed.
-the right to free and equitable education for all
I don't believe people have a right to free education, and I don't know how you are defining equitable. I would like for everyone to get a free education, but there is no such thing as free. Either we're being taxed for it or we are contributing to a community pool. Either way this should be voluntary, since some people home-school their children and shouldn't be forced to pay into a system they are not using. Others might have no intention of ever going to college because perhaps they're starting their own business or working their way up the corporate ladder. We have to be careful what we consider a right. You do not have the right to tax me to pay for your program. Now, as an individual, I might be willing to pay for your program, but as a society I think it's wrong to demand that.


-----> Education, like healthcare, need not be a burden to taxpayers. Either we can use some of the money that is saved by slashing the bloated budget of the military, or there are other ways to raise money for education. A tax on the trading activity of the stock market. One month alone at a buck a trade (split evenly between buyers and sellers) would more than pay for a first class education for every man, woman and child in the USA. If you don't like either of these two ideas, there is always the option of nationalizing energy. If we did that and slashed prices of energy in half, we could pay for every imaginable social program and still have money left over. Revenue's can also be raised via import fee's...making it more expensive to import than to export. With the added incentive to hire people inside the USA, corporations would be able to hire more people...thus creating more people who can help promote the general welfare whilst insuring domestic tranquility.

There are many ways to pay for a first class education. Direct taxation need not be the only thing we look at.

-the right to clean air, water, and soil
Clean is going to be re-defined a million times. I'm not sure what it means, myself. Is flouride in our water clean? What about antibiotics? How much pollution isn't clean? If its a sliding definition that they can change to suit their needs, i'm not sure what this stated right actually accomplishes.
-the right to a healthy ecosystem
Not sure what this means.

It means (as does the previous issue of clean air, water and soil) Air that is good to breath, Water that does not need to be filtered after it goes through a tap to make it fit for human consumption and have a taste that makes it competitive with the very best zero calorie sugar free drink on the market.

-the right to clean elections, free from financing and advertising by any entity that is not a citizen
Corporations are citizens. Be careful on wording. Also, what about spending limits? A CEO is a citizen and he still probably makes $500k a year. Can he donate $100k to a campaign? What are clean elections? Just playing devil's advocate.

Corporations are not citizens. They have the legal fiction of personhood due to a notation made by a clerk of the US Supreme Court ...but they do NOT have citizenship. The difference is clear. A citizen can only be a citizen by reason of natural childbirth or...by reason of naturalization. In either case, a human female is required to have first given birth to a human child. A corporation, despite the legal fiction of personhood, is not human. To be human requires two things which no corporation can claim to have : Race and Gender.

As for a clean election...the only way to have one is via a proposal made via the citizens assembly in Ireland. . Essentially, it was a variation on candidacy, whereby a progressive voting system was used, but the candidates were all chosen at random...regardless of party...and selected on the basis of their ability to represent a good cross section of the public. It was only then that the campaign's were allowed to begin...and all of them utilizing the exact same resources in terms of free television ads, radio etc... with the press and their supporters having the right to widely discuss their candidacy.

The upshot is... it eliminates the ability for tampering, as nobody can predict who is going to run to begin with.



-the right to government that advocates for the voiceless and needy
I don't think the government should be advocating for any particular group. Why are the voiceless and needy getting special treatment?

Special treatment? I'm sorry sir, but it is my belief that one of the key problems we are confronted with is that some groups HAVE been without a voice. Those who have need of a chance to be heard are part of the reason we are (well, I'll say many of us) involved in this movement at all.

I for one would not wish to say to this or that person that they cannot be heard because giving them equal rights is the same thing as giving them "special" rights.

As for the needy... do you mean to suggest that people who need jobs because they are or have been too poor to get a decent education while taking care of an elderly mother and mentally ill sister should not be given a voice because they are too "needy" to be able to get a good job ?

Perhaps we can say a government that considers right needs and desires of all its people, but again this kind of becomes a pointless statement. What congressman do you know who doesn't claim to be doing what's in the best interest of Americans?
-the right to responsible infrastructure
What does this mean?
-the right to hunt and to protect
Protecting has to be defined. Hunting isn't a right, it's a state regulated activity. I do think it should be left up to the states. If hunting is a right, why not playing basketball, cooking or building boats? It doesn't make sense to me. <-- I agree with this.
-the right to equitable health care
Be careful with right to health care. I want everyone to be taken care of, but I don't think anyone has a right to health care. Again, this boils down to the question: Does one person have a right to tax another person to pay for their health care? What if I opt out and decide to treat myself with herbal remedies, should I be paying for someone who wants 100 prescriptions because they're too lazy to exercise or diet? We absolutely need to solve this whole monstrosity of health insurance companies denying coverage to cancer patients, but saying health care is a right is a very very dangerous game to play in politics. <-- I see no reason why your herbal remedies should not be covered, so long as you are working with a naturopath who can advise you on the best remedies, and who is working with your doctor to insure you get the best possible care. Your health matters to all of us, my friend, because we are all connected.

-the right to clean food

------> I think a better way to phrase this might be "The Right to food which has not been subjected to unsanitary , unhealthy growing and/or processing conditions"

Will need to be defined but along with air and such I think it belongs in there.
-the right to privacy
Agreed. I think this should be covered in the law - the government has NO right to inspect or confiscate your property or privacy unless they can prove just cause. Even that language is super weak though. Lawyers? Please?

The right to privacy is one which has been taken up many times by the Supreme Court of the United States of America. It is sad that they have allowed unreasonable searches and seizures so many times over the past several decades that the right to privacy is one which is full of enough holes to drive a truck through. Accordingly, while the right to privacy should be one which is a bulwark in law, any prosecutor worth their salt can order any confiscation they wish. Indeed, where the IRS is concerned, they have a long history of completely ignoring the privacy of individuals, seizing property and bank accounts willy nilly... and later finding out that they had the wrong person entirely. As for the persons whose property they took? They seldom if ever see it again.

Police, FBI and other agencies routinely have violated privacy, and are almost never held accountable. Let us not forget the case of Jose Padilla, a young man accused of conspiring to be a terrorist, with the sole evidence against him being a copy of the Koran which his landlady saw in his apartment.

After three years of being subjected to torture and mind altering drugs, he was finally brought to court. The court ruled that everything he said under torture was admissible, even though it was known to be a lie by his interrogators.

Result? Because his "privacy" had been invaded by his landlady, Jose Padilla was sentenced to 20 years in the very prison where he was already subjected to torture. Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

So lets have no illusions... privacy doesn't exist. If we want it, we're going to have to demand a number of things:

1: Trial for George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld for war crimes.
2: Trial for all officials who have approved torture as a means of acquiring evidence for any case....as war criminals.
3: A retrial of those whose lives have been destroyed because of the actions of war criminals.
4: A very firm and unshakeable constitutional amendment which clearly defines privacy, its limits and the punishment for officials who ignore this and other rights guaranteed under the constitution.

I would also suggest revamping the entire congressional system into one which incorporates not only progressive voting, but a parliamentary system as well... but thats me.

-the right to economic mobility
What is this?
-the right to equality before the law
This will be tough. What does equality mean? Should a KKK member not be judged as a KKK member in a race crime? Gotta be careful of the backlash on everything. Think both ways before you cross.

Equality before the law means simply this : When a person is accused of a crime, judgement should be based on guilt or innocence...not on the color of their skin, their religion, or their sexuality. Think these things don't happen? Think again, my friend. More than one person who is LGBT has seen their children taken away because of who they love. More than one wiccan has been found guilty because a prosecutor decided to paint them as "Satanists"...and I don't need to tell you about the huge disparity in the ratio's between blacks and people of other races who have been accused of crimes.

-the right to due process and appeal
SUPER important. Jury trial a must. Innocent until proven guilty.

I would add that evidence of innocence should be heard in a court room regardless of what stage appeals are in. This could very easily be a simple hearing where a panel of judges decides on whether or not it is evidence which may have influenced the original trial. If it would, then it should be allowed as the basis for an appeal.

-the right to an empathetic government
This is kind of pointless. No offense, but it's just too idealistic.
-the right to elective credit and debt

-freedom to love
I actually think this is a great idea. The government should not judge any personal relationship, or rule on its legality unless it violates the rights of another. Furthermore, the government must honor all contracts between two consenting adults which does not violate the rights of another.
-freedom of knowledge and information
We have this already but it doesn't seem to work. Everything is a 'security risk'. Loopholes, loopholes. --> if we truly had this, there wouldn't be any loopholes. One thing I would say which should NOT be allowed : Any discovery which might have a significant impact on the quality or quantity of life for any person in the United States should be a discovery which is directly accessible to the citizenry, regardless of how deep black the operation is that discovered it. Our priority should be to have the highest standard of living for all of our citizens in the universe. If one of our operations has discovered a habitable planet and has the means to get us there, then citizens who wish to become colonist should be given the opportunity.


-freedom of faith

-freedom of safety and equitable protection
What does this mean?
-freedom of the body
Explain.
-freedom of congregation
Like the right to gather in a public place?
-freedom from unlawful imprisonment
From unlawful anything implies it's already in the law, so if it's not being obeyed, having a statement of freedom from it won't help. -- I think what may be meant here is the freedom to protest without the cops being allowed to move in and start clubbing, macing, tear gassing and arresting people for the "crime" of engaging in freedom of speech.

-freedom of movement and travel
What does this mean? <-- my guess is that this may have something to do with the fact that some are not allowed to travel because or prior convictions. People on Parole / probation are often restricted in where they can travel to, regardless of circumstance. Of course, I'm just guessing here.
-freedom from predation
What does this mean?