(en) Britain, Afed Organise #80 - The Fundamental Requirement for Organised Safer Space

This article will be a very basic introduction to the foundations of safer spaces, 
community accountability and transformational justice that arise from elements present 
from the very inception of anarchism as a political philosophy. These concepts are 
responses to verbal, physical and sexual abuse that have always been present within 
radical communities and continue to present a challenge to this day. As such this article 
will touch on all forms of abuse from problematic language through to rape and physical 
violence. An example of one such policy can be seen athttp://bit.ly/1207uq8 I am writing 
this from my perspective as a white trans*, queer, able-bodied individual who was 
socialised as a straight, cis-gendered male. My role within some of the struggles I will 
describe is one of support when it is called for.

Safer spaces thinking has come about through survivors of abuse determining the form that 
their struggle must take and the ways in which they wish to receive support. For every 
person who has been able to speak out there are hundreds of thousands that could not. We 
should remember that while the voices we hear may seem few, they carry with them a truth 
that, if ignored, will render any attempts towards social revolution a futile gesture.
Rape Culture

Looking at the world today we can see that it is full of prejudice. Gender, sexuality, 
age, physical ability, social class, skin colour and being part of a specific ethnic group 
are all used as excuses for society undertaking and accepting a catalogue of abuses 
against people. They can be subtle, such as in cases where a speaker is ignored or not 
taken seriously, or can be as blatant as a murder taking place in front of a crowd and not 
one person present stepping forward as a witness. We have all been socialised not to rock 
the boat; to partake in acts of oppression and also receive abuse as a matter of course; 
to ignore or minimise those people who need our support; to put on trial those who seek 
justice; to internalise the blame when we have been abused, if we even allow ourselves to 
recognise the issue at all. While these cultural norms can be seen wherever oppression 
takes place, I would argue that one of the most pervasive and widespread of these 
affecting all our radical spaces today are carried over from our dominant culture's 
acceptance of rape and sexual violence.

We are constantly surrounded by language and images that validate and perpetuate rape. 
Everything, from the comedy we are expected to enjoy through to the legal framework 
imposed upon us by the state, is predisposed to rape being something that is just part of 
life. Rape is minimised within our culture to the point that when someone sits at a 
computer and posts up stupid messages on Facebook with another?s log-in, they are 
linguistically presented as being of the same level of injustice and abuse as having been 
sexually assaulted. Sure, if we put people on the spot they would rate rape as being far 
worse than posting a message to embarrass a friend, but this is just one small example out 
of an overarching pervasive system of misogynistic language, objectification, belittlement 
and trivialisation. This leads us to the point where rape is not only ignored as normal 
but can also be encouraged and celebrated by those around us. Don't believe me? Type 
?Steubenville rape? into your search engine of choice, and then keep in mind I can find 
hundreds of examples like this from the past year alone.

The truth about sexual violence is constantly hidden behind myths that attack those who 
have survived such violence and protect the perpetrators of such abuse from scrutiny. The 
idea is that a perpetrator is going to be a stranger, loner or fringe acquaintance comes 
up time-and-time again. Rapists are perpetually characterised as monsters or some 
unthinking instinct-driven beasts. Both of these stereotypes are rarely the case. A rapist 
can be anyone you know. They can be your best friend. They can be nice person that seems 
like the salt of the earth. They can be an otherwise good comrade. They are not a 
sex-crazed maniac who always stands out in a crowd, but instead they are someone who is 
looking to exert control through sexual violence, usually in very private settings, over 
someone they know well. They can use reason to convince those they attack that it is a 
one-off or that it wasn't their fault. This ties in with the false idea is that cases of 
rape are always clear and obvious ? that a man has overpowered a woman in some way in the 
pursuit of sex and the survivor is immediately clear about what has occurred. While this 
can be the case, it is not the only way. Those with experiences that fall outside of this 
black & white narrative often find themselves maligned or under suspicion. Questions are 
raised about why the survivor ?let it happen? or ?didn't speak up sooner?. No thought is 
given to the full spectrum of typical responses to a threatening situation. This may be 
the familiar fight or flight, but could also lead to the lesser known freeze, submit or 
attach response. Our culture turns this all around and starts to ask what the survivor 
did, that could have invited being raped. Were they inebriated? Wearing ?inappropriate 
clothing?? Had they not taken steps such as carrying a whistle or something to protect 
themselves with? Did they act in a way that caused the perpetrator to act the way they 
did? Had they had sex with the perpetrator in the past? Let's be entirely clear ? nothing 
causes rape apart from a rapist.

These myths all act to empower perpetrators of abuse and disempower the survivor. They 
lead those who have survived abuse to question their own judgement about a situation, 
placing blame on themselves for the actions of another. They cause crippling feelings of 
shame and guilt in those who need to reach out for our solidarity and support. At the same 
time they cause those structures built supposedly to help the survivor, to be anything 
from unreceptive through to providing outright hostility.

Similar myths and misguided beliefs also surround other groups that suffer oppression, to 
undertake the same cycle of pinning blame on those being abused. You have to have a keen 
eye for mainstream media to see how pervasive the misinformation and hatred it helps 
perpetuate is. As I write this piece, it emerges that a large factor in the recent suicide 
of Lucy Meadows was the Daily Mail's decision to publish a hate-filled personal attack on 
her. Examples such as this are merely the public tip of a massive iceberg.

Radical Spaces, Revolutionary Solutions

As anarchists, we should work to make ourselves aware of these systems of oppression and 
how they intersect, listening to the experiences of those who have been oppressed and 
lending them support in the struggles that they face. We should also be critical of the 
systems of response that we hold over from the world at large and look to prefigure the 
world we would hope to live in. We should also be realistic about the resources and 
abilities we have to hand. When we provide spaces, be they gatherings in physical space or 
virtual forums of discussion, we must recognise the responsibility we have to make all 
that use the space aware, that in order to be accepted in this particular community there 
will be certain behaviours we require and others that we will not tolerate. At the same 
time we may have additional requirements, or even state, that someone is unwelcome within 
our spaces, in order to allow the community as a whole to feel safe. Far from being 
authoritarian, this is a prefigurative step towards realising the concept of Free 
Association, where individuals and communities have a directly democratic say in who they 
allow into their space and how people are expected to behave whilst there.
At the moment the most common attempt to make out spaces safer than the word at large is 
to create a ?safer spaces policy?. This is often a list of principles that we hope 
everyone using a space will adhere to and behaviours that are expected in our spaces. 
Unfortunately, turning our spaces into something safer than the world around them takes 
far more than a goodwill wish-list of things we hope predatory individuals will or won't 
do. Just as laws do nothing to deter crime; simply having a code of conduct on the door of 
your event is pretty redundant if not accompanied by procedures of what to do when (not 
if) someone contravenes it. What is required, to paraphrase Errico Malatesta, is 
organisation, organisation and more organisation. This comes in many different forms:

Open and Clear Processes for Everyone

In first aid there are processes that are drilled into medics so that when an emergency 
situation arises, they are able to put most of their emotion and panic to one side and 
ensure that the situation is properly handled. The same principle can be found in the 
preparation and organisation required to make our spaces safer. When someone acts in a way 
contrary to the ?notice on the door?, there needs to be a clear set of instructions upon 
what course of action is open to someone who has survived abuse, to someone who has 
witnessed oppressive behaviour and to those it is being reported to.

Having a clear set of principles about how we will act, as well as an open account of the 
processes and procedures that everyone maintaining the space is trained to follow when a 
problem occurs, means that everybody involved has their expectations set as to what will 
happen when the issue of abuse occurs. Survivors can be put more at ease and feel like 
order can be found in an emotionally chaotic situation, as they will know before even 
raising an issue what will happen. Those of us maintaining a space will have documentation 
to both help us move forward in a way that will protect the community at large, while 
holding us back from taking any rash actions that would disempower a survivor or in 
themselves be abusive. For those who may possibly be perpetrators of abuse, it shows 
up-front what to expect and explains why certain action may be required from each person 
involved.

Multiple processes will be required to deal with all the different types of abuse that can 
be reported. For example, how we handle reports of physical violence will differ greatly 
from how we are expected to deal with a case of someone using a slur in conversation. No 
process is set in stone as each case is unique, however the most common eventualities can 
be covered, and our processes can be reviewed after the fact to include better practices 
as we develop and share them.

Survivor-Focus and Community Accountability Processes

The world at large treats abuses in very different ways. When someone comes forward to 
report that something has been stolen from them, our first reaction isn't to question 
whether this has happened or not. We accept the claim on face value and then work from 
that point on. The same is not true in cases of sexual violence. While investigation into 
number of false accusations in these fields shows time and time again that it is extremely 
rare for an accusation to be made without basis, the typical initial reaction of the 
dominant culture is to deny or discount the survivor's account of what happened and 
attempt to minimise or erase the abusive behaviour. If this cannot be done, it attacks 
those who have been able to stand up and search for justice; people coming to us for help 
and support are put on trial. When we do believe the person, we often perpetuate the 
removal of agency they have suffered by storming off to deal with the problem ourselves, 
heedless of what the survivor needs or wants from us.

Almost universally, our spaces do not have at hand the ability to investigate truth or 
guilt behind most claims of sexual violence or severe abuse. However, we do have the 
ability to take claims of abuse seriously and look at implementing strategies to protect 
our communities. When we do nothing in the name of ?not taking sides? or because we appeal 
to the concept of being ?innocent until proven guilty?, the implicit message we broadcast 
to those surviving oppression is that any claims of abusive behaviour are unimportant to 
the running of our spaces, that the claim might as well be a lie for all we care and that 
we have no interest in making our spaces welcoming to those who may feel threatened by a 
possibly abusive character.

By taking a focus on listening to the needs of the survivors of abuse and basing our 
actions upon empowering their choices, we are going a small step towards keeping the 
agency that assault can remove in their hands. We are also working to make sure that 
everyone that is coming into our spaces is being held to a high level of accountability, 
in terms of the required and prohibited behaviours that have been communicated in advance. 
We are often not able to say whether someone is innocent or guilty, instead we are looking 
at what actions are required to ensure everyone coming into our spaces feels safe.

Education & Socialisation

When we decide that we are anarchists, we are not suddenly and mystically absolved of all 
the ills and prejudices that society has instilled in us. It takes a lot of work to ensure 
that the ideals we profess and the actions we undertake are aligned. To this end, we can 
be open to criticism of our patterns of behaviour and listen to those people and 
collectives who have been in a position to have survived abuse and want to guide our 
communities towards a better way of handling future problems. The clear creation of 
processes is part of that; discussion about incorporation of new ideas and situations 
where the process will be implemented, while imperfect, is needed to keep things fresh and 
reflexive. We should also look at the language we use and be open to changing it away from 
phrases that survivors advise are oppressive.

Through use of education, we can inoculate those coming into our spaces against 
undertaking or accepting abuse and on the correct way to act when a problem becomes 
apparent. When someone complains about our actions, we need to train ourselves to hold 
back the reflexive defence mechanisms society has taught us and instead take some time to 
critically evaluate the situation. We must recognise that it is not the place of the 
person complaining to educate us about our abusive behaviours; it is our duty to seek out 
forms of education and take the best practices learned back into our spaces. If someone 
who has suffered oppression first hand is in a position to offer commentary upon what form 
our processes should take, their advice will often be invaluable. Anarchist praxis has for 
a long time said that an oppressed group must lead their struggle; when someone warns you 
that you are acting in an abusive fashion then they are doing just that. We need to listen.

The Strawman Army

When matters of safer spaces come up, there is often a flood of arguments about why these 
concepts should be ignored. In my experience, those making these arguments are almost 
always white, able-bodied, cis-gendered men and not people from the groups being oppressed 
(coincidently often the strongest voices calling for implementation of safer spaces 
processes). Most of these responses do not even address the actual safer spaces thinking 
being called for but instead attack the misconceptions and misunderstanding that an 
individual has heard second-hand or created in their own mind. We can all be guilty of 
this at one time or another, so I would like to take a moment to run through the common 
list of arguments against safer spaces policies, burning any straw men to the ground and 
clearing up any confusion or misunderstanding that has arisen:

?Isn?t this all just asking for trouble??

Preparing for the problems that permeate the world over is not asking for trouble; it is 
making a realistic assessment of what could happen and putting in place sensible 
structures to handle abuse as it comes to light. If we see an increase in problems after 
putting processes in place and having them used in a responsible way, then we shouldn't be 
asking if the structures created the problem but why we were not aware of these problems 
before they were put in place.

?We've never had a problem before!?

Correction: we have never been made aware of any problems before. This is possibly because 
we don't appear to take matters any more seriously than the dominant culture, due to our 
lack of solid survivor-focused community accountability processes. Even if there have been 
no problems up to now, that isn't to say one won't happen in the future; if we have to 
work out what to do in the heat of the moment our actions will be worse than if we had a 
well thought out - if imperfect - policy.

?Safer spaces policies are flawed.?

Yes, they often are. This isn't a reason not to have one. It is a reason to have one, and 
share best practice with others who are doing the same. We are trying to grow a better 
world in the shell of the old; not everything will be right first time. Not having a clear 
procedural policy is far more flawed.
?We are not responsible for others' actions in this space.?

Correct ? they are responsible for their actions, but you we responsible for making them 
aware of what is required to freely associate within our space. We are also responsible 
for our actions when someone else decides to break from these codes of conduct, and so it 
is best to have a guide to what we should be doing and to have practised our responses in 
advance.

?Surely everyone can all act like grown-ups...?

Grown-ups rape. Grown-ups fight. Grown-ups oppress and exploit and abuse. The problem 
isn't with people not acting like grown-ups; the problem is with our communities not 
having a different approach to the world around us. If we are serious about creating 
social revolution, then we need to work on the structures and organisational methods that 
entails, not throw them out.

?If there is a problem I'll deal with it. Simple.?

Sure, if there is a fight or violent assault happening right in front of one of us, it is 
something we will want to break up. I've yet to see a safer spaces process that doesn?t 
allow for this in some way. However, if by dealing with the problem we are further 
removing the agency from the survivor, then we are not causing social change but becoming 
another facet of the problem. Also without a process to rely on, others will be forced to 
take this same line of reasoning and take direct action to remove those seen as unsafe 
from our spaces.

?We're all equal here already.?

Lifestylists putting their fingers in their ears can just bog right off. Please. Their 
communes are rife with sexual abuse and informal hierarchies of oppression. In fact, our 
radical spaces can be worse than the dominant society, because we can frown on survivors 
who feel the need to involve the state. Shame on those who feel this is acceptable: to 
malign someone for engaging with state services which, at present, we cannot provide 
ourselves. By pretending that we have magically left the problems of the world behind, we 
simply doom ourselves to repeat its mistakes over. What is needed is acknowledgement of 
the problematic behaviours we have been taught and an effort to listen to those who have 
been oppressed as to what is required to solve problems in our communities.
?By excluding someone you are restricting another's freedom.?

Known abusers being allowed into our spaces is exclusionary of others ? by making no 
choice and taking no action when matters of abuse are raised, we are in fact making the 
choice to enforce our dominant society and back the abuser.
?This isn't anarchism.?

I would argue that this is part of the prefiguration of free association which is one of 
the very strongest concepts within anarchism. It is the structured move away from a 
society based upon conceptions of state-imposed law. It is a directly democratic 
non-hierarchical means of acting within our communities. If this isn't anarchism then what is?

?Why did no one tell me about these problems before??

Implicit in this question is the idea that if someone doesn't see it with their own eyes 
it may be a lie. People in an oppressed group may not want to share their oppression with 
everyone; they may not feel safe doing so. By putting in place these structures we are not 
only saying we are safe to approach but that we are willing to leave the reigns of the 
struggle in the hands of those affected. See also the response to claiming to not having 
any problems before.

?What if someone gets falsely accused??

Well, first up, thanks to the response that is normally received, false accusations of 
rape or sexual assault are rare. But let's humour this for a minute - a case of sexual 
assault is reported and we have two options being put on the table for how to handle it, 
each with a downside. The first is a system where we focus on the survivor making the 
claim and put in place structures that protect the community as a whole. The downside of 
this is that we may inconvenience or exclude one individual while we look into actions 
that may lead to them re-integrating with the community. The second approach means that in 
lieu of definitive proof, we just let things carry on as normal. The downside here is that 
a likely predatory or abusive individual is allowed free reign within our spaces, while 
those who feel unsafe are driven away. If we go for option two after thinking that over 
then well done ? we're all arseholes.
?We aren?t equipped for this. Some of these things are just too complex for us to handle.?

I agree some problems will be too big for us to effectively handle. In other instances the 
survivor may not have trust in our structures and will call upon the aid of the state. By 
putting the focus on the needs of the survivor we should also be supporting them in times 
where they feel the need to involve the police in these matters. They have the biggest 
gang in town, and all the good-will and solidarity in the world may not provide what a 
survivor of abuse requires. Support and respect a survivor in this choice. One day we will 
feel ready to deal with these problems and others will feel ready to put their faith in us 
to do so; let's start small and work our way up.
?Who are we to determine guilt? Doesn't this unfairly place blame on the accused perpetrator??

In most cases we don't determine guilt or innocence ? we simply don't have the means or 
knowledge to do that. What we are able to do is act in a way that ensures that our spaces 
are made safer for everyone who wishes to use them. I see this as the responsibility that 
comes with opening up a space for others to use.

?Isn't this just a set of rules that will eventually be broken??

No. The expected behaviour may be the most widely read and distributed part of the policy, 
but it is far from the bulk of it; an organised safer space also includes the processes 
which will be used to guide any report of abuse.
(Just for the record, every single one of those comments has been presented to me in all 
seriousness, often by otherwise sound comrades)

Towards a Future of Transformative Justice

The practice of organised safer space is not something that has been developed in an 
isolated theoretical bubble. It has come about through thousands of groups looking at ways 
to explain the problems they have worked on solving in their own communities and then 
spread the best practices they could on to others. Seminal in this work was ?Taking Risks: 
Implementing Grassroots Community Accountability Strategies? by a collective of women of 
colour from Communities Against Rape and Abuse (CARA). The ideas outlined in this work can 
be seen to be that basis for much of what is going into action throughout our social 
centres, bookfairs, groups and internet forums today. Safer spaces collectives have sprung 
up to provide advice and help to other groups around about them. Organisations that do not 
demonstrate that they are taking the problems of oppressed groups seriously are likely to 
find that they will be boycotted, side-lined or unable to grow beyond a mainly white, 
mainly able-bodied, mainly straight, mainly cis-gendered, mainly male audience, as those 
providing spaces that do lend the support being requested, rise up to the challenge and 
take their place.

While the initial aim of safer spaces processes is to provide survivor-led community 
accountability, we know that a lot of the paths we take will have to be corrected and 
refined as we go. As we learn from these mistakes, our theory can become better at 
reflecting the realities of oppression and abuse and understanding how it works. As these 
theories become better, the structures we build from them will also be better suited to 
responding to oppression, in a strong and resilient fashion. Organised safer space is not 
a magical land, perfect in every way. We need to be aware that pitfalls could form from 
our thinking and acknowledge any unexpected difficulties before we can overcome them.
As this cycle of improved theory based on action and improved action based on theory, this 
leadership of ideas, carries on, we will be able to move beyond simply protecting our 
communities and begin taking steps towards implementing a form of justice that can someday 
reintegrate perpetrators of abuse back into our spaces. While the processes and 
requirements that our communities and, more importantly, the survivors of abuse require 
may not always be met within a lifetime, we should not close the door automatically. As 
was mentioned before, perpetrators of the most horrific acts in our society are not 
usually wild beasts or monsters; they are humans, and as anarchists we should look towards 
their well-being, just never at the expense of another.
Organise! magazine #80, Summer 2013.