At “Law and Disorder”
At "Law and Disorder"
by Jenny Esquivel, Kristian Williams, and scott crow
On May 10, 2014, we attempted to speak on a panel at Law and Disorder
entitled, “Informants: Types, Cases & Warning Signs.” This is a subject
with which all three of us are only too-well acquainted. It is a subject
of utmost importance to us -- both personally and politically. One of us
has a partner spending almost 20 years in prison because of an informant.
We believe that sharing our experiences with the movements and struggles
we are a part of and that we care about deeply can go a long way towards
protecting those movements and the people involved in them.
And so it was with great dismay that we realized two weeks before our talk
was to happen that people were planning on disrupting the event. The
series of events that has unfolded has been disheartening and upsetting to
us as long-time anarchists and organizers.
As our first presenter began to speak, several people from the crowd stood
up and started chanting over him (“We will not be silenced by your
violence”) while the panelists sat silently, waiting to speak. The people
who were chanting have accused him of silencing survivors of domestic
abuse by writing a critique of call-out culture in his essay, “The
Politics of Denunciation.” Despite the efforts of the moderator, some
conflict-resolution peacekeepers, and event staff hired by the conference
organizers, it became impossible to proceed with the panel. When we were
notified that the police were preparing to intervene, we decided it was
best to end the event and leave.
To be clear -- no one on the panel called the cops. And we also didn’t
tell anyone else to call the cops. This should be obvious to anyone who
was present at our panel, as none of us used our phones or in any way
communicated with anyone else who used a phone during this time. We did
everything within our control to prevent this from happening and were
assured prior to the event that no one would call the cops and that no one
would be arrested. We would not have agreed to speak if not for these
As speakers, we have had two security priorities throughout this entire
experience: 1) ensuring that the cops did not get involved, and 2)
ensuring our ability to speak about an issue we believe is critically
important to our struggles. In the end, we resigned ourselves to
sacrificing our second priority (our ability to speak) to ensure that the
first was achieved. Our exit from the room was the only way we knew of to
ensure the safety of others who were present -- including those who were
We believe that the damage caused by patriarchy and intimate violence in
our movements is a real and terrible force. These are problems that need
to be discussed, addressed and confronted head on. The way we do that as
a community has real implications for how we move forward together -- our
process around these issues has the potential to make us stronger. To
forge relationships based on solidarity, mutual aid and support that can
carry us through as we struggle against the state, patriarchy, capitalism
and all forms of oppression requires a level of willingness to treat each
other with respect and care -- even when we disagree.
We also believe that our communities and movements are strongest when we
can disagree without branding each other as enemies. Dialogue around
critical issues is sometimes painful and complicated -- but it doesn’t have
to mean that we destroy each other in the process, or that we sabotage
other important work. There are so many other places we need to be
focusing our energy and outrage -- but instead people seem insistent on
internal destruction. This pattern is not unique to this particular
instance, unfortunately, but seems to be happening in many other places
across the country. We hope that someday very soon we can learn to
disagree in ways that are constructive, rather than destructive.
That is, in part, why we opened the panel by promising time afterwards to
talk about the issues about which people are upset. We wanted to provide
space for people to engage in a more productive dialogue about how to
resolve our disagreements and frustrations. It is unfortunate that this
did not happen because people shut down the entire talk.
We would like to thank the organizers of this event for standing on
principle. It would have been much easier for them to cave under the
pressure of coercive threats than to move forward with the presentation.
Their willingness to foster a dialogue, rather than run from politically
complicated issues was heartening and reassuring during an otherwise sad
and stressful time.