If you're a sucker for organizational structure, check this out: CR10 is being organized by four distinct workgroup: Programming, Media, Outreach and Logistics. We each have regular separate meetings and at strategic moments, the whole planning team converges for huge conference calls or face to face retreats.
Check out this profile of our Programming Workgroup:
CR10’s Program Committee
What work has been done in the past ten years to dismantle the prison industrial complex? What alternatives are being built? What comes next?
The Program Committee’s main priority in planning CR10 was to keep the focus, for the first time, on abolition. They partnered with the Outreach Committee to request proposals from organizers working on issues of homelessness, alternative healthcare, First Nations rights, policing, queer and trans justice, prisons, immigration and detention, harm prevention and reduction, alternatives to imprisonment, and ending discrimination against formerly imprisoned people. The goal: to continue to build connections and share strategies with communities who approach PIC abolition from as many angles as possible.
Incite! Women of Color against Violence will pair up with the Women of Color Resource Center in Oakland to discuss the gendered violence of the PIC and its relation to militarism.
Transforming Justice will lead a session on the criminalization and imprisonment of transgender communities and radical coalition building between queer and trans people of color.
The weekend will also include a prisoner art show, a performance series, a film festival, visual and sound installations and children’s programming for people ages 3-12.
To ensure that the challenges and changes to the PIC abolition movement over the past ten years are represented in the agenda, the Program Committee also aimed to center the strategic alternatives to policing and imprisonment that organizations/communities around the country have been building. This year, the question is not only, What are alternatives to prisons? , but also, How can our communities respond meaningfully to harm without relying on the police? What does community accountability look like and how can we achieve it? Many of the organizations coming together at CR10 will provide their localized responses to these questions.
In a multilingual project that aims to learn and teach more about the ways that communities already respond to harm without calling the cops, Creative Interventions and Generation 5 collaborated to collect successful stories of “community-based interventions to family, intimate partner, and other forms of interpersonal violence” from across the country. They’ll be presenting part of the ongoing project and discussing strategies to break cycles of interpersonal and state violence.
Incite! will host a number of discussions on alternative responses to state-based intervention when domestic and sexual violence occur in communities of color.
The Audre Lorde Project will present on Safe Outside the System, a project aimed at ending and responding to violence against and within queer communities of color without state intervention.
All programming during the CR10 conference and strategy session will be free. We hope that you will lend your voice to these important discussions. To see a schedule of the weekend’s events, please visit our website.
Thanks to Shana Agid for her work on the Program committee and his help with this post.
CR10 Film Festival
All films are screened in Room A273 at Laney College
For more information on these films,
check out the schedule on the CR10 website.
Download Film Festival Schedule here.
Download Film Festival Flyer here.
Thousand Kites radio will broadcast live from CR10!
Whether you can be at CR10 or not, check out the Thousand Kites radio webstream during the conference, September 26-28.
Listen to Thousand Kites radio here.
Add your voice to CR10! Call toll-free at 877.518.0006 to record your story on Thousand Kites radio!
For more information on Thousand Kites, go to thousandkites.org
Abolition and Mumia
Hans Bennett of Journalists for Mumia interviews Rose Braz:
Hans Bennett: What does “prison abolitionist” mean?
Rose Braz: CR seeks to abolish the prison industrial complex: the use of prisons, policing and the larger system of the prison industrial complex as an “answer” to what are social, political and economic problems, not just prisons.
Abolition defines both the goal we seek and the way we do our work today. Abolition means a world where we do not use prisons, policing and the larger system of the prison industrial complex as an “answer” to what are social, political and economic problems. Abolition means that instead we put in place the things that would reduce incidents of harm at the front end and address harm in a non-punitive manner when harm does occur. Abolition means that harm will occur far less often and, that when harm does occur, we address the causes of that harm rather than rely on the failed solutions of punishment. Thus, abolition is taking a harm reductionist approach to our society’s problems.
Abolition means creating sustainable, healthy communities empowered to create safety and rooted in accountability, instead of relying on policing, courts, and imprisonment which are not creating safe communities.
HB: How has prison changed in 10 years?
RB: One recent shift is that our denunciation of conditions inside has been twisted into justifications for expanding the system, particularly through what are sometimes called “boutique prisons”.
For example, there is fairly uniform agreement that California’s now $10 billion-per-year prison system holds too many people, provides horrendous health and mental health care, underfunds and cuts programming and services, and consistently fails to deliver on its promise of public safety. Nonetheless, California’s answer to this disaster has been to make it even bigger, building more prisons and in particular specialized prisons — for women, for elderly prisoners, for the sick, etc.
What’s new and more insidious about this expansion is that it has not been couched in ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric that politicians usually employ to justify expansion. Rather, in response to growing anti-prison public sentiment, these plans have been grounded on the rhetoric of “prison reform” and in regard to people in women’s prisons: “gender responsiveness.”
One current challenge is to continue to debunk the myth that bricks and mortar are an answer to these problems and to make common sense that the only real answer to California’s prison crisis is to reduce the number of people in prison and number of prisons toward the goal of abolition.
HB: How has the anti-prison movement evolved in the last 10 years?
RB: In the last decade, I think the movement has become more coordinated, is growing and has shifted the debate from one about reform to one that includes abolition.
In 1998, while there were numerous people and organizations working around conditions of confinement, the death penalty, etc., and in particular using litigation and research strategies; grassroots organizing challenging the PIC was at a low following the crackdown on the movement in the 1970’s and 80’s. We believe that a grassroots movement is a necessary prerequisite to change. CR is bringing people together through our conferences, campaigns, and projects toward the goal of helping to build that movement.
I also believe the debate has shifted and unlike a decade ago, abolition is on the table. A prerequisite to seeking any social change is the naming of it. In other words, even though the goal we seek may be far away, unless we name it and fight for it today, it will never come.
HB: What distinctions do you make between “political prisoners,” and others, including non-violent and violent offenders?
RB: CR focuses on how the PIC is used as a purported “answer” to social, economic and political challenges, and clearly a big part of the build up of the PIC followed directly on the political uprisings of the ’60s and ’70’s. CR seeks to abolish the PIC in its entirety, for us that means fundamentally challenging the PIC as an institution. This means that just as we fight for Mumia to not be locked in a cage, we also fight for people convicted of offenses classified as “violent” or “nonviolent” by the state to also not be locked in cages. While acknowledging that people are put in prison for different reasons, we do not make the distinction between people in for “violent” or “nonviolent” offenses because the PIC is not an answer to either.
HB: Anything else to add?
RB: One day, I believe those who fought for abolition will be seen as visionaries. Historian Adam Hochschild notes that there are numerous institutions in history that appeared unchangeable and moreover, small numbers of people have sparked extraordinary change.
Until the late 18th century, when the British slavery abolitionist movement began, the idea of eliminating one of the fundamental aspects of the British Empire’s economy was unimaginable. Yet, 12 individuals who first met in a London printing shop in 1787 managed to create enough social turbulence that 51 years later, the slave ships stopped sailing in Britain.
In the US, the first slavery abolitionists were represented as extremists and it took almost a century to abolish slavery. Similarly, many who lived under Jim Crow could not envision a legal system without segregation.
As Hochschild wrote, “The fact that the battle against slavery was won must give us pause when considering great modern injustices, such as the gap between rich and poor, nuclear proliferation and war” and I would add the Prison Industrial Complex. “None of these problems will be solved overnight, or perhaps even in the fifty years it took to end British slavery, but they will not be solved at all unless people see them as both outrageous and solvable.”
Hans Bennett is a Philadelphia-based photo-journalist who has been documenting the movement to free Mumia Abu-Jamal and all political prisoners for over five years.
Hans Bennett: What does “prison abolitionist” mean?
Rose Braz: CR seeks to abolish the prison industrial complex: the use of prisons, policing and the larger system of the prison industrial complex as an “answer” to what are social, political and economic problems, not just prisons.
Abolition defines both the goal we seek and the way we do our work today. Abolition means a world where we do not use prisons, policing and the larger system of the prison industrial complex as an “answer” to what are social, political and economic problems. Abolition means that instead we put in place the things that would reduce incidents of harm at the front end and address harm in a non-punitive manner when harm does occur. Abolition means that harm will occur far less often and, that when harm does occur, we address the causes of that harm rather than rely on the failed solutions of punishment. Thus, abolition is taking a harm reductionist approach to our society’s problems.
Abolition means creating sustainable, healthy communities empowered to create safety and rooted in accountability, instead of relying on policing, courts, and imprisonment which are not creating safe communities.
HB: How has prison changed in 10 years?
RB: One recent shift is that our denunciation of conditions inside has been twisted into justifications for expanding the system, particularly through what are sometimes called “boutique prisons”.
For example, there is fairly uniform agreement that California’s now $10 billion-per-year prison system holds too many people, provides horrendous health and mental health care, underfunds and cuts programming and services, and consistently fails to deliver on its promise of public safety. Nonetheless, California’s answer to this disaster has been to make it even bigger, building more prisons and in particular specialized prisons — for women, for elderly prisoners, for the sick, etc.
What’s new and more insidious about this expansion is that it has not been couched in ‘tough on crime’ rhetoric that politicians usually employ to justify expansion. Rather, in response to growing anti-prison public sentiment, these plans have been grounded on the rhetoric of “prison reform” and in regard to people in women’s prisons: “gender responsiveness.”
One current challenge is to continue to debunk the myth that bricks and mortar are an answer to these problems and to make common sense that the only real answer to California’s prison crisis is to reduce the number of people in prison and number of prisons toward the goal of abolition.
HB: How has the anti-prison movement evolved in the last 10 years?
RB: In the last decade, I think the movement has become more coordinated, is growing and has shifted the debate from one about reform to one that includes abolition.
In 1998, while there were numerous people and organizations working around conditions of confinement, the death penalty, etc., and in particular using litigation and research strategies; grassroots organizing challenging the PIC was at a low following the crackdown on the movement in the 1970’s and 80’s. We believe that a grassroots movement is a necessary prerequisite to change. CR is bringing people together through our conferences, campaigns, and projects toward the goal of helping to build that movement.
I also believe the debate has shifted and unlike a decade ago, abolition is on the table. A prerequisite to seeking any social change is the naming of it. In other words, even though the goal we seek may be far away, unless we name it and fight for it today, it will never come.
HB: What distinctions do you make between “political prisoners,” and others, including non-violent and violent offenders?
RB: CR focuses on how the PIC is used as a purported “answer” to social, economic and political challenges, and clearly a big part of the build up of the PIC followed directly on the political uprisings of the ’60s and ’70’s. CR seeks to abolish the PIC in its entirety, for us that means fundamentally challenging the PIC as an institution. This means that just as we fight for Mumia to not be locked in a cage, we also fight for people convicted of offenses classified as “violent” or “nonviolent” by the state to also not be locked in cages. While acknowledging that people are put in prison for different reasons, we do not make the distinction between people in for “violent” or “nonviolent” offenses because the PIC is not an answer to either.
HB: Anything else to add?
RB: One day, I believe those who fought for abolition will be seen as visionaries. Historian Adam Hochschild notes that there are numerous institutions in history that appeared unchangeable and moreover, small numbers of people have sparked extraordinary change.
Until the late 18th century, when the British slavery abolitionist movement began, the idea of eliminating one of the fundamental aspects of the British Empire’s economy was unimaginable. Yet, 12 individuals who first met in a London printing shop in 1787 managed to create enough social turbulence that 51 years later, the slave ships stopped sailing in Britain.
In the US, the first slavery abolitionists were represented as extremists and it took almost a century to abolish slavery. Similarly, many who lived under Jim Crow could not envision a legal system without segregation.
As Hochschild wrote, “The fact that the battle against slavery was won must give us pause when considering great modern injustices, such as the gap between rich and poor, nuclear proliferation and war” and I would add the Prison Industrial Complex. “None of these problems will be solved overnight, or perhaps even in the fifty years it took to end British slavery, but they will not be solved at all unless people see them as both outrageous and solvable.”
Hans Bennett is a Philadelphia-based photo-journalist who has been documenting the movement to free Mumia Abu-Jamal and all political prisoners for over five years.
Did you read the fabulous Left Turn Article?
Yes, it's a little late. And yes, it's worth revisiting.
Critical Resistance in the Guardian Newspaper
Taking on the Titans
by Julia Sudbury
The first slavery abolitionists were represented as extremist and utopian. Until the late 18th century, the idea of eliminating this deeply-rooted institution was unimaginable. Yet, 12 individuals who first met in a London printing shop in 1787 eventually managed to create enough momentum that, 51 years later, slavery ended in Britain's colonies.
Today, I believe that imprisonment – another practice violating human freedom and equality – could follow suit.
I am not alone. In September 1998, over three thousand people gathered in Berkeley, California, for the founding conference of Critical Resistance and thousands more are expected to attend our 10-year anniversary conference and strategy this September.
Today, Critical Resistance is a grassroots organisation that seeks to abolish the "prison-industrial complex": a symbiotic relationship between politicians, state correctional apparatus and corporations that promotes racialised mass incarceration as a catch-all "solution" to deep-rooted social, political and economic problems.
Those who profit from the prison-industrial complex include private prison corporations like US-based Wackenhut, which operates prisons for profit in the UK; politicians who win votes by promising to be tough on the latest overblown crime fad; and local chambers of commerce which embrace prison construction as a "recession-proof industry". Prison is, after all, one of the few industries that sees business go up when the economy goes down.
So, what is the abolitionist alternative? Abolition defines both the goal we seek and the way we do our work today. Abolitionists recognise that we do not create safer communities by locking people in cages; that prisons do not solve the problems that lead to crime, like drug use, poverty, violence or mental illness.
We also draw attention to the massive cost of perpetual prison expansion, which siphons public resources away from services that could be used to build safer and more egalitarian communities. We take seriously the ways in which people harm others, and seek to transform the social and economic conditions that promote violence, as well as creating community-based strategies to address harm and create accountability.
We believe that the violence of crime cannot be solved through the additional violence of policing, surveillance and separation from loved ones. Instead, we advocate focusing attention and resources on building empowered communities, with decent housing, secure jobs, food security, healthy environments and high-quality education, as the ultimate alternative to incarceration.
The challenge facing us is immense. In the US alone, over 2.3 million people are warehoused in prisons and jails. A recent report from the Pew Center found that, for the first time, in the US we now imprison one in every 100 adults; the figure is one in nine for black men aged between 20 and 34. The Pew report also found that this massive incarceration is impacting state budgets without delivering a clear return on public safety.
Although many academics and policy-makers recognise that the US penal system is a bloated and wasteful failure, the UK is increasingly emulating the US. Britain's prison population has grown by more than a third in the past decade, and residents of England and Wales are more likely to be imprisoned than residents of any other western European country. Rather than seeking to reduce the number of people in prison, the Ministry of Justice proposes to increase the prison population further to 96,000 by building three US-style "superjails". These proposals are going ahead despite evidence from the US that superjails breed violence, dehumanise prisoners, and lead to medical neglect, self-harm and preventable deaths.
The prison-industrial complex will not be dismantled overnight. But many of us believe that the prison, like the institution of slavery, will one day be viewed as an obsolete and shameful relic of history. Until that day, I invite you to join the global movement to help build a world without prisons.
This article was completed with help from Rose Braz, national campaign director of Critical Resistance.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/26/prisonsandprobation.ukcrime
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
