Criticisms received in the aftermath of our introductory statement has led to this follow up.
It has been almost three months since the dissolution of RSCC and the LC. To reiterate, the Ad Hoc Committee was organized by former RSCC members and unaffiliated comrades in order to discuss and develop a summation of the organization, not just in relation to gender contradictions but the entirety of its history. Additionally, we felt the need to try and answer the question of how gender contradictions in organizational spaces could be handled and resolved as there was a clear mishandling of it in the past. Some of the former RSCC members have witnessed if not first hand experienced gender contradiction and due to an absence of protocols and capabilities of the leadership, most of these contradictions have been swept under the rug or handled with little care.
Of the recent criticisms given to the Ad Hoc, one has been of our alleged lack of communications with the recent survivors.
We would like to clarify that this is partially incorrect. We did not approach the survivors as members of the Ad Hoc because Ad Hoc was yet to be made officially. Instead, some of our members approached the survivors individually as concerned parties and when it was clear that survivors did not wish to speak to us, we respected it, even after Ad Hoc was developed. Being a survivor is not easy, and if survivors request to be left alone while in their recovery, we felt we must do so with the utmost respect.
Another criticism made has been an allegation of open communication with the right camp, namely those who have been identified as perpetrators of gender violence. We’d like to clarify that we are not in open communications with them.
Our last statement was said to have sounded authoritative and commanding by requesting submissions of former members’ experiences. This was not our intention and we accept the criticism. We had hoped to make it easy for interested parties to work with us and assumed emailing or meeting would be easiest. We’d like to correct the statement and clarify that interested parties are more than welcome to join us and work on this summation for closure. In addition to this, we plan to reach out to the majority of the former RSCC members. We say majority, because we do not want to allow the narrative to be influenced by perpetrators.
We’ve also been made aware that recent survivors have been developing their own group summation and criticisms. We developed Ad Hoc with the objective of working on a group summation. We are not trying to develop our summation as the omniscient perspective or in competition with any other summation. Our summation will be limited to the facts and subjective that is our own experiences as well as anyone else who chooses to add their voice so they don’t have to work on one alone. Considering that already a few summations have been released, ours would be one of the many. We look forward to reading the summations released by all parties, including the survivors.
Additionally, we were given a criticism for utilizing the word “investigation”. We understand that this word can be triggering to survivors and we hope to convey that that was not our intention. Some among us are survivors and we can understand how the usual definition of it can be triggering. To reiterate our previous statement, we are not trying to investigate survivors’ claims in order to discredit them in a similar fashion as the state. We seek to question and develop how to address gender contradictions in organizational spaces and resolve them. Our main objective is to develop the organizational summation but to address the gender contradictions, not just the recent ones but those that occurred since the inception of the organization. It would be untruthful if these elements are left out of the summation. We are not trying to parade these incidents to rehash wounds, or identify survivors by name (which is incredibly harmful and reckless behavior) but to identify the perpetrators and criticize them openly so people will not be blind to the perpetrators’ faults.
Currently, we are making efforts to open dialogue on this subject understanding that simply opening a women or queer caucus or studying literature is not enough to fight patriarchal behavior in an organization. We’ve seen how even non male comrades can fail one another: whether as a perpetrator, a silent bystander or an apologist.
There are different organizations/groups that already have their own ways of dealing with gender contradictions. We want to learn what we can from them to apply the relevant and effective tactics to our own practice in the future. To simply walk away from RSCC and join or develop other organizations carries the possibility of continued bad gender practice and we hope to refrain from that.
– Ad Hoc Committee