this summer i circulated a petition to present at a house meeting in order to show that there’s support in getting my case heard. this was presented at a house meeting, by a person coming in from Germany, showing solidarity and support. according to (a) that i met on the metro the other day, this decision was positive to having my case heard. that is: if people would show interest in arranging it.
these are the notes she sent the other day.
“Meeting with Milla
(J) from Frankfurt/Main attended Today’s meeting to read a petition written by Milla and signed and commented by several individuals from outside our scene requesting that the concrete reasons for her ban will be delivered to her and that there will be a meeting in which she has the possibility to defend herself publicly about the accusations .
Milla is not satisfied about the reasons for her ban that were delivered to her earlier this year because they would be not based with concrete situations and details about her behaving in a way that would justify a ban. She wants that the people who felt offended or disturbed by her behaviour to state what exactly were those situations so that she can respond to that in an open meeting. The concrete accusations should be delivered to her some days before that meeting so she would have the possibility to prepare.
Eventhough most people in the house meeting expressed that their feeling would be that there is not enough people at the moment who have power to deal with this conflict, (hm) made a proposal that no body opposed:
Somebody is going to try to collect the opinions of people opposing to lift Milla’s ban and articulate the concrete reasons (details about the concrete situations that were causing the conflict that led to Milla being banned from the house and concrete accusations that are made against her to justify her bans) and will deliver those to her.
Then the same people will announce and organize an open meeting in a place outside Rajasaari [the squat] where Milla is invited to speak to the accusations made towards her.
That meeting will have the possibility to discuss about following steps in order to progress with this conflict.
Because according to (T) no one except (He) is willing to work on the conflict with Milla there is people needed who volunteer to help her in this case because (He) does not want to do it on her own.”
the comment about this petition being signed by several people outside the scene is true, but it’s an unfortunate way of formulating it, since it kind of excludes the fact that it was also signed by people from within the scene.
so, in the bureaucratic mess that this conflict has been to me. i guess this in theory would mean, that there has been a decision made, where it’s possible for me to arrange a meeting, where my bans can be discussed and lifted. if someone sticks their neck out, to collect the specific reasons, and then arrange a place and a time, it should all be set. if people seriously feel i am a threat to the project and the health of the people in it, then i guess they would be brave enough to take a step out from behind the bureaucratic curtain that have protected them from taking any accountability for blocking me from having my say. if i am really this dangerous, then they should have the support of the community to speak up. (unless they would get the same treatment that i have received…) hmm. i’ll talk with (p) about this later this evening.
anyways. i contacted (y) who made the friends request on facebook. i asked her why. and if she would be interested in meeting up and talk about the (or any) conflict. her reply was that she could see herself meeting up in a bigger group. which is positive to hear. and said something about the blog. that “sometimes it’s better with no news than with bad news”. it would be interesting hearing what it is she doesn’t like about this.