(This is an in depth response to some criticisms of recent events and strategies chosen, originally posted on the OMJP list. With Peter's permission I'm posting this here also to make available for further discussion. All formatting oddities are my own.)

From: Peter Bohmer 

Dear Carrie and readers of the OMJP list-serv,

Here is my response to your email, much of my response deals with answering criticisms of me. In general, I believe it is better for differences to be dealt in face to face discussion like at meetings as differences get magnified on emails. Carrie, I appreciate the excellent work you do maintaining the OMJP website and I respect your strong commitment to economic justice for all. This open letter is written to you and others in the spirit of acknowledging real differences in world view, strategy and tactics—differences that are healthy and should coexist within OMJP and within the larger Olympia left community.

More...


I consider myself primarily a justice person—whose primary interest is challenging the various structured inequalities—racism, working class oppression, sexism, U.S. domination and intervention in the 3^rd world, and working for a different economic and social system. This seems to be one perspective in OMJP. We strongly oppose the war in Iraq but our starting point is not peace and non-violence but challenging oppression.  I believe a second perspective whose starting point is working for peace through non-violence is also very positive. I realize many people don’t fit in either category. My point is that both are progressive. Moreover, to some people on the left and in OMJP, e.g., myself, non-violence although a very important ideal, is not an absolute; this position and people who hold it needs to be respected. I am not advocating for OMJP to commit violent acts-see 1) for my definition of violence.

1. With regards to violence, I consider violence to be physical attacks on people that does real bodily harm to them. Tearing down a fence, yelling back at Nazis may be  a good or bad tactic but it trivializes violence to call it such. With regards to Sunday’s anti-Nazi protest near the Olympian, it was not an OMJP protest and even if it was, we cannot control the behavior of every person who attends. I put a lot of effort there into talking to demonstrators not to spit at, throw water or sparkles at the police or Nazis, and to clear a path for the Nazis when they wanted to leave. These guidelines were respected by 95% of the people there and it wasn’t even an OMJP action.  Whether or not, it is an OMJP action, we cannot control everything that happens although we can and should set a tone, suggested guidelines and limits. As the Nazis left and afterwards, the police commander and others thanked me for my role in preventing more of a confrontation. This is the first time in my life the police have thanked me for this but in consulting with many people from OMJP this is the tone that they and I wanted to set. I did yell at the Nazis, this seemed appropriate to me and within the agreed upon guidelines. The purpose was to turn their rally into an anti-racist one.

2.   With regards to the fence being torn down at the port of Olympia last year, it wasn’t directly done by OMJP. I explained in an article I wrote for Works in Progress (WIP) why on balance I thought this action was positive. I made clear that there were other valid positions. With regards to the march to Ft. Lewis, in general we ignored the rabid pro-war counter protesters, many of whom threatened us. ONE REASON for differences in attitudes towards confrontation  come out of different perspectives; a SECOND reason for differences comes from age differences; younger people tended to favor a more militant position. . We need to build  a movement, organizations that are inclusive of all ages

3. With regards to the location of the protest, when I wrote on Saturday that “I see it as not creating problems but showing support for the congregation