safer spaces should not be seen as cure all's. Safer spaces policies do not negate oppressions existing in society they are not a panacea within the desert of existing oppressive society they do not say oppression is absent in these spaces instead they express the intention to fight oppression when it rises
we should beware of safer spaces policies becoming used or excuses for oppression or for policed spaces. They should not stifle discussion e.g. of symbols.
safer spaces policies should within themselves acknowledge their own limitations - they are the beginning of destroying oppression but are not sufficient - revolution is the only way to destroy oppression safer spaces may or may not say this but they should say they do not in of themselves end oppression
Who composes the safer spaces and how this process is organized is important I think it should be collaborative and by those most oppressed we must beware safer spaces policies being written by the most privileged
safer spaces policies must not create the impression that what is oppression is feeling and make the problem see personal (liberalism) instead of systemic social and structural
Safer spaces policies should not hinder legitimate discussion
Safer spaces policies must acknowledge the existence of privileges and work to reduce their influence
Setting rules is not enough there must be clearly delineated practices and procedures in place
If we mean by safe the search for spaces which are comfortable and without confrontation
because it is easier and less demanding, we want to question this desire."
"It is very problematic for us directly to resort to the tool of “rules” when someone sayssomething is wrong. Also because we are not out of a French, western society, and that the fact that this society functions in a security-enforcement, individualist way has echoes in the way we do things, unfortunately. For example, we find it hard not to see a relation between the fact we evolve in an individualist society, in which only individuals have rights, and the fact that individual boundaries seem a priority to us rather than the consequences that they can have on a collective. Which is not to say that the collective should always be more important than the individual, but that there is nothing systematic in this, which is why it is interesting to discuss cases."
Wouldn't it be this “fear of others” which we have learnt which makes us want immediately to protect ourselves rather than discuss when there is a problem, separate spaces and therefore separate ourselves from danger? If we try to avoid discussion and confront each other, is it because we are afraid to have to listen to the other, to have to question ourselves?