ConfestBans.com
‘Emergency
site’
Full site coming soon
Disclaimer:
The following is the most accurate basic account of the facts we could gather
within the time available.
We thought it necessary to get the ‘ConfestBans.com’ domain name ‘out there’ before social media pages were
potentially shut down, which occurs without warning (see below).
We apologise in advance for any errors and invite you
to correct us once we have a secure email address for this project.
Immediate
heads-up from what we understand to be true, so far:
The board of DTE (which runs Confest) is
banning people:
from volunteering
from communicating with each other in DTE channels
in effect from voting and
from the festival itself.
Some say it’s political, pointing out a lack of any health
and safety risk.
That it’s more about personal agendas, dislikes and a
preferences around communication styles.
That banning people from the festival for these reasons is taking ‘DTE politics’ way too far.
That it could damage Confest democracy and eventually threaten Confest
itself.
Others say that even if behaviour doesn’t rise to the
physical,
banning is acceptable for those they consider ‘toxic’ – creating mental harm
for volunteers
and doing things they say puts the festival at risk.
This site is
designed to give the community a heads-up so they can decide what to do about a
possible risk to Confest – and Confesters.
Who is responsible
Important
take-home if you read nothing else:
The directors on the DTE board mainly involved in
banning people
- to the best our knowledge so far-
are 4 out of the 7:
1. Robin
(Also involved in Burning Seed - cancelled a few days ago)
2. Sue
3. Kel
4. Andrew
We hope to provide
a detailed voting record in time.
Some of The Banned*
At least one banned Confester says he has engaged counsel, providing a detailed
account.
‘Cease and desist’ letters have been sent.
A barrister consulted to fight the person’s ban.
It’s alleged that
DTE rules and the Co-op National Law were not followed.
Due process and ‘natural justice’ not provided.
Motions put forward and then withdrawn to discredit the man because he is a ‘political enemy’ of those currently in power.
Another banned Confester has
volunteered – mostly on site
– for over a decade, he informs us.
An attendee for longer.
He was for a recent Confest the Site Manager – the person with ultimate responsibility for
the safe, effective running of the festival while it was on.
When he ran for director, he received the most votes of any person in Confest
history.
He was elected twice.
A dispute arose, mainly about his spending as a volunteer and reimbursement. He
rejected a settlement offer he regarded as very low.
A third for a long time maintained
the well-known, text-based DTE.org site.
(We are yet to speak to him but he is known by the others. We have prioritised
giving the community an urgent heads-up in case Facebook closes down
Confest-related pages as a result of the recent DTE ‘social media policy’ (see photos).
The fourth is only currently banned from DTE communications channels,
but is worried they want to ban him more completely. He is a passionate devotee of Confest who has
also been closely involved in DTE, from getting the food and drinks for the
meetings (back when the board met in person at an old room at CERES), to
participating vigorously in debates.
All four of those with recent bans of various kinds were involved in
internal political debates and disagreements within DTE.
What other office-holders, facilitators and ‘Big Volunteers’ think:
Some volunteers with many hours
under their belt say that banning people from the festival and all volunteering
for the things these people have been banned for is excessively harsh. They
worry that people haven’t been given a
fair hearing – that fair and
lawful procedures haven’t been
followed.
Others say that their experience of
these Confesters warrants banning them,
though it must be said they did not say
their conduct rose to the level of physical harm to persons/
* To the best of our knowledge so
far, based on interviews with those involved)
What you can do
|
You can join the next 1.
Ask
why people were banned: what is the concrete evidence? (CONFIDENTIALITY
WAIVED: we can seek and publish
here legal consent by any or all of the banned Confesters to waive their
rights to confidentiality. To allow for open discussion to be had about the
reasons. After all, one banned Confester is opting for a public hearing in
court) 2. Ask by
what legal right Directors can stop people coming to Confest (under DTE
rules, the National Co-op Law or other) 3. Check
if due process was followed for those banned already 4.
Most powerfully: tell the Directors what you will DO - or not do - if this is not fixed to your satisfaction (Note: the only lasting solution may be
an addition to the rules) Suggestions: • Avoid distractions - keep
your eye on the prize. If you care about Confest democracy, the BANS must be
Priority Number 1 until a lasting solution is locked. In time for the
precious 50th anniversary festival. • Accept only specific facts
that are concrete –
experienceable with the five senses,
by more than one person - ideally backed by evidence. E.g. Stronger = “Every
few minutes they interrupted the person whose turn it was to speak in the
meeting. It happened over three meetings starting in June” . |
Possible solutions?
|
Possible solutions if you come to believe banning people from the festival
is too much unless the offence is really about health and safety
|
|
0.
Join
DTE, speak your experience and ideas – and VOTE ! Anyone who has done
(or does) 24 hours of Confest volunteering over a year is eligible.
That includes many jobs before and after the festival, including committee
participation. At the close of a recent Confest, one of the respected
volunteer leaders at The Hub volunteer gathering space almost begged
the multi-hour volunteers gathered there that night just before pack-down to
join. Pointedly she said words to the effect: ‘Many of the people
who make many of the most important decisions for Confest aren’t actually here’. That means most
importantly some of the Directors. |
|
1.
Change
the DTE co-op rules so the bar for
banning from the festival (or volunteering) is higher: BAN FROM FESTIVAL ONLY IF: • Super-majority of
DTE members vote for it (not just directors) • Confester is - criminally
charged with an offence against the person or a serious offence against property
(i.e. a third party judges, using legal criteria, not potentially biased
people who may also have their own agenda) OR - at least two
independent witnesses to a physical or sexual assault or serious damage
to property make an affidavit or stat declaration (penalties if a court finds
the person lied) |
|
2. Remove specific directors who have demonstrated
they are now resorting to banning Confesters from the festival to solve
problems when other solutions are available. Note: some people are saying
that these 'problems' are 'political' problems, not problems of health and
safety. Or problems between people that fall far short of being worthy of
banning someone. |
|
3. Support the
legal action - and good decisions about this issue within DTE - by providing
accounts of relevant facts within your experience. Email address soon. |
|
4. Desperate
measures: propose a boycott of the festival by volunteers who usually do more
than 2h, unless the issue receives a long-term solution. Obviously those
boycotting would make their intentions clear to DTE well in advance.
Presumably this could cause the next festival to be postponed before too much
money is spent and financial viability is seriously threatened. |
|
5. Nuclear: A
boycott of the festival by all participants, until same |
|
The festival itself is different so the bar should be higher
to ban people from that vs volunteering or
involvement Please consider whether, in your
experience, the following is true or mostly true: • The festival
itself is incredibly precious to people – it changes and
sometimes even saves lives. Taking that away from people is a huge thing
to do. Some have even been concerned that banned Confesters could end their
lives. So the bar for banning from the festival must be higher. • People can be very
different at the festival itself. Anyone who has met someone ‘online’ or even in a DTE
meeting but then also at Confest may observe this. Many or even most people
are far more calm, friendly, polite, helpful, community-oriented, and
often more responsible once they get to the festival. Many
people use Confest to try to live up to their ‘their best self’. At the very
least, they’re
on their ‘best
behaviour’.
FWIW, if people are troubled in their lives outside Confest, how many things
in this world have a better chance to help them be ‘better people’ than Confest
itself? Is banning them really the best solution? • An argument can be made that the festival
is far safer than the average city street, and even other festivals.
It’s
not difficult to be almost continually surrounded by many smart, good-hearted
responsible people, who are far more likely to intervene than the general
public if help is needed. (This is not the same as claiming there have never
been personal safety incidents and that the festival can’t be improved. It’s good to avoid a ‘straw man’ argument here). • But isn’t there a risk to insurance
and council approval that requires a crack-down?** We keep hearing
about how expensive insurance is. How important it is to exert more ‘control’ to ensure
insurance. But for a recent festival, $16K was
requested for insurance out of a budget around $500K. (For comparison,
Gypsy Kitchen felt it could run on around $15K.) Yet under the current directors, over $50K was requested for outside security.
Is Confest so unsafe – is there such
a long history of incidents that Confest must spend $50,000 on security?
REALLY? Or does this perhaps say more about some of
the current directors’: Many have noted that some directors hardly
attend the festival. ** These are the requested amts. We will
try to firm up these stats with final budgeted amounts |
|
Case
studies?
the loss of Geco kitchen Director Robin’s
response to a Confester spontaneously sharing his worries for the Geco crew
as an aside during an online ‘support’ chat Last Confest, for the first time in
many years, Geco Kitchen didn’t come. Geco is a non-profit food stall that
many confesters have come to rely on for affordable ready-cooked food. It
earnings go to forest campaigns. The crew is known and loved as
rough-and-ready, full of humour, and generous to a fault. (In fact, I’m shedding a tear
as I write this and think about what has happened). When crew-facilitator Greggles was
asked by a long-time fan of Geco why he was the only one staffing the kitchen
at the recent first-time Spring Confest, he was at first reluctant to say
anything. But when pressed, he expressed sadness that their relations with “DTE” (really meaning,
DTE decision-makers) had made them still feel like they were treated as ‘second-class
citizens’,
after all these years, and despite the fact that they were entirely
non-profit, just like DTE. A bit later a Confester was chatting
to Director Robin through Robin’s Confest.org.au
help-chat module, about an unrelated topic. As the conversation moved on to
general Confest stuff, the Confester saw an opportunity to mention Greg’s and Geco’s plight, expecting
a sympathetic and listening ear keen to help. This is what they got.
Case
Study beyond Confest: 2.
Burning
Seed: revolt by grassroots volunteers against founders such as
Robin, fragmentation into different
gatherings, reconsolidation but
with Robin’s continuing involvement (against the wishes of some) - the cancellation
of the festival a few days ago One Burner’s
opinion, expressed in response to early posts about these bans on the FB page
Confestial Spirit.
We would suggest people look into the whole
Burning Seed history themselves. |
Reliable sources?
You probably won’t hear about the
Confest bans on the largest FB page: ‘Confest’
run by Kevin Garber
Censorship, co-option by DTE board members, and banning people who never posted
on his page
…but talked about the bans on other pages
‘Confest’ has one moderator who is a
board director (Kel). It has attracted complaints of rigid moderation and, in
recent years, censorship –
especially of anything that appears critical of DTE.
Kevin Garber probably wouldn’t deny that he works closely
with whoever the current board of DTE might be, including regularly coming to ‘DTE’s’ defence, as he sees it.
Perhaps as a result, Confesters have been starting pages with the same name (‘Confest’), and these are starting to
attract thousands of members.
The Confestial Spirit
page referred to below is the second-biggest Confest-related page, but was
founded over 13 years ago,
mainly in response to the perceived rigidness
of moderation of the ‘Confest’ page.
It allows Confesters to
connect and share after Confest (which Garber regarded as ‘off topic’).
It has run “virtually by itself” - almost entirely without
moderation, including post approval, turning off comments or strict rules about
what is on or off topic.
It
recently changed its name to Confestial Spirit (from Confest Spirit) because of
concerns that if it did not “comply” with DTE’s new ‘social media policy’,
it might
suddenly be shut down by Facebook, most likely through claimed wordmark
infringement.
Some of the communications below show that expecting such ‘controlling’ attitudes from the current
DTE board is not a case of ‘paranoia’.
The
admin of Confestial Spirit was a member of Garber’s FB page
for years, without posting anything.
A couple of days after the message from Director Kel
and creating a few posts about the bans, that admin suddenly found himself
banned from Garber’s group.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
EDITORIAL: The above ban and others
may provide evidence in court. It is strong, entirely documentary evidence that
at least one director has ‘form’ in jumping straight to suppression via banning
people, as a ‘solution’ to an array of ‘problems’.
To be brutally honest, Kevin Garber and the ‘Clique of Four’ ‘Ban-Happy Directors’ are ‘birds of a feather’ – and only their messages and
actions are required to show it.
These clearly show a
paternalistic control-freak, who sees people as in need of constant monitoring,
correction – and if necessary, banning.
EVIDENCE/RESOURCES: DTE DOCS
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1cewyhJlo4yNU-aGqTcqPpheoENmL4Qyt?usp=sharing
• Minutes and meeting videos
• Correspondence mentioning bans and legal action
• DTE Rules and the standard ‘model’
rules for co-ops
See also DTE.coop, the official page of
the co-op
A
bit about us
(As of May 14 2025: the first publication of
this website)
We’ve
never had a dog in any DTE debates, agendas, or issues –
any of the ‘politics’.
Until now.
Those who made this page have never championed an issue about Confest or DTE
beyond the occasional one-off
post on Facebook, like so many Confesters
We got involved in this because it threatens ‘Confest
Democracy’ massively. People are already scared.
Silencing people with the risk of bans = bad ideas left unchallenged = Confest
could be destroyed.
We are not friends with any of those banned.
“The Board of Directors are not DTE.
DTE is not Confest.
DTE is there to serve Confest and Confesters.”
“Don’t let Confest turn into Karenfest!
Add a new rule to end unfair bans.”
😊
Good luck in your examinations, conversations, observations and deliberations.
Life is one big
Conference-Festival !
Email address provided in the next few days.
Check back for more updates.