> How about a statement that people can sign that promotes the ideo of
> multiplicity and the idea of unity through diversity?
I don't think signing such a statement would do a tinker's dam. This whole "who gets to speak at rallies" issue (which went on endlessly in the anti-Vietnam War movement, as I vividly recall, and no doubt was just as bothersome centuries before) is, IMHO, just a result of the fact that these "leaders" have such enormous egos, which of course is what propels them into "leadership positions" in the first place.
As a life-long non-leader -- just another shlump or foot-soldier in the movement who goes to marches and ignores all of the notable speakers' precious words, the way 98% of my fellow foot-soldiers do, I only hope that these speakers realize that no one but they themselves gives a damn what they say. The only important thing is the turn-out. And believe me, none of us turn out to listen to those speeches. In that sense, at least, we foot-soldiers are almost all anarchists! Leaders be damned!
If the "leaders" would only forget the aching bruises on their poor, sensitive egos, they might be able to see the multiplicity and diversity of the movement for themselves, without having to be clued in by yet another statement with umpteen thousand signatures.
The real work of generating, hashing out, and spreading genuine ideas and information goes on in many, many small face-to-face meetings among movement people every day, all around. Unfortunately, that's something that the "leaders" can't get their mitts on and control (at least, not entirely).
JJ