[Campaignforrealdemocracy] Peoples Assemblies Everywhere Fwd: [climate09-int] Video: The People's Assembly

Mon Dec 21 12:29:29 GMT 2009

Greetings!

Why not use the power of the internet as well

Look what happened with X-Factor!
Serious issues could also be addressed via the internet

So come on guys, there is a wealth of knowledge, experience and love out there to help all the vulnerable people in the world.
We who have the electronic ability can make a difference for the other people who have no electricity or clean water or good food

Keep onwards and upwards

Maria

--- On Mon, 21/12/09, Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com> wrote:

From: Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com>
Subject: [Campaignforrealdemocracy] Peoples Assemblies Everywhere Fwd: [climate09-int] Video: The People's Assembly
To: "Reclaiming Spaces" <reclaiming-spaces at listi.jpberlin.de>, campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
Date: Monday, 21 December, 2009, 11:47

That is precisely the sort of proposals that came out of both CJA and CJN's final evaluations. Organise Peoples' Assemblies locally and regionally everywhere, then a simultaneous decentralised Assembly next summer. Also a call for a global day of action in fall on Climate Justice principles. And of course, mobilisations during COP16 in Mexico  in December. A great spark of hope and a decisive year ahead.

 Olivier 

Mark Barrett wrote: 

Even more awesome and potentially world historic, would be a regular People's Assembly held in every major city and rural neighbourhood of the world, at every Town Hall, all at the same time. A visible, reachable new society in the making, an unstoppable leverage against any decision making that is not in the interests of the whole planet AND a low carbon footprint rolled into one.  

City and Rural Neighbourhoods of the World, Unite!!  

2009/12/21 Jody Boehnert <jody at eco-labs.org>

Here is a video of our awesome People's Assembly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FGY9ruYpx3o

Jody

Hi Anna

Queries: 
> who decides where the barricades are set? 

Do you believe in radical localism (or 'local sovereignty') via inclusive, consensus decision-making as a key means to work our way out of the environmental crisis? I think that for the huge number that do, and - tantalisingly - for the very many others who (though not environmentalists) nevertheless also believe the better, freer, enlilghtened society begins with the same realisation, for us ( ie us vs. everyone who does not believe in that ideal) doesn't the barricade sets itself accordingly? People either believe that a vital solution to globalisation rests in ordinary people responsibly taking control of their immediate resources together, with collective stewardship and everyone equally included in decision-making, and with  federating support for other similar groupings across the communities who wish to do the same, or they do not, or they are not even aware of the possibility. The clear setting out of those barricades, on our terms not theirs as
 is the case with Copenhagen and all the other jamborees would give them the opportunity to decide who's side they are on. No?    

>how do we set these without enough information being given to the "grass roots"?

The barricades would get set by a call out being framed in the terms above, so question could turn on "do you believe in an alternative society? Another world, built by the grassroots? If so, let's show what democracy really looks like.. if so, let's all get ourselves, and our groups down to our local town hall, for a global picnic / dance / festival / occupation / on such and such day at such and such time in response to such and such event. We could use this idea to create the space for more autonomy and network building in our local areas, while also putting the idea of a new global to local sovereignty, the free society in the making into the minds of the mainstream, boosting and building and joining up with all the other local areas in solidarity. For the environment, for the politics, for the economics, for the human rights, for all the socially controlled, downtrodden and oppressed.  The message is a new start, for a new people a new covenant.
 Maybe a blank placard could be our symbol..?

>Who decides what this information should be.
this is a lot more complicated than a simple call.

But it's not THAT difficult, is it? As we know, everything, whether local or in an anti- conference setting needs to be done with groundrules, so why should a call for decentralised joined up organising be any different. Democratic inclusion, equality, consensus, independence, accountability, transparency etc are a given, right? Surely we are by now mostly agreed on what constitutes good, democratic practice, aren't we? If not now, after all this time, when?  Isn't that enough info?  

>Who decides whether the call is for 2degrees or 1.5 degrees or 0.8 degrees which is already bad enough if you are one of the communities who are dying of drought or flood.

I'm not saying this is not important, it really is, and we need to keep the pressure on. But also I really don't think we can hope for a real democratization of the global process (and therefore a new urgency and openness to the needs of all in the embryonic global governance / regulatory process) until we ourselves get our act together as a people (we are the 'global justice people' right?). 

And what this means, for me is putting ourselves on the map as a people rooted in our communities and not just as a travelling circus of resistance, important though that may be. We've won most of the arguments about globalisation now, the only thing that's missing is the political will and we need to push for that, yes of course. But we are much more than this travelling conscience. Much much more. Not only are we 'everywhere'; but we always have been; so we are everytime too. As a people questing for universal justice we transcend space and time. 

"take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’.. ‘I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.’" 

What is new is the force of global technology that allows us to communicate, mobilise and thereby publically constitute ourselves across the planet. And that is totally unprecedented. But until we start using the amazing technological tools at our disposal to create a genuinely democratic, visible 'Other' to the capitalist / interstate mode of globalisation I really do not think we can expect people power to come to its fruition as a force for real change in the world. As activists, we are in a ghetto. Maybe the biggest ghetto in human history, but a ghetto nevertheless. We need to break out by calling upon the highest, and best plan ever, and mobilising according to the principles of the society we want to see born. A decentralised, joined up movement for the best dream of all, rooted in local communities and thereby able to speak to everyone in the context of local conditions, would be very difficult to hold back, because people would begin to get what
 we are about. And, eventually this localism, pursued properly will reduce emissions as so much of what we burn is in transport. And we will become what we are destined to be the force for real change at the national, international and global level that transforms the world for the good of all. Of course it needs to happen quickly to save people, as you suggest, which is why I am writing with urgency. 

>Who has this right to decide that its Ok if some of us die? who decides who dies? sorry I dont think anyone is qualified to make that call. how can all be welcome when some of us think its OK to shift carbon from one accounting head to another for money : no matter how much money.  

Sorry I didn't mean to say that everyone is welcome in a simplistic sense, although I do think everyone is capable of hearing the truth about how we should live and act, and that no-one is damned until the final moment of truth either devours or save them. There are those who will fight us, as they always have done, and they will of course lose. But those who hear the truth of what we say, that the world's salvation lies in the making of a new society, built in every local community but joined up across the world, not state not market but independent civil society; they will come. And they may well come from unexpected places - just as the nay sayers will. And the nay sayers are the culprits for the deaths you speak of, those who put their store in the state and the market place to fix things, or who just don't care. And the longer those people drag their feet, the longer the process will take, and the more people will unnecessarily die, and it is their
 responsibility, and theirs alone, as it always has been.

>From the same passage: "All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left...Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’ " http://niv.scripturetext.com/matthew/25.htm   

I know it's unfashionable to say it. But if we are believers we should pray for divine assistance to take us out of our ghetto. And if we are not, we should call upon whatever force we do believe in to come to our collective aid, and then, from there we should start trusting that history is on our side, and start mobilising for a new society, with completely different values, and new cultural engine at heart, and beginning in every community, because there are people dying, in all sorts of ways, everywhere.

That's our calling, isn't it? 

A Salaam Aleykum

Mark

Queries:
 who decides where the barricades are set?  
how do we set these without enough information being given to the "grass roots"?
Who decides what this information should be.
this is a lot more complicated than a simple call.
Who decides whether the call is for 2degrees or 1.5 degrees or 0.8 degrees which is already bad enough if you are one of the communities who are dying of drought or flood.
Who has this right to decide that its Ok if some of us die? who decides who dies?
sorry I dont think anyone is qualified to make that call.
how can all be welcome when some of us think its OK to shift carbon from one accounting head to another for money : no matter how much money.  

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 10:39 PM, Mark Barrett <marknbarrett at googlemail.com> wrote:
What we need for a paradigm shift is to organise ourselves under one banner, in which all are welcome, and across ALL the local communities in the world. How many times does it need to be said, before we make the simple call out for ALL local groups to converge on the local arms of the state at the same time, and then build our networks from there, and to do it again and again and again, to build local groupings across all th ideological divides, and thereby at last to carve out the visible, independent spaces, in every locality, where a new sovereignty - based on stewardship - can be realised, so then finally everyone can chose which side of the barricade they are on, and so the world can no longer misrepresent, or ignore what we really stand for?   

2009/12/19 >
Dear all 
I am not comfortable truly with the hype of considering anyone "winners" in this "game".  Please can we stop adopting the language of military strategy and corporate manipulation.  It affects how we perceive and think. We are all losers already.  every one has lost for the last 25 years at least since climate change was recognised: hundreds of species exterminated , already human death tolls and suffering have reached incredible levels. We are not trying to win : we are trying desperately to salvage life and lives from the wreck of greed and hubris.  Can we finally stop buying the spin and re-work our fundamentals, our approaches and our own thinking?  And stop being so manic or epressive about what we should have known would be a very hard struggle ?  We are talking of a paradigm shift here, people.  Do you really think it is going to come from those in power?

Anna 

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 3:51 AM, Patrick Bond wrote:

(You do the spotting of biases/ignorance.)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/copenhagen/article6961367.ece
1830 Looking at the latest draft - which is the one Greenpeace must have been reacting to, and it does indeed read a bit like a G8 communique. Let's gut it a bit and try to see who's come out on top from the various tussles over the past fortnight. Remember it's only a draft.

Firstly the name: Copenhagen Accord. That is stronger than the Copenhagen Declaration or somesuch, so it is an international agreement, which makes it binding in at least a moral sense.
Winners: the Danes, unless this treaty is trashed in which case they might ask for its name to be changed.
There's no explicit binding target on temperature - just a recognition of the "scientific view" that limiting temperature rise to 2C would "enhance our long-term cooperative action to combat climate change".

Winners: Oil producers. Losers: Small island states, LDCs, the planet as a whole
A new clause further down the document says later reviews of the Copenhagen Accord would look at a target of 1.5C.
Winners: Tuvalu and the low-lying islands (if that review ever takes place)
The parties agree that that deep carbon emission cuts are required, according to the science, and "with a view to reduce global emissions by 50 per cent in 2050 below 1990 levels, taking into account the right to equitable access to atmospheric space".

Winners: the emerging economies including Brazil will be pleased by that last clause.
No specific target on "global peaking" (the point at which emissions peak - a crucial target for scientists) which the UK had wanted to be set at 2020. Instead the text says: "We should co-operate in achieving the peaking of global and national emissions as soon as possible, recognising that the time frame for peaking will be longer in develoing countires and bearing in mind that social and economic development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of developing countries..."

Winners: Again, China, Brazil and other emerging economies such as India. There's no target on their peaking.
Developed countries commit to reducing their emissions individually or jointly by at least 80 per cent by 2050. Individual 2020 targets to be listed in an appendix (which is still blank). Verification to be rigorous, robust and transparent. The EU was offering the 80 per cent target.

Winners: In the longer term, the planet.
But there is no overall target on emission limits or "mitigation actions" by major emerging economies, such as China, India and Brazil. An earlier draft today set a 15-30 per cent target. Instead individual country targets will be listed in an appendix to the accord. Countries will be asked to report on their progress every two years via national communications - but there's no comeback if they're lying.

If countries want international support for their mitigation actions - China and Brazil have made clear that they don't - then they face international measurement.
Winners: China and Brazil. Losers: US and EU
Caveat: there is a square bracket [Consideration to be inserted US and China], which suggests that this battle is not yet over.
Funding: developed countries are promised "scaled up, new and additional, predictable and adequate funding" to help them avert and cope with climate change. They will get $30 billion in "fast start" financing over the next three years and the developed countries also "support the goal of mobilising jointly $100 billion a year by 2020. This funding will be a mixture of public, private , bilateral and multilateral and "alternative" - ie market-based - finance. The multilateral funding will be channeled through trust funds on which developed and developing countries have equal representation.

Winners: developing countries, especially the Africans and small island states. Developed world will be happy to have flexibility in funding
There will be a review of this accord and its implementation by 2016, including the 1.5C target. But there is no commitment to making it a legally binding international treaty and no mention of the next COP meeting in Mexico City next year, which an earlier draft had suggested should be held within six months.

Winners: China and G77 countries, which wanted to avoid new international treaty - but, interestingly, the only mention of the Kyoto Protocol, which they want to keep, is in the preamble, which endorses the decision that the KP working group should continue its work on a new round of commitments by developed countries under that pact. That omission could be read both ways.

Overall winners: You do the math. 

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list
Campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/campaignforrealdemocracy/attachments/20091221/2ad3b586/attachment-0001.htm>