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

[so204ms at gold.ac.uk]

The Alexander Palace event sounds great

Re celebs - I think it is useful to know who is using who and yeah why not
use a resource if it makes things move forward, but really in the longer
term I don't think celeb culture is the way to save the planet

re the point that government is not responsible, we are etc - well that
allows an elected govt to wash its hands completley and is precisely what
they have been saying (check statements for Dept for communities and local
government, dept for enironment and climate change etc) - citizens need to
be responsible; as a govt our hands are tied, we can't act blah blah

it is a both / and thing clearly but there is a place for accusatory and
critical thinking and speaking because frankly it is in the intersts of
power to hide its sources and dumb down the arguments - all that of that
can be done in a happy positive way but given the nature of activists it
will probably get a bit tetchy from time to time and that's fine too -
"power yields nothing without a demand" Frederick Douglas 1817-95 US
Abolitionist - who went on to say
'if there is no struggle there is no progress.  Those who profess freedom
and deprecate agitation are wo/men who want crops without poughing up the
ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning"

I'm not saying this is what is being suggested, I just like the quote ;))

matt


On Wed, January 6, 2010 6:41 pm, Anna Bragga wrote:
>

> This sounds like a fantastic idea.... coming hot on the heels of the
> failed Copenhagen talks, this theme of building the movement for social
> and environmental change locally, building people power is bang on
> target. I love the idea of 'spotlighting the People's New World Order'
> even if it means using celebs to achieve it. Ha!
>
>
> Anna
>
>
> Date: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 16:42:49 +0000
> From: marknbarrett at googlemail.com
> To: info at thepeoplespalace.org.uk
> CC: campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
> Subject: Re: [Campaignforrealdemocracy] Peoples Assemblies Everywhere Fwd:
> [climate09-int] Video: The People's Assembly
>
>
> Thanks for this Sally.
> Isn't it as it always has been about making an Exodus, from this world to
> the next, Promised Land? :-) Mark
>
>
> 2010/1/6 info <info at thepeoplespalace.org.uk>
>
>
> On the note of celebrity culture taking a stronger hold, I don't think
> there is any harm in that, just as long as the celebrities themselves
> take responsibility for supporting a global movement for change.
>
>
> I am now working on getting a city festival at Alexandra Palace and
> speaking with influential PRs who have contacts with Harvey Goldsmith and
> Sting (and more). My thoughts are that we are all increasingly aware that
> the government are not responsible. The next step then is to realise that
> we are.
>
>
> The younger generations have no interest in political parties because
> they just do not work. We need to get to some middle ground, leveraging
> the power of celebrity culture into the spotlight of The Peoples New
> World Order. Taking the intelligent progressive tactics held by groups
> such as CRD and blending it with something celebratory not accusatory
> that captures the hearts of even the most apathetic.
>
>
> Changing the dream is something that has been popping into my head (and
> out of my mouth) lots of late. That's all we need to do. Stop fighting
> and directing our attention at what doesn't work. Stop heading down the
> road towards individual monetary gain which is the biggest illusion we
> face and start dreaming instead about what we can do together. That is
> the new dream and money is simply a tool.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 21 Dec 2009, at 13:35, Matthew Scott wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Maria
>
>
> Were X factor for politics to happen, as Simon Cowell has floated, and
> Cameron / Brown welcomed, I’d like to think it would be a leap forward
> but progressive politics often don’t make for soundbites, so the
> challenge would be to ensure public opinion was not manipulated to a
> lower level.  We are not starting form a level playing field but from a
> place where the media has polluted to the virtual commons.  Nick Davis’
> book ‘flat earth news’ is good on this and I spotted this quote in it
> from Freud’s nephew, Edward Bernays, who was the founder of modern day PR
> and advertising:
>
>
> The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organised habits and
> opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society.
> Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an
> invisible government which is the true ruling power
 In almost every act
> of our daily lives.. . In our social conduct and our ethical thinking, we
> are dominated by the relatively small number of persons
 who pull the
> wires which control the public mind
>
> (Edward Bernays)
>
>
> My kids loved X factor this year but I worry about all that hype that
> values celebrity going even further into civil society – maybe it is
> coming anyway and we just need to be ready
>
> Best wishes
>
>
>
> Matt
>
>
>
>
> Matthew Scott
>
>
> CSC Director
>
>
> 020 7336 9461
>
>
> Work mobile: 07827 258411
>
>
> Website: www.communitysectorcoalition.org.uk
>
>
>
> This message is intended only for the use of the addressee and may
> contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from
> disclosure under applicable law.  If the reader of this message is not
> the intended recipient, or the employee or agent responsible for
> delivering the message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified
> that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is
> strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please
> notify us immediately by return e-mail and delete this e-mail and all
> attachments from your system.
>
>
> From: mariastella nash [mailto:mariastellanash at yahoo.com]
> Sent: 21 December 2009 04:29
> To: Reclaiming Spaces; campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org; Mark
> Barrett
>
>
> Subject: Re: [Campaignforrealdemocracy] Peoples Assemblies Everywhere
> Fwd: [climate09-int] Video: The People's Assembly
>
>
> 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/article69613
> 67.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
>
>
>
> This message has been scanned by vsl mailsafe
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list
> Campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy
>
>
>
> www.thepeoplespalace.org.uk
>
> 07989 513 577
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list
>
>
> Campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> "We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet /Yet is there no
> man speaketh as we speak in the street.”
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> View your other email accounts from your Hotmail inbox. Add them now.
> http://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/186394592/direct/01/__________________________
> _____________________
> Campaignforrealdemocracy mailing list
> Campaignforrealdemocracy at lists.aktivix.org
> https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/campaignforrealdemocracy
>
>