[g8-sheffield] Terror n torture

[Chris Malins]

I agree with Dan that we are not in favour of terrorism, but a couple of 
points might be relevant:

1) If we take a pure definition of terrorism, as applied to a citizenry 
(which is the standard implication from government) nothing was in place 
to prevent a terrorist act against Derby and the people of Derby 
themselves. If terrorists with the aim of terrorising the population 
wanted to, the could easily have attcked some populated place in Derby 
at the time of the talks, sending the message that they will target the 
city hosting any such meeting, a good, terror inspiring message. The 
police cordon was geared to prevent action against the summit itself, 
which is less clearly terrorist (even in their terms). A case could be 
made that members of government represent relatively legitimate targets 
for attack - certainly an attack on the conference venue would not be 
calculated to terrify the populace, who had conveiently been kept well 
away. It would be an attempt to intimidate the ministers etc themselves. 
This is standard practice in international relations, eg. hard American 
rhetoric in Saddam pre-gulf war 2.

2) If we have a 'statement against terrorism', it is unlikely to be 
usefully reported or taken in context. I am cautious of subscribing to a 
terminology that reinforces the propagande of the war machine, it puts 
our own output against us.

'We do not support terrorism', says the protester. 'Aha', says the 
policeman, 'then oyu concede that it is a major problem, and that we 
need to police it heavily'. 'Well, no', says the protester, a little 
taken aback, 'Obviously measures may need to be taken to defend against 
bombings, but what you are doing is anti-democratic and over the top'. 
'But you admit that the threat is major, so major that it cannot be 
glossed over - why else does your group need to have a statement against 
terrorism, except that you agree that an act of terror is likely at this 
conference?'. The protester looks non-plussed, but retorts 'But we only 
have that statement so that its clear we don't support terrorism. Its 
really for the media, and not so much specifically about today as about 
things in general.' Policeman in reply, 'If what you are doing has no 
link to terrorism, I don't think you'd need to say anything. I do many 
things in my day, and rarely feel the need to explicitly renounce 
terrorism in any of them. You've just admitted that you are afraid of 
being implicated with the terrorists, come down to the station.'

Well, cleartly I shouldn't be writing thetatre, but you get the drift. 
This constant demand that Muslims and protesters should renounce 
terrorism fuels the assumption that it is far worse than war or 'trade 
violence' - it sends the clear message that if you have legitmate 
grievances with government, it is incumbent upon you to protect the 
system that oppresses you from your mroe nagry sympathisers.

3) Everytime we produce a statement about somethign it causes stupid 
arguments like this one that can have no possible bearing on what we 
actually need to do. Even without statements against violence or 
terrorism, I hope that the group would feel able to refuse requests to 
smuggle bombs into the summit.

Chris

Dan wrote:
> Yes, they use terrorism as a justification for war, oppression, and 
> keeping us in fear.  ("Of course the people don't want war... etc")
> 
> My point is - none of this changes that fact that there is, in fact, a 
> terrorist threat.  (One year on from the Madrid bombings, who would deny 
> the threat still exists?  Except perhaps a few folk who think 
> governments would bomb their own citizens for political capital?  I 
> personally think we should get as far away from such conspiracy theories 
> as humanly possible.)
> 
> And of course, there's a blurring of the line between terrorism and 
> 'violent protest' (as the Star predicts will happen in June.)  Which is 
> why we need to be all the sharper in making the distinctions crystal 
> clear - to the media especially.
> 
> Going about shouting "bush, blair, CIA, how many kids did you kill 
> today?" ain't gonna do that.
> 
> The cordon in Derby checked a top official of the World Bank several 
> times before he got through.  Cars and personnel were all checked 
> thoroughly.
> The police need a strategy for both making sure they do everything to 
> stop a bomb attack - and however unlikely, it's not impossible - as well 
> as containing protestors.  If I were in charge of policing such an 
> event, protestors would be the least of my worries.
> I'm not saying it's a good thing - I'm just saying it's a thing!  And 
> replying, 'they need terrorism to justify permanent war' still does 
> nothing to actually address the fact of that terrorism, or the use of it 
> to engender more fear.
> *This* is what I'm saying we have to imagine some way of dealing with - 
> along with shining a light (as much as we can) on things like the global 
> torture network / arms fairs in London / erosion of civil liberties...
> 
> And I'd also say that the global oil system is much more heavily 
> dependent on the fact that people continue to buy cars, and our goods 
> transport continues to need oil.  If you got rid of the fear, I don't 
> think anyone would be casting off their vehicles suddenly, or that we'd 
> need our ocean and road goods networks any less, to keep ourselves kept 
> in the style to which we're accustomed.
> 
> p.s. I'm more sort of arguing with myself here - just openly trying to 
> find some ways through to make June something different.  It's a very, 
> very rare chance that won't come again.  The spirit of the War or Terror 
> is coming to visit!  What are we going to do?
> 
> It seems to me that Derby has made a few people say, 'well - we don't 
> just want to end up in a protest pen!'
> But equally, the vital thing about protest - however 'successful' - has 
> always been to make it clear to all that there *is* opposition.  We need 
> to do something.  So - what are we going to do?
> 
> Dan
> ----
> 
> Chris wrote:
> 
>> Hi
>>
>> On Mon 21-Mar-2005 at 10:25:56AM +0000, Dan wrote:
>>  
>>
>>> We can argue all we like about 'yeah, but they're
>>> terrorists too!'  Nevertheless, the threat exists.
>>> That's what they're mainly policing, not us.
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Eh? The police operation in Derby was aimed at preventing
>> any decent protests happening and wasn't about preventing
>> a terrorist attack on the city...
>>  
>>
>>> Is G8 Sheffield against both?
>>>   
>>
>>
>> Of course!
>>
>> They appear to me to be two sides of the same coin -- the
>> UK / US governments / global capitalist oil based system
>> currently is heavily dependant on fear of terrorism, it's
>> this centuries equilivant of the cold war. They need
>> terrorism to justify their permanant war.
>>
>> Chris
>>
>>  
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> g8-sheffield mailing list
> g8-sheffield at lists.aktivix.org
> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/g8-sheffield
>