[g8-sheffield] Terror n torture

[Dan]

I didn't ever suggest making any kind of statement against terrorism.  I 
only wanted to get two things across:

1. It actually does happen.  It ain't just a government ploy to oppress us.
2. This being the case, can we think up imaginitive ways of protest that 
don't just go 'woo! look! you're more of a terrorist than the terrorists 
you nasty politician you!'

Dan


Chris Malins wrote:

> 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
>>