[g8-sheffield] Re: [ssf] To agree a specific statement of non-violence

[Philippe Deux]

> Neither would it do any good to hassle the group into an explicit 
> statement of support for anything that in practise individuals would 
> not do. This sort of ridiculous finnicky discussion is exactly what I
>  had hoped we could avoid. I think that its pretty clear that several
>  people are explicitly unhappy with supporting any violent actions,


In some other persons' view, including myself, it was pretty clear that
some persons wanted to exclude some others on the (fictional) ground
that they would support any violent actions;
I am entitled to feel this as an insult; but i won't, perhaps it's just
carelessness on your part;
who, please tell me *who* is hassling any group into explicit statements
of support for anything bla bla...? ?
second: the consensus should be respected: you are breaching it whenever
it does not suit your expectations.

what are you really talking about? propaganda towards the media? then
your attempt should be more clearly drafted.
As it is, what i *would appreciate* from you and from *anybody* is openness:
Someone cool enough to stand up and say:
look, the condition for this group (btw how are you entitled to speak in
the name of the whole group?) to do these things and perform these
actions is that we sign a statement of non-violence and give it to our
chief inspector;
but you keep not saying this kind of things...

reasons: higher authority.
o butterflies



  I don't really see how the statement could be construed to exclude
> legitimate self-defense, or how that is important.
o yell!



Chris Malins wrote:
> I don't really see how the statement could be construed to exclude 
> legitimate self-defense, or how that is important. I hardly see us 
> standing by arguing semantics wghile some poor sod gets the shit 
> kicked out of him. Neither would it do any good to hassle the group 
> into an explicit statement of support for anything that in practise 
> individuals would not do. This sort of ridiculous finnicky discussion
>  is exactly what I had hoped we could avoid. I think that its pretty 
> clear that several people are explicitly unhappy with supporting any 
> violent actions, and therefore such actions will not receive any 
> support from the G8-Sheffield group. This is the point, and we need 
> to move on and start organising.
> 
> Chris
> 
> Dave Havard wrote:
> 
>>> 1) To agree a specific statement of non-violence. "The Sheffield 
>>> G8
>> 
>>>> group stands in opposition to the inhuman actions carried out 
>>>> in our names by the G8 governments. We set ourselves against 
>>>> the open violence of war or the hidden violence of destroying 
>>>> civil liberties and enforced poverty. We will support in any 
>>>> way we can, any action, by any group, about and against the G8,
>>>>  as long as this is done in a spirit of non-violence to achieve
>>>>  aims consistent with our philosophy."
>>> 
>>> 2 problems arisen. The statement of non-violence could eventually
>>>  be considered for revision, provided the last sentence is 
>>> altered. As it is worded, it was felt to exclude self-defense and
>>>  looks to ambiguous.
>>> 
>> How about : "...........in a spirit of respect for all people. "
>> 
>> Peace, Dave _______________________________________________ ssf 
>> mailing list ssf at lists.aktivix.org 
>> http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
>> 
>