[matilda] the PGA - my little bit

[cuthbert at riseup.net]

hi everyone,

  Sorry for causing so much chaos and destruction but i got home from work
about 3 am, was a little tipsy and thought 'what the hell!'.  However on a
more serious note my last email reflects the fact that on wednesdays
meeting we could have ratified the PGA halmarks!  In my opinion
depending how we interpreted dan's contribution by email we would have
been within our right to.  From what i gathered i was the least in favour
and on a point a principle if the 7 other people decided that they really
wanted them i would have stood aside.  People have put quite abit of time
and effort into trying to sort out this PGA/ what the hell are we thing
and when nobody from the 'i really really dont want the PGA halmarks' camp
turned up it stole the opportunity from the people in favour of the PGA to
present their case.

My personal disagreements with the PGA halmarks are:
1)There is not a good enough reason to ratify them - the three reasons i
have been given to adopt them so far are symbolism, symbolism and that
they are a no sell-out clause (i realise that i have abbreviated and
generalised on this but - sorry).
2)There is a potential that they will be used to exclude/restrict/devalue
other peoples activities and these are activities that arent evil and
arent being carried out by state-infiltrators etc... but maybe arent as
political as people want them to be (e.g. art & music) or include trying
to persuade (lobby) certain NGOs or regeneration bodies etc...
3)If the PGA halmarks are our statement to the world then i think the
world (and therefore our attitude to it) is far too complex (mainly
because we are such a diverse group of people) to be summed up in a matter
of a few statements (maybe we could have the PGA as one of many
guidelines/mission statements).
4)I dont think that the PGA halmarks are designed to be applied to
building and are better applied to direct action/affinity group.
5)I think that this debate is a dishonest one because it appears to me
that part of the 'no sell-out clause' is the idea that alot of people dont
want the building to turn down the road of trying to apply for funding
etc... they would prefer it to be held in a more confrontational manner
(squatted etc...) and fear that unless they get the PGA halmarks ratified
we will slip down the road of becoming like so many other wooly-liberal
organisations.  If this is the case then we need to have a proper debate
on the medium term use of the building which includes information from the
legal and futures collective.

I have watched and participated in this debate for a while and in my
opinion my disagreements with the adopting the PGA halmarks are not based
on anything that can't be solved so if someone can allay my fears then
they can have my vote.  To be clear on this, i dont have a problem on the
wording of the halmarks or what they stand for, my main issue is about
whether they are suitible for the matilda collective and therefore whether
or not it is right for us to adopt them.

Lastly, i would like to assure those that were worried about an anarchist
dictatorship emerging(!) the people in the meeting were well aware of
other peoples feelings on the PGA halmarks and one of the reasons we
decided not to ratify was because we wanted to take into account how the
people who werent present at the meeting felt.

That is enough from me for now (although it might not be the last!)
cuthbert

P.S. I have just discovered a new reason to ratify the PGA halmarks - i
think it might be the only way to stop joe from moaning about them(!)