From shiar at riseup.net Thu Oct 2 22:06:53 2008 From: shiar at riseup.net (Shiar) Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2008 15:06:53 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] the relationship between No Borders and other (less radical) groups Message-ID: <54364.shiar.1222985213.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> Thought this could be a good thing for various NB groups to discuss and also within the network as a whole. >From a statement/article by the Birmingham Anti-Racist Campaign (ARC): http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/10/409808.html We were aware that at last year?s rally, members of Birmingham No Borders disagreed with our decision to have a banner stating ?Amnesty Now?. But we were not aware, until reading an addition posted on our article promoting this year?s event, that NoBorders had decided not to work with us again because of this. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/birmingham/2008/09/408784.html?c=on#c203883 At last years event we had many other banners ?No one is Illegal?, ?Asylum is not a Crime? and ?Freedom of Movement for All? and throughout the rally the message was firmly that of freedom of movement for all. ARC does not campaign around amnesty. It was felt that the ?Amnesty Now? banner alongside a ?No One is Illegal? banner was a way to challenge the idea of selected amnesty and to get the no one is illegal message across to members of the public. We agree with the Birmingham NoBorders statement on amnesty. http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/birmingham/2007/06/374302.html?c=on We also agree with the politics of the wider NoBorders network. We are confused by Birmingham NoBorders decision to no longer work with us or at least engage in our events of solidarity with migrants as our politics are not in conflict. We feel that likeminded groups should do all we can to seek out alliances with each other. If Birmingham NoBorders really does feel our politics are so much in conflict that they can not collaborate with us, we would welcome further discussion. Birmingham No Borders' response: There is no 'decision' by Birmingham No Borders to not work with the Birmingham Anti-Racist Campaign as such. Rather, we felt that we do not agree with ARC on certain issues, such as an asylum amnesty, so we decided to not get involved in these specific things. We have a lot of respect for ARC and what they do, and we have personal friendships with some of them. However, there are personal and political conflicts between us and some new members who joined ARC recently; and, from experience, we are unable to work with these individuals. As to the No Borders banners, we suspected they were being used as a 'Trojan horse', so were careful who to give them to if we could not participate - although, for this specific event, it was just a matter of bad timing (the banners were supposed to go to the Freedom of Movement protest in Manchester or the anti-fascist demo in Stoke). Another difficulty in the relationship between ARC and No Borders is that ARC is mostly into social and public events, lobbying and the like, while No Borders is more into direct and confrontational action. But this, of course, does not mean the two groups cannot work together. Indeed, they have in the past, as with the joint pickets at the immigration reporting centre in Solihull a couple of years ago. However, differences have occasionally arisen while drafting leaflets, organising events or trying to push things further. We would welcome an open discussion about these issues and encourage other No Borders groups around the country to do the same. In solidarity, Brum No Borders -- Shiar From shiar at riseup.net Sat Oct 4 14:13:16 2008 From: shiar at riseup.net (Shiar) Date: Sat, 4 Oct 2008 07:13:16 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] [Fwd: [noborders-uk] Network-Wide No Borders Gathering 8 & 9 November] Message-ID: <58222.shiar.1223129596.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [noborders-uk] Network-Wide No Borders Gathering 8 & 9 November From: "Thomas Cowan" Date: Sat, October 4, 2008 4:16 am To: noborders-uk at lists.riseup.net Cc: nbuk at lists.riseup.net -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ? Hi everyone, Just over a month till the next network-wide No Borders Gathering, to be held in Newcastle on 8 & 9 November. The Gathering will be a chance to discuss, network and plan, and to build on the discussions held at the last network-wide Gathering earlier this year. The Gathering is a colllectively organised event with shared responsibility for content and organisation, being co ordinated this time by people in Newcastle. It will take place on Saturday 8th and Sunday 9th November, starting 9am for breakfast for a 10am start each day, ending at 6pm on the Saturday and 2pm on the Sunday. Venue details and directions will be posted nearer the time. Accomodaton will be available. You can contact us at whydontyou at post.com if you'd like more info, would like to suggest items for discussion at the Gathering or would like to get involved. No Borders is a network of groups struggling for the freedom of movement for all and an end to all migration controls. We call for a radical movement against the system of control, dividing us into citizens and non-citizens. We demand the end of the border regime for everyone, including ourselves, to enable us to live another way, without fear, racism and nationalism. From hub13 at riseup.net Tue Oct 7 16:36:57 2008 From: hub13 at riseup.net (hub13 at riseup.net) Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 09:36:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] this no borders/arc spat Message-ID: <1951.hub13.1223397417.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> > Thought this could be a good thing for various NB groups to discuss and also within the network as a whole. If you say so. Frankly i wonder what national No Borders will make of this, but it's your call. >>From a statement/article by the Birmingham Anti-Racist Campaign (ARC): > http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/10/409808.html > > Birmingham No Borders' response: > When you say it's 'Birmingham No Borders' response, can people affirm that they all sign up to it? If not, then it's really a response by people who happen to be in No Borders, not a No Borders statement. > There is no 'decision' by Birmingham No Borders to not work with the Birmingham Anti-Racist Campaign as such. Rather, we felt that we do not agree with ARC on certain issues, such as an asylum amnesty, so we decided > to not get involved in these specific things. > Which was a statement released for the previous years event. At the time I agreed with it, but on reflection it seems a liitle pedantic, if understandable, when it was based on one banner, one slogan. It certainly doesn't seem a good enough reason not to have a No Borders presence at these events. I went to the sleepover this year but I didn't go to this years rally due to other commitments, but if you look at the report on this years event there's no sign of an amnesty slogan, and indeed the report affirms this. I quote: "At last years event we had many other banners ?No one is Illegal?, ?Asylum is not a Crime? and ?Freedom of Movement for All? and throughout the rally the message was firmly that of freedom of movement for all. ARC does not campaign around amnesty. It was felt that the ?Amnesty Now? banner alongside a ?No One is Illegal? banner was a way to challenge the idea of selected amnesty and to get the no one is illegal message across to members of the public. We agree with the Birmingham NoBorders statement on amnesty." So it seems this is something which has been inflated for the purposes of division. Interesting. I'e been told the real reason for the non-collaboration is because funky won't work with what he terms 'hippies'. Is that true? > We have a lot of respect for ARC and what they do, and we have personal friendships with some of them. However, there are personal and political conflicts between us and some new members who joined ARC recently; and, from experience, we are unable to work with these individuals. Agian as one of the 'individuals' concerned I would like to ask if this is a collective statement by Brum no Borders, and ask why Brum No Borders is allowing it's name to be used to further a long running hate campaign against two 'individuals' neither of whom had much to do with this years rally beyond facilitating some of the infrastructure. > As to the No Borders banners, we suspected they were being used as a 'Trojan horse', so were careful who to give them to if we could not participate - although, for this specific event, it was just a matter of bad timing (the banners were supposed to go to the Freedom of Movement protest in Manchester or the anti-fascist demo in Stoke). Again, this is just confusing. The two 'individuals' referred to above were involved in the procuring and making of those banners along with a couple of other people. They've always been a collective resource as far as I'm concerned. And i should like to point out that even people with an education in classical pre-history/myth have no idea what the 'trojan horse' refers to in this context, so heaven knows what people without the benefit of a classical education make of it. > We would welcome an open discussion about these issues Indeed, bring it on. If this is the case then I would like to ask if i have a right to reply to the extraordinary personal attack I beleive was made on me on this list a year or so ago as a direct response to an emergency anti-deportation campaign by 'funky' (whatever) ? I've not read the email, being rather more concerned with trying to prevent a deportation at the time, but I understand it contained a number of serious untruths about me and obviously that needs resolving. Certainly I cannot imagine why anyone in a truth-based Birmingham No Borders would have any problem with the two 'individuals' in question. No Borders, No nations. From shiar at riseup.net Wed Oct 8 13:57:41 2008 From: shiar at riseup.net (Shiar) Date: Wed, 8 Oct 2008 06:57:41 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] this no borders/arc spat In-Reply-To: <1951.hub13.1223397417.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> References: <1951.hub13.1223397417.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> Message-ID: <41639.shiar.1223474261.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> Here we go again! On Tue, October 7, 2008 9:36 am, hub13 at riseup.net wrote: >> Thought this could be a good thing for various NB groups to discuss and >> also within the network as a whole. > > If you say so. Frankly i wonder what national No Borders will make of > this, but it's your call. The relationship with other groups is a recurrent issue within the network. Other groups have had similar discussions and it was an issue at some of the national gatherings, such as the one in Glasgow last year. > When you say it's 'Birmingham No Borders' response, can people affirm that > they all sign up to it? If not, then it's really a response by people who > happen to be in No Borders, not a No Borders statement. The statement was drafted by myself and agreed by other *active* members of the collective. There was no consultation or discussion on this (open) list because some of the people concerned (yourself and some ARC members) are on the list too, so we would have probably run into a flame war and never agreed on a statement. By 'active memebers' i mean people who have been attending meetings (ok, we haven't had one for ages, but still) and actually doing stuff, as opposed to people who subscribe to the romantic No Borders ideals. So if you consider yourself a member of the collective because you believe in a border-free world, or happened to be at the Cottage when people had a meeting there, then maybe you should rethink that? A functional groups is as, if not more, important than worrying about appearing inclusive and the rest of it (obviously i don't mean we should be exclusive and cliquey, so please don't manipulate that!). >> There is no 'decision' by Birmingham No Borders to not work with the >> Birmingham Anti-Racist Campaign as such. Rather, we felt that we do not >> agree with ARC on certain issues, such as an asylum amnesty, so we >> decided to not get involved in these specific things. >> > Which was a statement released for the previous years event. At the time I > agreed with it, but on reflection it seems a liitle pedantic, if > understandable, when it was based on one banner, one slogan. It certainly > doesn't seem a good enough reason not to have a No Borders presence at > these events. Maybe you need to reflect again? It wasn't just based on "one banner or slogan" (although even that alone is sufficient imo), but also on discussions with ARC, including one at one of their meetings. That said, I know for sure that not all ARC members are on the same page politically. The decision, however, was about their collective decision to support, however vaguely, an asylum amnesty at the time. They may have changed their position since, but that's another discussion. > So it [the NB's statement about amnesty] seems this is something which > has been inflated for the purposes of division. You know that's rubbish, don't you? Is that what other ARC members would say? > Interesting. I'e been told the real reason for the > non-collaboration is because funky won't work with what he terms > 'hippies'. Is that true? That's one additional (and more recent) reason, and it's certainly not just Phunkee and not 'non-collaboration' in an absolute sense. Besides, no one has ever mentioned the word "hippy" here. No Borders and IWW are not interchangeable, you know! >> We have a lot of respect for ARC and what they do, and we have personal >> friendships with some of them. However, there are personal and political >> conflicts between us and some new members who joined ARC recently; and, >> from experience, we are unable to work with these individuals. >> > Agian as one of the 'individuals' concerned I would like to ask if this is > a collective statement by Brum no Borders, and ask why Brum No Borders is > allowing it's name to be used to further a long running hate campaign > against two 'individuals' neither of whom had much to do with this years > rally beyond facilitating some of the infrastructure. As i said, it is a collective position. Think of it this way: There are two (or more) people who wouldn't work together. One is a founding member of the collective, is committed and reliable and has actually done shit. The other has almost never been to a meeting or committed to anything (and i won't say anything more lest you consider it a 'personal vendetta'). Who would you choose to work with? > Again, this is just confusing. The two 'individuals' referred to above > were involved in the procuring and making of those banners along with a > couple of other people. They've always been a collective resource as far > as I'm concerned. A collective resource for the collective, not anyone in the street who wants to use it. They are a political statement and are easily attributed to No Borders. So if the collective decides that they (or the group's name, for that matter) shouldn't be used at certain things, they have every right to do so. That's another political statement. And don't you think it's a bit pathetic that someone would try to reclaim a "collective resource" because they put some effort into producing it once upon a time? > And i should like to point out that even people with an > education in classical pre-history/myth have no idea what the 'trojan > horse' refers to in this context, so heaven knows what people without the > benefit of a classical education make of it. "Trojan horse", which come from the Greek mythology, means using something to deceive a group and get in only to attack it from the inside. It is widely used as a metaphor and people understand what it means. There's even a Hollywood film about it (Troy, 2004). >> We would welcome an open discussion about these issues > > Indeed, bring it on. Note this was mainly addressing ARC. > If this is the case then I would like to ask if i > have a right to reply to the extraordinary personal attack I beleive was > made on me on this list a year or so ago as a direct response to an > emergency anti-deportation campaign by 'funky' (whatever)? I guess you're referring to this thread: https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/noborders-brum/2007-July/thread.html#345 As i said then, "anti-deportation campaigns are serious business; they're not FnB or social centres; fucking them up could mean fucking up someone's life! So please keep that in mind." https://lists.aktivix.org/pipermail/noborders-brum/2007-July/000345.html Oh, and it's spelled Phunkee, and I bet you know that well. So please keep your bad jokes to yourself. It is funny that you don't consider this a personal abuse too!! > Certainly I cannot imagine why anyone in a truth-based Birmingham No > Borders would have any problem with the two 'individuals' in question. For the reasons stated in the statement: "There are personal and political conflicts between us and some new members who joined ARC recently; and, from experience, we are unable to work with these individuals." I don't understand why you're putting individuals in quotation marks and I don't think it is of any use to go into these personal and political conflicts on lists. It's been done before and it's not getting anywhere. --- Shiar From mike-d at riseup.net Wed Oct 8 23:21:29 2008 From: mike-d at riseup.net (Mike D) Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 00:21:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [noborders-brum] Response to no borders/arc spat Message-ID: <62516.mike-d.1223508089.squirrel@auk.riseup.net> > Dear Hub13, > > I am a member of Birmingham No Borders and I agree with the > sentiments expressed within the Birmingham No Borders statement. The > statement was drafted by a member (Shiar) and agreed consensually > with other active members. This would qualify it as a statement made > by Birmingham No Borders. > > It was my understanding that ARC have campaigned on the basis of > Asylum Amnesty prior to last years event. members of Birmingham No > Borders had indeed attended an ARC meeting where they had challenged > this agenda to no avail. ARC had made no public change to their > stance at this point. As previously stated, No Borders has always > stood for Asylum for all, not a selected few. The change to ARC's > stance on Amnesty is a development which is applauded and welcomed. > Furthermore, the Birmingham No Borders statement states:- > > "We have a lot of respect for ARC and what they do, and we have > personal friendships with some of them....this of course, does not > mean the two groups cannot work together. Indeed, they have in the > past". I would have imagined that this would have been interpreted > as an olive branch rather than "inflating division" as you state. > > Birmingham No Borders feel they cannot work with you (as do a > significant number of activists in Birmingham who I have personally > spoken to) for a plethora of reasons. Yourself and your partner were > involved in a social centre project in Birmingham a few years back. > You were disruptive, intimidating, and abusive to other > collective members. You repeatedly broke consensus, which > resultingly compromised the project, whilst your partner took every > measure possible to cover up your behaviour in an attempt to prevent you from being held to account for your actions. > > As a few members of the collective later learned, yourself, your > partner and another individual conspired to use the property as a > place for yourselves to live and run as a 'social centre'. This was > contrary to the aim of reinstating the building to be used as a > *locally* run community centre, which was consensually agreed by the > collective, and more importantly by a large number of people in the > local community. Clearly such selfishness and self-interest has no > place in activism. Many people felt alienated by your behaviour and > subsequently left the campaign. To what degree this was intentional > we can only speculate. Furthermore, yourself and your partner had > previously compromised another social centre project in Birmingham > with far more serious consequences which I will not discuss here. > Since the demise of this social centre, your partner has played a > significant role in attempting to rehabilitate your reputation, > emotionally blackmailing a variety of people into withdrawing their > critisms of you. Thankfully your partner's attempts to do this have > failed as people realised they were being manipulated. Without an > honest admission from yourself regarding your behaviour, it was > deemed that history was likely to repeat itself if you were included > in Birmingham No Borders. Excluding you and your partner was to > maintain the integrity of Birmingham No Borders rather than a 'hate > campaign'. > > I notice that you have not included your true identity in this > email. In the past you have used a number of different email > addresses and handles to pretend to be different people whilst > involved in activist projects. When confronted you have argued > argued that this is a 'security measure', however you have also used > it to manipulate discussion on email lists. This is an abuse of > anonymity, I am sure members of a "truth based" No Borders would > appreciate a little more transparency. > > Regarding the No Border banners, these were made specifically for > the No Borders demo in Harmondsworth in 2006 by members of No > Borders. The banners can be seen here at the Harmondsworth demo in > photos 4 and 5:- > > https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/birmingham/2006/04/337973.html > > I believe the "Trojan Horse" reference was made to refer to the > attempts by yourself and your partner to gain possession of these > banners under the guise that you would use them at the ARC demo. > From personal experience you could not be trusted to return these > banners for use as a "collective resource". > > Finally, I interpreted the invitation to discuss the issue of > working with other groups rather than the disruption > and meddling of two individuals. This of course would be a > constructive use of time for national No Borders groups. > > > > Mike From noidea at riseup.net Fri Oct 10 10:28:07 2008 From: noidea at riseup.net (noidea at riseup.net) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 03:28:07 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] Response to no borders/arc spat Message-ID: <1259.noidea.1223634487.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> Hi all Some extremely serious allegations have been made about me and my partner over the last few years. I have felt extremely intimidated and frustrated, especially as there is no real way this can be resolved ie. the movement does not have a grievance procedure. We are accused of not wanting to face the truth but then the allegations against us range between: 1) outright lies 2) extreme exageration - bare no resemblance to the truth. 3) have some truth in them but twisted to put us in the worst possible light. I agree with Korvin's email apart from I thought his "mis-spelling" of phunkee was pointless, (but hardly could be defined as personal abuse compared to the level of abuse that has been levelled at him over the years). He agrees that it was somewhat pointless; it was in the second draft but a third draft was intended where it may have been removed; the 2nd draft email was mistakenly sent in haste. Apart from that "mispelling", we both sign up to and affirm it's content. I have not got time to respond more fully right now, but I have ignored this for too long. But then I have no idea what the way forward is... Val From phunkee at riseup.net Fri Oct 10 11:34:18 2008 From: phunkee at riseup.net (phunkee at riseup.net) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 12:34:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [noborders-brum] Response to no borders/arc spat In-Reply-To: <1259.noidea.1223634487.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> References: <1259.noidea.1223634487.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> Message-ID: <58668.phunkee.1223638458.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> > I have not got time to respond more fully right now, but I have ignored > this for too long. But then I have no idea what the way forward is... > > Val Hi Val and Korvin, This list was intended to be for announcements from Noborders Birmingham. It's clearly not the place to rehearse these arguments again and again. It's now very clear, that active members of this Noborders collective do not want to work with you and that's our prerogative. Could you please respect our wishes and leave us alone to get on with the activism and campaigning we're committed to. phunkee From mike-d at riseup.net Fri Oct 10 13:13:59 2008 From: mike-d at riseup.net (Mike D) Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:13:59 +0100 (BST) Subject: [noborders-brum] Response to no borders/arc spat In-Reply-To: <1259.noidea.1223634487.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> References: <1259.noidea.1223634487.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> Message-ID: <8337.mike-d.1223644439.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> Hi Val, "..the movement does not have a grievance procedure. We are accused of not wanting to face the truth.." The movement does have a grievance procedure, which is sitting down and talking problems through. This has been attempted numerous times with Korvin to absolutely no avail. You cannot accuse us of having not made an effort. There is a total lack of sincerity on Korvin's part to resolve his personal problems and alter his behaviour, which are either side-stepped or outright denied. I have even witnessed him use you as a tool to ridicule our efforts; he would stare smirking at me whilst we were discussing these problems, and the second I confronted him he would change his facial expression and act suprised and astounded at my allegations. I remember witnessing your profound irreconcilable confusion at this situation. He is not willing to be honest with you, never mind anyone else. As a result we would be fools to attempt a "grievance procedure" again. "I have felt extremely intimidated and frustrated" Val, please do not play the victim here, we have always had one simple request which is for Korvin to stay away from us. Ever since we chose to exclude Korvin *both of you* have pursued *us* and provoked us in numerous ways: shouting at us on the street or in the pub, snide provocations/trolling which you know are going to be met with an apt response, and now attempting to put a wedge between us and other groups. There is no reason for you to feel 'intimidated', this has been instigated by you. You even systematically seeked out every person who you learnt had a criticism of Korvin, and confronted them using crying as a tool to guilt trip/emotionally blackmail them into submission, presumably in some Orwellian attempt to revise history because you cannot win the argument with objective discussion. No one wants to argue with someone in tears do they? Well, it didn't work. Everywhere you go, Korvin goes. And everything disruptive that Korvin does you trivialise, white-wash, or deny. So there is no solution to this problem. Period. Mike > Hi all > > Some extremely serious allegations have been made about me and my > partner > over the last few years. > > I have felt extremely intimidated and frustrated, especially as > there is > no real way this can be resolved ie. the movement does not have a > grievance procedure. We are accused of not wanting to face the > truth but > then the allegations against us range between: > > 1) outright lies > 2) extreme exageration - bare no resemblance to the truth. > 3) have some truth in them but twisted to put us in the worst > possible light. > > I agree with Korvin's email apart from I thought his "mis-spelling" > of > phunkee was pointless, (but hardly could be defined as personal > abuse > compared to the level of abuse that has been levelled at him over > the > years). He agrees that it was somewhat pointless; it was in the > second > draft but a third draft was intended where it may have been removed; > the > 2nd draft email was mistakenly sent in haste. Apart from that > "mispelling", we both sign up to and affirm it's content. > > I have not got time to respond more fully right now, but I have > ignored > this for too long. But then I have no idea what the way forward > is... > > Val > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > NoBorders-Brum mailing list > NoBorders-Brum at lists.aktivix.org > https://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/noborders-brum > From shiar at riseup.net Sun Oct 12 10:22:40 2008 From: shiar at riseup.net (Shiar) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 03:22:40 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] [Fwd: [nbuk] Call-out for day of action: Shut Down BMI Day- 20th Oct] Message-ID: <56536.shiar.1223806960.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [nbuk] Call-out for day of action: Shut Down BMI Day- 20th Oct From: noborderswales at riseup.net Date: Sun, October 12, 2008 1:48 am To: "list" -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Call-out leaflet: http://noborderswales.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/shutdown-bmi-day-leaflet1.pdf Shut down BMI Airlines day! Starting 20th October 2008 http://noborderswales.wordpress.com/2008/10/12/shut-down-bmi-airlines-day-20th-october/ In 2007 the UK government deported 63,140 migrants. Airline companies are a key link in the deportation industry. Without them it would be very difficult, if not impossible, for the state to implement this aspect of the migration regime and there can be no migration controls without deportations. People who are being deported are often handcuffed on the flight and there have been a number reports of physical assaults on deportees by the security personnel who escort them. On 20th September 2008, No Borders South Wales activist Babi Badalov was deported on a BMI flight to Azerbaijan, where has experienced physical abuse and state persecution. Despite hundreds of telephone calls, emails and faxes to BMI raising objections to the removal, BMI chose to ignore this and ensured the deportation took place. BMI is the UK?s second largest full service airline with reported profits of ?15.5 million in 2007. The airline is responsible for carrying migrants who are being deported from the UK against their will by the British Government. BMI employees told those ringing on the day that BMI could not refuse to fly Babi and it was out of their control. However, other airlines have refused to fly deportees in the past including XL Airways who announced in 2007 that they would no longer carry failed asylum-seekers who were being forcibly removed from the UK. BMI must be made aware of the impact of their actions on the lives of the people they deport and how their image and business will be affected if they continue this practice. We need to let them know that they can not take part in such activities without consequences. No Borders South Wales are calling for a sustained campaign against BMI. We call on BMI to no longer take part in the forced deportation of migrants. Contact BMI and register your disapproval at their role in deporting people back to places they do not wish to go back to, for whatever the reason this may be. Urge BMI to follow the other airlines who have taken an ethical stance and who refuse to carry out any more deportations. On the 20th October let?s hit BMI with everything we?ve got! Then let?s do this on the 20th of every month until BMI see sense. BMI Contact Details: BMI Contact Details Head office: Donington Hall, Castle Donington, Derby. DE74 2SB Switchboard Telephone: 01334 854 000 Open Mon-Fro 8am-6pm Customer Relations Tel: 01332 854 321 Fax: 01332 854 875 Open: Mon-Fri 9:30am-4:30pm Group Reservations Tel: 01332 854500 Open: Mon-Fri 9am- 5:30pm Baggage Claims Tel: 0115 8517 005 Open: Mon-Sun 8am- 8pm Highflyers Tel: 01332 854454 Fax: 01332 854 238 Special Assistance Tel: 0131 3445600 Textphone: 01332 854015 Open: Mon-Sun 7am-9pm Diamond Club Tel: 01332 854 274 Fax: 01623 724099 Open: Mon-Fri 8am-8pm Refunds Tel: 01332 854 534 Open: Mon-Fri 9am-3:30pm Technical Support Tel: 01509 686 628 Open: Mon-Sat 8am- 7pm Charter Dept Tel: 01332 854 656 Open Mon-Fri 9am-pm BMI Baby Reservations Tel: 01332 648 181 Mon-Sun 8am-8pm BMI flights operate from the following UK Airports: Aberdeen, Belfast (City), Birmingham, Bristol, Durham Tees Valley, East Midlands, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Jersey, Leeds Bradford, London City, London Gatwick, London, Heathrow, Manchester, Newcastle Intl, Norwich STOP DEPORTATIONS! From ncadc at ncadc.org.uk Sun Oct 12 11:17:06 2008 From: ncadc at ncadc.org.uk (John O) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 12:17:06 +0100 Subject: [noborders-brum] (no subject) Message-ID: Shut down BMI Airlines day! Monday 20th October 2008 Anyone up for a picket of BMI at Birmingham Airport next Monday Morning? John O -- From hub13 at riseup.net Sun Oct 12 16:37:32 2008 From: hub13 at riseup.net (hub13 at riseup.net) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 09:37:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] phunkees post In-Reply-To: <58668.phunkee.1223638458.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> References: <1259.noidea.1223634487.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> <58668.phunkee.1223638458.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> Message-ID: <1871.hub13.1223829452.squirrel@auk.riseup.net> > This list was intended to be for announcements from Noborders Birmingham. > It's clearly not the place to rehearse these arguments again and again. Nothing has been rehearsed. Again and again? Nonsense. There can be no lessons from phunkee about appropriate use of this or other lists. That I reject. Is there no depth of hypocrisy and manipulation to which you will not sink? I have made precisely one post on this subject, whereas you have used this list to publish a set of lies about me in a clear, open and unashamed attempt to disrupt an emergency anti-deportation campaign, and this is typical of your behaviour. I have never responded to this until now, but I'm afraid if you and Mike choose to use this list to publish lies about us, then a right to reply is basic. You do not have a monopoly on the truth, nor can you get away with allowing only your side of any story to be told. We are merely being reactive, we have not sought or promoted any conflict. > It's now very clear, that active members of this Noborders collective do > not want to work with you and that's our prerogative. Er, that's not under dispute. You seem to think we seek some alternative to this. That is not or never will be the case, unless we deem it absolutley necessary. We would not work with, or frankly turn our backs on, either you or Mike. You have sought to work with us once over the last year by requesting use of the banners. We have not sought to work with you once since the latter days of the Cottage occupation some two years ago. Where you get the notion we want to work with you from is a mystery to me. The problem is that you have for at least two years extemporised your perogative into an active hate campaign. This is hardly a secret, but it must be challenged and resolved. > Could you please respect our wishes and leave us alone to get on with the > activism and campaigning we're committed to. Again, the shameless hypocrisy of this man astonishes me. With regard to ourselves, he is not interested in truth. He is interested in power. please note that if this wasn't an activist related matter I would not be bothering emailing like this - I would be instructing solictors to write to you with certain demands regarding your criminal and unethical activity towards me and V - to wit, libel and harrasment. This does not affect my statutary rights. I care too much about the movement to take such obvious, if state-involving action, ie. legal action. I am forced to take this action instead; in other words, my selflessness is your protection. It is certainly a bizzare situation to be put in on a No Borders list and I trust that after all allegations have been refuted I shall never have to do this again. I do not propose to spend too much time providing evidence against the straightforward lies told about me and Val by phunkee and mike. I simply say that i refute utterly the allegations that i have been kicked out of multiple social centres, or that we 'moved in' to the Cottage Socila Centre. They are falsehoods and fabrications and can easily be shown up. However, it is not for us to disprove these bizzare, fairly-tale allegations. It is for the perpetrators of the lies to back them up with evidence. if not, they must withdraw them. From shiar at riseup.net Sun Oct 12 17:29:24 2008 From: shiar at riseup.net (Shiar) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:29:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51515.shiar.1223832564.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> On Sun, October 12, 2008 4:17 am, John O wrote: > Anyone up for a picket of BMI at Birmingham Airport next Monday Morning? Yeah, that would be great! Unfortunately I'm down in London so can't make it myself :( -- Shiar From shiar at riseup.net Sun Oct 12 17:45:08 2008 From: shiar at riseup.net (Shiar) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:45:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] unsubscription, was Re: phunkees post In-Reply-To: <1871.hub13.1223829452.squirrel@auk.riseup.net> References: <1259.noidea.1223634487.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> <58668.phunkee.1223638458.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> <1871.hub13.1223829452.squirrel@auk.riseup.net> Message-ID: <40298.shiar.1223833508.squirrel@tern.riseup.net> Ok hub13, now that you've exercised your 'right to response', and clearly expressed that you're not interested in working with phunkee and mike, who form a core part of the birmingham noborders group, much as they wouldn't work with you, i don't think there is anything left for you to do on this list. Besides, this's getting silly again and i don't think it's the ideal use of the list. So, as list admin, i am hereby kindly asking you to unsubscribe to this list. Note that this is a collective decision that has been discussed off list by the rest of the collective (or what remains of it). I'll give you 48 hours to do that, after which, if you haven't done it, i'm afraid i'm gonna have to do it myself. Take care, -- Shiar On Sun, October 12, 2008 9:37 am, hub13 at riseup.net wrote: >> This list was intended to be for announcements from Noborders >> Birmingham. >> It's clearly not the place to rehearse these arguments again and again. > > Nothing has been rehearsed. Again and again? Nonsense. > There can be no lessons from phunkee about appropriate use of this or > other lists. That I reject. Is there no depth of hypocrisy and > manipulation to which you will not sink? I have made precisely one post on > this subject, whereas you have used this list to publish a set of lies > about me in a clear, open and unashamed attempt to disrupt an emergency > anti-deportation campaign, and this is typical of your behaviour. > I have never responded to this until now, but I'm afraid if you and Mike > choose to use this list to publish lies about us, then a right to reply is > basic. You do not have a monopoly on the truth, nor can you get away with > allowing only your side of any story to be told. > We are merely being reactive, we have not sought or promoted any > conflict. > >> It's now very clear, that active members of this Noborders collective do >> not want to work with you and that's our prerogative. > > Er, that's not under dispute. You seem to think we seek some alternative > to this. That is not or never will be the case, unless we deem it > absolutley necessary. We would not work with, or frankly turn our backs > on, either you or Mike. You have sought to work with us once over the last > year by requesting use of the banners. We have not sought to work with you > once since the latter days of the Cottage occupation some two years ago. > Where you get the notion we want to work with you from is a mystery to me. > > The problem is that you have for at least two years extemporised your > perogative into an active hate campaign. This is hardly a secret, but it > must be challenged and resolved. > >> Could you please respect our wishes and leave us alone to get on with >> the >> activism and campaigning we're committed to. > > Again, the shameless hypocrisy of this man astonishes me. With regard to > ourselves, he is not interested in truth. He is interested in power. > please note that if this wasn't an activist related matter I would not be > bothering emailing like this - I would be instructing solictors to write > to you with certain demands regarding your criminal and unethical activity > towards me and V - to wit, libel and harrasment. This does not affect my > statutary rights. > > I care too much about the movement to take such obvious, if > state-involving action, ie. legal action. I am forced to take this action > instead; in other words, my selflessness is your protection. > It is certainly a bizzare situation to be put in on a No Borders list > and I trust that after all allegations have been refuted I shall never > have to do this again. > > I do not propose to spend too much time providing evidence against the > straightforward lies told about me and Val by phunkee and mike. I simply > say that i refute utterly the allegations that i have been kicked out of > multiple social centres, or that we 'moved in' to the Cottage Socila > Centre. They are falsehoods and fabrications and can easily be shown up. > However, it is not for us to disprove these bizzare, fairly-tale > allegations. It is for the perpetrators of the lies to back them up with > evidence. if not, they must withdraw them. > > From hub13 at riseup.net Sun Oct 12 20:39:37 2008 From: hub13 at riseup.net (hub13 at riseup.net) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 13:39:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] Shiar's post. Message-ID: <1070.hub13.1223843977.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> Well thankyou Shiar for clarifying your position! Your statement brings up issues and contains some IMO muddleheaded thinking and deep innacuracies which cannot go unchallenged however. > Here we go again! This is the first misleading statement Shiar makes. My post was the first time I have ever raised the issue of the long-running hate campaign against me and my partner on this list. I have never mentioned it before despite extreme provocation. How can you say 'here we go again?' under those circumstances? Compared to others in your 'active group' I have no record in bringing up divisive issues out of the blue like this. > > The relationship with other groups is a recurrent issue within the network. Other groups have had similar discussions and it was an issue at > some of the national gatherings, such as the one in Glasgow last year. I'm sure it is, and I agree those issues can be discussed nationally. I would support that. My concern was with what the network as a whole will make of this specific disagreement, and with the inclusion in the statement of a personal attack on two individuals who had no involvment in the ARC rally besides publicising it and providing some equipment. If you are up for a free and open discussion nationally on those components of the statement too, then I'll make sure I'm there, especially of course the latter point since it directly concerns me. A right to reply is basic. > The statement was drafted by myself and agreed by other *active* members of the collective. There was no consultation or discussion on this (open) > list because some of the people concerned (yourself and some ARC members) > are on the list too, so we would have probably run into a flame war and never agreed on a statement. Ah! The dreaded 'flame-war', a trope from the early internet, meaning an online discussion becoming a mutual mud-flinging excercise of abuse, insult and sophistry. Is it right to take pre-emptive action to prevent a speculative flame war, while failing to censure those who actually do engage in straightforward lies, criminal and actionable in fact, on this list? Anyway, back in the real world I am preparing a response to the political content of both this and least year's statement in the form of an essay provisionally entitled 'Trotsky's Trojan Horse: Transitional demands and No Borders'. So watch out for that one. As I said, my initial response to last year's statement (2007) happened to be positive, although I've had some more thoughts on it since. It was good to see a No Borders statement circulated at the event, along with the large rugged No Borders banners myself and a friend walked the two and a half miles to the event and back. > By 'active memebers' i mean people who have been attending meetings (ok, we haven't had one for ages, but still) Er, right. (?) So the definition includes people who go to non-existant meetings? When you did have meetings, we were intimidated away from them by the actions of funkee (look it's just quicker to type OK?). I don't see why I would want to go to meetings when funky A) warned us by text to dissacociate ourseleves from 'anything he is involved in' b) extemporises his personal perogatives towards us into an active hate campaign not only against u personally and politically; moreover the extent of this activity is suspected to be as bad as anonymous and unaccountable posting not only against us but against any politicial grouping we are involved in or he thinks we are involved in, presuambly with the aim of intimidating us out of doing any political activity. c) gets his kicks by going around calling me a rapist, and posting other lies on the internet about me. I declare I am not a victim of 'phunkee'. I therefore take Shiar's comment at face value and assume it implies I am invited to the next meeting? Let me check my diary and i'll even propose a date and venue. > as opposed to people who subscribe to the romantic No Borders ideals. Shiar, that statement can be read in two ways. It could be aimed at everyone on the list who does not fall into your defenition of 'active members'. Alternatively, it is aimed specifically at me! If the latter, I refute that. I do not have any especial romantic attachment to the 'No Borders' ideals, despite any migrant ancestors/migrant friends I may or may not love. Anyway, ploughing on: > > So if you consider yourself a member of the collective because you believe > in a border-free world, or happened to be at the Cottage when people had a > meeting there, then maybe you should rethink that? That's right, I did go to a meeting at the Cottage, I remember it fondly but unromantically. It was a practically-focussed meeting, sharing information on deportation law, procedure, and techniques for working with people under threat on a campaign footing. I found it instructive, a good meeting, which has informed my subsequent work with refugees. A functional groups is > as, if not more, important than worrying about appearing inclusive and the > rest of it (obviously i don't mean we should be exclusive and cliquey, so > please don't manipulate that!). Er, well my point here is that any a-functionalism vis a vis the short paragraph on me and V derives from people within the 'active group', as I suspect any impartial observer would agree. That just leaves the a-functionalism Shiar argues would derive from having an open political discussion with 'inactive' ARC-member subscribers, which I would also dispute as speculative. Nevertheless, more generally I do appreciate closed groups as a functional need. I'm just not sure this active group, which i imagine is fairly small, isn't equally well described as an 'affinity group' who avow No Borders principles. > > Maybe you need to reflect again? What is this? Scaramanga's hall of mirrors? I don't really have time to continue this right now. Part two to come. I have recieved an email asking me to unsub from the list, or be unsubscribed. I have no intention of unsubing from the list, and I consider it an extraordinary act of cowardice and open bias to dare consider silencing me but allowing free reign to those who use this list to tell lies. Clearly there is no sense of justice here. And without justice, there can be no peace. Still waiting for the false allegations to be withdrawn. From hub13 at riseup.net Sun Oct 12 21:17:26 2008 From: hub13 at riseup.net (hub13 at riseup.net) Date: Sun, 12 Oct 2008 14:17:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] Social Centre Film Night] Message-ID: <1094.hub13.1223846246.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> I am proud of my involvement with social centres and proud of what I have achieved. Before passing on this email, i would just like to refute the false allegations made aginst us regarding the Cottage Social Centre. The idea that we had a plan to move in there despite already having a home is bizzare, made up, wierd and stupid, and has no relation to truth, or indeed reality. The accuser must offer evidence, or consider the allegation withdrawn. We now return you to your normal programming. ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: [arcwm] Social Centre Film Night From: Date: Tue, October 7, 2008 9:58 am To: -------------------------------------------------------------------------- I've been asked to post this to the ARC list, it's a forthcoming Brum event in solidarity with The Common Place, a Leeds social centre which is being attacked by the authorities. The Common Place does a lot of anti-racist work in Leeds. BRUMFREESPACE PRESENTS AN EVENING OF RADICAL FILMS IN SUPPORT OF The Common Place, Leeds' radical autonomous social centre. http://www.thecommonplace.org.uk/ The Common Place was recently attacked by authority, its entertainment and alcohol licence revoked in order to damage it financially. In solidarity, Birmingham?s autonomous social centres collective present an evening of radical films. Tuesday 14th October At The Spotted Dog pub Alcester/Warwick St Digbeth Birmingham http://www.myspace.com/irishspotteddog Open from 7.15 pm Films start at 7.30pm Donations for the Common Place. More info: freespacebrum at riseup.net Keep an eye on Indymedia for the programme of films. From hub13 at riseup.net Mon Oct 13 11:13:55 2008 From: hub13 at riseup.net (hub13 at riseup.net) Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 04:13:55 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] usage of this list In-Reply-To: <58668.phunkee.1223638458.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> References: <1259.noidea.1223634487.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> <58668.phunkee.1223638458.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> Message-ID: <1084.hub13.1223896435.squirrel@auk.riseup.net> > This list was intended to be for announcements from Noborders Birmingham. Oh? My impression was that it was for general No Borders discussion, while another more closed list was used for your affinity group. I remember when the two-list system was implemented; i'm not going to excavate the emails now to check, but I thought this was the case. > Could you please respect our wishes and leave us alone to get on with the > activism and campaigning we're committed to. Er, this is projection, either unconcious (which I find hard to beleive) or deliberate. Nil Point. From noborders-brum-contact at aktivix.org Tue Oct 14 02:09:13 2008 From: noborders-brum-contact at aktivix.org (noborders-brum-contact at aktivix.org) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 03:09:13 +0100 Subject: [noborders-brum] Fwd: No Borders Stall at the anarchist bookfair Message-ID: <1223950153.48f3ff49cc0ee@www.aktivix.org:443> ----- Forwarded message from Ei Soj ----- Date: Tue, 7 Oct 2008 08:19:08 -0700 From: Ei Soj Reply-To: Ei Soj Subject: No Borders Stall at the anarchist bookfair To: lnb at lists.riseup.net, londonnoborders at lists.riseup.net, noborders-brum-contact at aktivix.org, brightonnoborders at riseup.net, bristolnoborders at lists.riseup.net, nobordersglasgow at riseup.net, leedsnoborders at riseup.net, manchesternoborders at riseup.net, info at nobordersnottingham.org.uk, oxfordnoborders at lists.riseup.net, noborderswales at lists.riseup.net, sheffield-noborders at lists.aktivix.org Hi No Borders people, Its Josie from London No Borders here. A No Borders stall has been booked at the anarchist bookfair (18th october - Queen Mary & Westfield College, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS.) and I'm looking for people who are willing to stand at the stall for an hour or two during the day. IF yr coming down and yr willing please email me and let me know if there are times of the day you cant do. Then I'll work out a rough rota and email it around. Also if you have any flyers or anything else you want to go on the stall please bring it on the day. We've also booked a workshop, the slot is 5-6pm. There should be a discussion about 'why oppose borders' but also if you want to give an update from your group that would be great - again let me know if poss. If this has come to a contact email address please can you forward it to the no borders list in your town... Ta! see you soon, x Josie

http://toolbar.Care2.com Make your computer carbon-neutral (free).

http://www.Care2.com Green Living, Human Rights and more - 8 million members! ----- End forwarded message ----- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From shiar at riseup.net Tue Oct 14 11:45:24 2008 From: shiar at riseup.net (Shiar) Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 04:45:24 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [noborders-brum] unsubscription, was Re: phunkees post In-Reply-To: <094D4A88AD5EB247A9A59E09CBB2067E18B64D@EXCHANGE1.bsmht.nhs.uk> References: <094D4A88AD5EB247A9A59E09CBB2067E18B64D@EXCHANGE1.bsmht.nhs.uk> Message-ID: <51125.shiar.1223984724.squirrel@swift.riseup.net> Hi Felipe, On Mon, October 13, 2008 8:11 pm, Molina Felipe wrote: > May I ask why Hub 13 has been unsubscribed from the list? The list is openly archived. You can follow the discussion there. I'm not planning on repeating all that! The short version is that he was abusive and disruptive on the list, and had been warned many times without getting anywhere, so hence the decision to unsubscribe him. > Just because he doesn't want to work with Phunkee and Mike, and vice > versa, > isn't a legitimate reason for taking him off the list. See above. > Both Mike and Phunkee are still on the Food not bombs list (which Hub13 > and > V are part of) and have been free to announce any of their events freely > and > without any attack on themselves or their projects. You can't really describe what hub13 has been doing as using the list for announcements, can you? And anyway it's up for that list's moderators to decide whether to keep or take anyone off their list if they think they are abusing it. It's not like we're swapping favours! > Just because Hub 13 doesn't work with Mike or Phunkee doesn't means he > doesn't make appropriate use of the list. Correct me if Im wrong but I > felt > it was appropriate use of the list when he made a call-out to support an > anti-deportation campaign. This was then destructively undermined by > phunkee. Although this is a misrepresentation, he wasn't unsubscribed then, for doing that. > Or has Hub13 been unsubscribed because he dared to respond to the > relentless > attacks on him and V, which have been going on for years. He has done > nothing to warrant this. In fact it all feels like a set up. Yeah, there is a conspiracy! Whatever.. And note that he did have the 'right to play', but misused that right too imo. > I am deeply disappointed at the behaviour of the core group of Brum no > Borders. A great injustice has been committed. Some people can write > massive > posts attacking others, but people on the receiving end arent able to > reply > back without being banned. Where is the justice and freedom of speech? "A great injustice"! "Freedom of speech"! Don't know what to make of this tbh. It just reminds me of some trolls on Indymedia that use this sort of words when they complain about hiding their crap. > Am I at risk now of being unsubscribed because I have spoken out? No, but if you insist on continuing this thread, we might need to discuss that as this's getting really silly and other people are finding it frustrating, if they haven't already left. If you consider that 'undemocratic', dictatorial' or whatever, well it's up to you but people have better things to do. > I hope this message gets to everyone as the previous one I sent was > rejected > by the moderator. Ive copied it below. You're not moderated. And you can see, your other email got through without any moderation. The reason why your previous email was put on hold is probably because you BCCed someone else, or something like that, and most lists don't allow that for security reasons. And then it was probably lost among the spam and mistakingly rejected (the list is spammed massively and this kind of mistakes could happen when lists memebers don't use it properly.) I do apologise. --- Shiar (i hate being a moderator of dysfunctional lists!) From joycecanaan at blueyonder.co.uk Sun Oct 19 20:29:59 2008 From: joycecanaan at blueyonder.co.uk (Joyce Canaan) Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:29:59 +0100 Subject: [noborders-brum] exchange of emails in recent weeks Message-ID: <000c01c93229$7551e8c0$5ff5ba40$@co.uk> As one member of ARC, Joyce Canaan, happens to be on the No Borders mailing list and has watched the exchange of emails with regard to Val and Corvin, some of us in ARC (Joyce, Dave Rogers and Mary Wilkins), felt that we wanted to intervene in this exchange because we have been working very productively with Val and Corvin over the past year or so. We in ARC think that the exchanges between Mike, Shiar and phunkee, and Val and Corvin, should stop. At a time of deep economic crisis, when neoliberal capitalism is in a tailspin that could have devastating effects for all of us and particularly for all migrants and working class people, we think that whatever happened in the social centre several years ago is really not that significant and should be put in the past. There are serious allegations being made against Val and Corvin. Can No Borders at a national level can offer some mediation here so that these exchanges can be replaced by more valuable campaigning efforts? we don't exclude people who in our opinion are valuable to progressive struggles? There is room for publicising our beliefs, room for direct action, room for constructive debate and strategising but no room for internal wrangling that seeps energy from more important matters. Can we move on? We as ARC will continue to work with Val and Corvin because they make a valuable contribution to ARC. We want to continue to work with No Borders because we respect the politics and work being done. Whatever personal or ideological differences we have, we think that given the major contradictions that face us at present, these differences pale into insignificance. We ALL should move on and organise together against the real enemy. Mary, Dave, Joyce -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: