[noborders-brum] this no borders/arc spat

hub13 at riseup.net hub13 at riseup.net
Tue Oct 7 16:36:57 UTC 2008

> 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.

More information about the NoBorders-Brum mailing list