[noborders-brum] Shiar's post.

[hub13 at 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.