[ssf] G8 - openness and planning thoughts...

[@mparo]

" if peace is to be
our policy then I think that at least should be absolute."



An absolutist view of peace, isni't it?




The people who flew planes
into the world trade towers did it for other people, does this put the
responsibility on us to defend them?

I don't understand why you are referring to something i have not referred to... it makes my words confusing.






Jase wrote:

>>Of course I would agree to non-violent, peaceful resistance approach
>>from the very beginning of any preparations. But
>>
>>"People who want to go down that route" as Jase says,  won't go
>>elsewhere, I mean, they will be here, in Sheffield if not inside the SF,
>>they are a part of the situation, as a whole...
>>    
>>
>
>Agreed it is not simple, just that hotheadedness does not need encouragement
>if we are to say that violence will not acheive. The people who flew planes
>into the world trade towers did it for other people, does this put the
>responsibility on us to defend them? I think not. However yes, information,
>yes, support networks for people who use NVDA, and support for NVDA training
>to ensure protest is as effective and peaceful as possible. I was wrongly
>absolute in my words but I do not approve of violence and if peace is to be
>our policy then I think that at least should be absolute. Thanks for saying
>all,
>
>Jason
>
>  
>
>>And they will be exposing themselves to great danger and risk, in
>>particular under present bills and acts. They will be doing this for our
>>sake, too, (needs discussing and email is confusing), even if not
>>wanted. And a safety net is needed here, if we (the peaceful huddle so
>>to speak) are to be performing "the best practice", imho the best
>>practice here (even if a bit heroic, perhaps a bit quixotic ) would be
>>to be there, to provide legal warning and advice BEFORE they are
>>arrested and AFTER they are arrested, and to be willing to create a
>>support network for them, for these other activists who might get into
>>real trouble and won't deserve to be kicked off or let down or even
>>"betrayed" by their own. (putting yourselves in their shoes for an
>>instant). I thought this could be a point in an agenda. Any volunteers?
>>
>>R&A
>>
>>
>>Jase wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>> 1. Openness I would agree with. Some peoples actions do not converge
>>> with openness. I think if SSF takes an open stance then that in a way
>>> solves the non-violence thing. People who want to go down that route
>>> go elsewhere. I wouldn't say the paranoia is entirely misplaced, look
>>> at the attack on the Genoa SSF centre in that G8 meeting, but then
>>> Italy is not the UK, and thankfully in this country there is less of
>>> an oppositional stance in the civil authorities which would, and did
>>> in Italy, permit such an action. Also being open means if anything
>>> did happen we could point out just how stupid it was.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>ssf mailing list
>>ssf at lists.aktivix.org
>>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ssf mailing list
>ssf at lists.aktivix.org
>http://lists.aktivix.org/mailman/listinfo/ssf
>
>  
>