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

[spodulike at freeuk.com]

> 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.
>

Just as an example of people who use violence in the name of others, 
taken to an extreme I admit, but where do you draw the line? That is 
why education in NVDA is important for protests, although what you 
would consider violence (people, property, verbal) is a flexible thing. 
So maybe an absolutist view of peace is impossible.

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

HA! I fail my own argument (well it was late:)

Anyway on to the protest, it makes it easier to liase with the police 
with the route of a demonstration, they are usually quite relaxed about 
this... they are the people to speak to so once a route has been 
decided on for a demo someone needs to contact them. I am happy to do 
this as have done it before.

The important thing as always is that there is space for all to do as 
they wish, and space to discuss and argue what route is 'most effective'
. I would be dissapointed with a normal sullen marching demo, but one 
with noise, and communication to the people on the streets through 
leaflets and talking, and music and clowns and art and so on, a 
carnival atmosphere would be my preference, but then some people like 
shouting, have to say I used to! Need to do something to let off steam, 
so space for all is needed (think that is the point of SSF?)

Cheers,

Jason

> 
> 
> 
> 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
> >
> >  
> >
> 
> 
> 

--