nonviolence

There is so much to write about, that I have not managed to put something together... I have decided to include someone else's reflections on the last weeks G20 protests in Toronto, as a prelude:

Cop Car Burned! All Criticisms of Global Capitalism Rendered Moot!
http://propagandhi.com/2010/06/959/

i don’t endorse violence. i don’t think it’s the ideal way forward to a better society. i think all sane people would agree. heck, i don’t even endorse vandalism in the “service” of social change. i’m conservative that way. but the disproportionate reaction (to the disproportionate mainstream media coverage) to the image of a burning car and some broken windows at the G20 summit in toronto needs to be put into perspective.

Following on from my recent post about strategy and tactics, with a focus on conflations and exceptionalisms, I wanted to pen some critical comments on the approach — not the actions — of Sea Shepherd. I want to emphasise the distinction between approach to and the actual actions as this is an area in which there are issues that can, should and need to changed. I am sure I am not the only one with direct action experience, including running training camps and workshops that has noted some serious issues with Sea Shepherd approach to actions.

I have again been thinking on the eternal debate about tactics amongst activists. Anyone who has taken some time out to reflect will be aware of many things - notwithstanding my critique that many who criticise nonviolence do so from a position of not having actually read much of the theory (explored in many other posts). I have again been involved in discussion and debate regarding nonviolence v violence in social justice movements. This is something that I think will continue for some time - and should. I find problems with numerous views on nonviolence and violence.

Adding to the very specific and targeted media campaign to detail new laws, weapons and technologies to be used by police, as agents of the state, at the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) summit in Sydney, recent news coverage included details about how 200 people who are under periodic detention order will be given that weekend off – as in they can stay home [link]. The way this is being framed is that it will make facilities available (i.e. gaol cells) for the ‘mass arrest’ of ‘up to 500’ critical of the summit and its economic-rationalist agenda.