Today's Topics:
1. Czech, afed - A3: Bourgeois referendum [machine translation]
(a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
2. Greece, Information from the demonstration against the
establishment of nuclear weapons at the Araxos air base By APO
(gr) [machine translation] (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
3. Australia, melbacg: WAR IN SYRIA by ablokeimet - The Anvil,
Vol 6 No 2, Sep-Oct 2017. (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
4. Britain, freedomnews: London Bookfair ‘won't happen in
2018' (a-infos-en@ainfos.ca)
----------------------------------------------------------------------Message: 1
The referendum may be a good thing, but in the society of inequality, it is quite
doubtful. Download, print and enlarge the November issue of the A3 wall paper! ---- Autumn
is in full swing, the embassy principle has received adequate satisfaction and the
responsible citizen can return to work duties and shopping passion. Skarohlídi fall behind
their stomach and enjoy the political bizarre. Better people are sitting in Pankrac than
in Strakovec. We did not participate in the pre-election theater as anarchists and we will
not even participate in the post-electoral theater. ---- Our policy has a strong place in
the workplace, in the neighborhood, in the streets. Representative principle,
parliamentarism, we reject. We are pushing for a stateless solution, because in the state
we see only the protector of corporate power that promotes the interests of bankers and
businessmen and the capitalist system adds a hallmark of democratic legitimacy. (As a
matter of course, political practice has changed, formerly the rich at the helm of the
government of the traditional democratic parties, today they are thundering themselves
under the mask of fighting corruption and other evil.) We have adopted free
decision-making processes operating on the principles of consensus and direct democracy .
We do not have a leader, chairman, personality or a media-attractive face.
The political mainstream is once again calling for direct democracy. Again, it seems
realistic to extend the institution of the referendum and possibly extend the institution
of direct elections. Besides the direct election of the president, some politicians also
want to introduce a direct election of other officials. As advocates and notorious
practitioners of direct democracy, we must express ourselves to this phenomenon. And to
the level, we can not have the joy of it, since the election is not an election, it is not
a referendum as a referendum, especially when its promotion is on a chauvinistic basis.
Freedom of choice calls for much more than the legislative anchoring of the national
referendum and the direct election and revocability of officials. Freedom of choice
requires, in particular, equal access to information and resources. Equal access to
information means, on the one hand, that the mass of people will not serve as a feed for
corporal moths, and on the other hand privileged, whether capitalists, businessmen,
shareholders, bankers ..., working sweat and blood, managers and bosses, humble executors'
will, or politicians who say in the morning what the masses want to hear, and in the
afternoon they do dirty work for business. Equal access to information means there will be
no overburdened class of workers, voters and mandatorists on the one hand, and on the
other hand, a class of professional trumpets. Establishment, of course,
Equal access to the resources will not suffice to make people mass from morning to evening
makala and in the weekend lived on installments. Likewise, the owners of the means of
production who steal all the results of our work, so that they can drink us occasionally
with a choked roll, do not suffer. In the capitalist referendum, the will of the people
does not win, but an economically dominant interest group. The one who pays enough
information, experts, advertising spots, billboards and internet trolls.
The elements of direct democracy, which some parliamentary parties will try to enforce in
legislation, will be so truncated that there is no direct democracy here. It's a gem for
the disciplined masses. It is a bourgeois democracy in which rules dictate owners, strong
economic players. Not in vain is a referendum firmly embedded in the system, a favorite
instrument of some oligarchs or dictators who like to use it to justify their power. It is
no coincidence that bourgeois elections are winning the whole world, very, very rich
people. The institution of referendum, direct elections and appeals, enshrined in
capitalist relations, does not give people control over political assemblies, and it does
not even enable them to make decisions about public affairs. Free choice is not even fun.
The only thing he brings, is the unprecedented justification of the existence of the Mafia
political class and the hyenistic redistribution of resources. We do not want anyone to
ask us for a mandate, we want to create an agenda! We do not want bread, we want the whole
bakery!
A3 (November 2017) HERE to download .
Download, print, spread!
The A3 wall paper is published annually by the Anarchist Federation. They are intended
primarily for spreading through street lifts or posting in workplaces and schools.
https://www.afed.cz/text/6759/a3-burzoazni-referendum
------------------------------
Message: 2
This morning, the anti-war-internationalist demonstration took place at Araxos Achaia's
air base against the possible installation of NATO's Nuclear Weapons involving some 200
people. ---- Anarchist block was formed alongside a call from the anarchist group
"Dumbbell" FROM ( call here ). The banner of the anarchist block wrote: "Internationalist
struggle against war, impoverishment and modern totalitarianism." Also called and attended
by student clubs, organizations and parties of the left and the group of anarchists and
communists "class counter-attack". ---- At 9.30 in the morning there was a concentration
in the center of Patras (three Allies) and from there, by buses and cars, the transfer
took place to the village of Lakopetra, Achaia. From there, a 3-4 km demonstration began
to take place at the airbase gate. Throughout the course we chanted slogans against the
war and modern totalitarianism, against the weapons and the bases of nuclear death,
against the state and capitalism.
A strong police bar was set up at the base gate to prevent entry to the protesters.
We participated in the demonstration against the possible equipment of Araxos' air base by
nuclear weapons, realizing that the military operations in the capitalist region that are
leading to the death, poverty and uprooting of people find their practical grounding in
the Western world, points of deposition of war material at the base of death.
Such a basis is destined to be restarted by Araxos, and it is our duty to resist the plans
of the natives and planetary bosses who promise only death, poverty, wars, refugees,
misery and misery.
Grasping the thread of the anti-war mobilizations of the past years and drawing
inspiration from them, we continue today the struggle to build a strong internationalist
and anti-war movement from the bottom up against the war against modern totalitarianism.
In the direction of the construction of this movement, the resistance to the installation
of nuclear weapons at the base of Araxos, as well as the wider attempt to upgrade the role
of the Greek state in the international warfare are another important battle to be done.
AGAINST THE BASES OF NUCLEAR DEATH
AGAINST THE WAR AND THE MODERN INTEGRATION OF STATE AND CAPITAL
ORGANIZATION AND INTERNATIONAL GAMES AGAINST WAR AND MODERN INTEGRATION
FOR THE SOCIAL RESPONSE
TO ANARCHY AND FREEDOM COMMUNICATION
anarchist group "dwarf horse"
member of the Anarchist Political Organization
more photos and material here
https://ipposd.wordpress.com/2017/11/12/%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%B7%CE%BC%CE%AD%CF%81%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B7-%CE%B1%CF%80%CF%8C-%CF%84%CE%B7-%CE%B4%CE%B9%CE%B1%CE%B4%CE%AE%CE%BB%CF%89%CF%83%CE%B7-%CE%B5%CE%BD%CE%AC%CE%BD%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%B1-%CF%83%CF%84/
http://apo.squathost.com/
------------------------------
Message: 3
In Syria, a many-sided war is occurring with no end in sight. A popular uprising started
against Bashar al-Assad's Ba'athist regime in 2011, but Assad saw a way of derailing it.
He would turn it into a sectarian war, with Sunni Muslims against the rest. If he could
maintain the support, however grudging, of the Alawites and Christians, he would have
20-25% of the population and, together with the State apparatus, a fighting chance of
survival. ---- First of all, Assad deployed massive violence against unarmed protestors,
driving the movement to pick up arms in self defence. Then he emptied his gaols of
thousands of jihadi Muslim fundamentalists - partly to create prison room for the civilian
opposition he was determined to crush, but mainly to allow the jihadis to influence the
opposition. A Free Syrian Army formed from defecting troops and opposition volunteers, but
had no internal cohesion and little access to arms. It was vulnerable to control by
whoever could supply them.
Enter the imperalists and neighbouring powers. Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar supplied
arms and other materiel to their favoured groups, each hostile to the secular and
pluralistic goals of the original uprising. As a result, jihadis came to dominate military
opposition to the regime. Assad turned to sectarian allies in the form of Iran and
Hezbollah and to Russia, a middle-ranking imperialist power which didn't want to lose its
only naval base on the Mediterranean. The US also intervened, though with more resources
than strategy. Obama was unsure whether he wanted the regime reformed or overthrown and
had major trouble finding suitable clients to back. As a result, the US has blown massive
sums on jihadis they couldn't influence and puppets who couldn't fight.
In the Kurdish region of Syria, a Kurdish party, the PYD, took advantage of Assad's early
difficulties to launch a revolution of its own. Borrowing heavily from the Anarchism of
Murray Bookchin, the Kurds developed their own concept, called democratic confederalism,
and implemented it partially in the area they call Rojava. They developed a "no war, no
peace" relationship with Assad, since both sides had more pressing priorities.
The Kurds soon came into conflict with Daesh, the most fanatical of the jihadi groups.
Their defence of Kobanê, which deprived Daesh of its appearance of invincibility, brought
them to the attention of the world - and an ally in the shape of Uncle Sam. Unwilling to
intervene directly with ground troops, the US was desperate for a local ally and the PYD's
military forces, the YPG-YPJ, are far and away the best fighters in Syria. The US
therefore buried (for now) its concerns with the PYD's politics and its embarrassing
relationship with its fellow thinkers in Turkey, the PKK, and expanded the relationship.
As the YPG-YPJ took territory off Daesh (and other Syrian jihadis), more areas populated
by Arabs and other non-Kurds came under its control. The PYD followed up by spreading
democratic confederalism to these new areas and raising non-Kurdish militia that have
joined with the YPG-YPJ to create the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
As the PYD's collaboration with the US has increased, however, so has the role of the US
Air Force and the US special forces embedded in the SDF - and the increasing role of the
US is affecting the character of the war being waged. As this article is being written,
the SDF is in the final stages of liberating Raqqa from the clutches of Daesh, but much of
the city is in ruins from USAF bombing and civilian casualties have been high.
Meanwhile, Russian intervention on the side of Assad's regime has been decisive in turning
the tables against the anti-Assad rebels. Aleppo is now fully under Assad's control, while
territory in rebel hands has been substantially reduced. Assad's enemies abroad are now
making their peace with him, with Turkey, Jordan and the Gulf States deciding they have to
eat crow. The civilian opposition, sidelined by the jihadi grip on the military
resistance, is either underground or amongst the millions of refugees in neighbouring
countries or in Europe. It is unlikely to be seen again until the jihadis are off the
scene. But Assad now holds power only at the pleasure of his saviours in Tehran and Moscow
- and everybody knows it. Although the war might look to be heading towards a close, much
blood may yet be spilled.
The Melbourne Anarchist Communist Group opposes all sides in the war in Syria, both the
internal military forces and the interventions by regional and imperialist countries.
Australia is playing a role in the US bombing of Syria and is one of the imperialist
powers to be condemned. In the conflict between Assad's Ba'ath regime and the
jihadi-dominated resistance, the working class can take no side. All are utter
reactionaries. The MACG calls for all imperialist countries and regional powers to leave
Syria and cease intervening in its conflicts. The situation in north-east Syria, however,
is more complex.
The social transformation in North-East Syria, not least the improvement in the position
of women, holds great promise for the working class and the oppressed masses of West Asia.
The extension of democratic confederalism to non-Kurdish areas of Syria is immensely
significant. While it is unclear how deep the Rojava Revolution has gone (we are, for
instance, sceptical of the ability of a Stalinist party like the PKK to transform itself
structurally), the political program of democratic confederalism is worth defending and
extending. The weakness in Bookchin's Anarchism (his abandonment of a class analysis) has
not been an obstacle so far in Rojava, where the working class is tiny and the main
capitalist force (the Ba'athist State) has largely withdrawn. Spreading democratic
confederalism into major population centres, however, requires class struggle that
establishes workers' power in production.
The MACG recognises the right of groups struggling for national liberation to acquire arms
from wherever they are to be had and to be judged on what they do with them. However, the
collaboration of the SDF with the USAF, and allowing US special forces to be embedded
within them, is po
https://melbacg.wordpress.com/2017/11/13/war-in-syria/
------------------------------
Message: 4
Following a confrontation at this year's London Anarchist Bookfair sparked by two people
handing out anti-trans leaflets, and a subsequent online firestorm, the Bookfair
organisers have released two statements on what happened, announcing they will not be
holding one in 2018. ---- The decision ends a 34-year run for the event, which was the
largest of its kind. The collective's statement is reproduced below: ---- Statement on an
open letter ---- A few days ago, someone sent us the following open letter. Initially we
didn't want to write a point by point response but feel it is necessary to reply to the
accusations and the demands made of us. ---- For the record: the current Bookfair
Collective will not be organising a Bookfair in 2018. Organising an annual event attended
by over 2000 people is a huge amount of work - finding and negotiating with venue
providers, organising the equipment needed, booking stalls and meetings, printing and
distributing leaflets and programmes, as well as finding overseas speakers and the money
to pay for them. Pretty much every year we receive some accusation of heinous behaviour
and demands that we implement a list of externally formulated policies. We could look at
this one and dismiss it as more of the same; ignore it, say the groups are not
representative, if we leave it people will lose interest, etc. But at the same time we are
aware that many groups who have been pressed to sign up for it have not and we do need to
set out a response as much to them as to the signatories and others who have read it.
What hurts us most is we know a lot of you. A number of the signatories to the open letter
are groups we know and have worked with over the years; sometimes many, many years. Yet
not one of you has tried to contact us as individuals or as the Bookfair collective to ask
our views before you signed the open letter, even though some people appear not to have
read all of it before signing. We thought of many of you as friends. We were obviously
wrong. We guess it's easy to sign a statement. It's a lot harder to actually talk to
people and try to work things out. We are also tired of being told what to do. We are told
to ban people. We are told have this or that policy. We are told this or that group
can/can't have stalls. We are told we shouldn't have a certain venue. We are constantly
told we get it wrong. However, no one has offered to join the Collective and help us make
the Bookfair better or offered to take it on.
We find it sad that so many individuals and groups jumped in to sign an open letter that
accused of us allowing events that "terrorised" trans people and did not grant "the bare
minimum conditions for trans and gender-variant comrades to take part in the event". We
wonder if everyone signing the open letter really thinks that trans and gender-variant
comrades felt intimidated coming to the Bookfair? From what we saw and have heard, many
members of the trans community were quite happy to be there. Indeed some disagree with the
open letter and have expressed unhappiness about the behaviour of the group of up to about
30 people who chose to demand their view set the agenda.
We have in the past been called fascists by many individuals, sometimes for as little as
asking for a donation towards the event; more often for asking people not to bring in dogs
(for the safety of children) or not to use cameras. We also got called fascists on
Saturday by a number of people. It seriously concerns us how easy this terminology is
thrown about in the anarchist milieu. Survivors of the Spanish Civil war, survivors of the
death camps, political activists in Pinochet's Chile, activists in parts of the world
today and many others who have been at the blunt end of actual fascism are done a
disservice by this indiscriminate use of the word. We feel that the Bookfair is not the
place for tactics used on demos against fascist groups and cops. Some of us are
traumatised enough by activism and look forward to enjoying an event where we can see
friends and exchange ideas without the pressure of these actions.
We agree 100% with the part of the open letter that says "Calling out harmful behaviour is
about holding each other to the commitment that we can do and be better." However, we find
it sits uncomfortably with a large group of people threatening one person and find it
difficult to believe some of those who signed this statement don't either.
Three years ago a group of people came to tell us they were about to kick out an
undercover cop. The person accused was visibly shaken and scared as the group was about to
physically eject them till someone realised they had "the wrong person". People are
unhappy that the Bookfair collective doesn't have a safer spaces policy. But we have
always questioned who these policies are for? Is it OK for a space to be safe for one
group but not for others who have different views? AFem 2014 was an attempt to make an
event similar to the Bookfair without cis-men and with a safer spaces policy. Having seen
the result, does anyone wonder why the organisers of that event (many more than we are)
didn't feel they had the energy to do another one?
The statement claims "organisers have stepped in to defend and support those who use
oppressive, violent and dehumanising language to perpetuate racist, colonial and
patriarchal systems of oppression". Do all of you feel comfortable signing these
accusations against us, presented without examples or proof? Many of you have worked with
us for years and happily speak to us about stall and meeting bookings year after year.
Isn't it disingenuous to come to an event or book a stall or meeting, and, in many cases,
be very friendly with us when you know us to be racist, colonialist and patriarchal? Did
you not think of challenging us over the years about this?
This brings us onto the demands. Despite your claim that you have "been progressively
alienated over the years by the culture of the Bookfair", not one of you has ever come and
offered to either get involved or to take the event on. In 2013 or 2014 demands were made
of us to implement a safer spaces policy and to ban certain individuals. These "demands"
were sent to us just over a week before the Bookfair. We refused, as, given the timeframe,
we had no time to discuss the lengthy demands and their serious implications. After the
Bookfair we contacted the groups who had made these demands to discuss how we could work
together and we set up a meeting, but were met with silence.
You ask that the date of the Bookfair doesn't clash with the UFFC demo. Where possible we
have always tried to avoid a clash. There have been years where we can't get the venue any
other weekend (a couple of times when we were at Queen Mary's). We got kicked out of Queen
Mary's and Central St Martin's because of the behaviour of some people. Shit happens - we
move on. We put tweets out asking for people to help us find a new venue. A few friends
suggested places but all were unsuitable for either access or space reasons.
The secondary school in Tottenham was ideal for everything we needed. However, the only
Saturday the school could offer us clashed with the UFFC demo. We were not happy about
this, but had to weigh it up against access requirements, space requirements, financial
requirements and venues actually wanting the event in the first place. We have probably
visited over 100 venues over the last 10 years to try to find suitable spaces. Maybe those
making demands like this should be prepared to take some responsibility for finding a
suitable venue? Otherwise one can only assume their brand of anarchism is getting others
to do things so there is always someone else to blame.
By the way, we maintain a dialogue with UFFC. We put their demo on the Bookfair leaflet
(of which we produce and distribute 20,000) and programme. We also promote their demo on
social media and are happy for people to go to the demo rather than the Bookfair.
Ironically on years the Bookfair hasn't clashed with the UFFC demo, and most of us have
gone, the numbers on the demo don't increase, which says loads to us about "our" movement.
You state we should have "A clear statement outlining the politics the LABF is committed
to, what kinds of behaviour and views are unacceptable and unwelcome at the Bookfair".
Have you looked at our website? There is a statement there. We suspect some of you signed
the open letter without checking the website. We suspect others mean "we don't like your
statement". If that's the case, then be honest and say what you mean. Again, we feel not
so much upset as frustrated about this.
Regarding points 4, 5 and 6: It really saddens us that comrades can sign up to these
points without talking to us or thinking through and substantiating what they have signed
up to. We will take them separately below.
Regarding "a commitment to incorporating anti-racist and decolonial struggle into the
Bookfair". Every year we actively approach groups and individuals to try and make the
event more diverse. We pay fares and, when we can, put on nationwide tours for speakers.
Have you forgotten Lorenzo and JoNina, the ex-Panthers? Have you forgotten Lindela from
Abahlali baseMjondolo? Have you already forgotten Rebel Riot this year? This year we also
tried really hard to get comrades from Kurdistan, Turkey, Tunisia, Venezuela (and in the
past Gaza), to attend. Many of the non-white speakers at the Bookfair have been invited by
the collective. Every year we also try to get local non-white groups to speak. Most don't
want to because the event, in common with the movement as a whole, is so "white". Do you
really think the Bookfair Collective alone is responsible for the current lack of
diversity across the whole movement?
You say we should make space for workshops and meetings for people of colour or queer and
trans (point 5) and people with disabilities (point 6). How are we not providing space?
Anyone can contact us to suggest or book a meeting. Anyone can book a stall. We actively
encouraged a trans rights group who had tried to book a stall last year, but contacted us
too late, to book early this year, but they opted to do something else on the day. It's
interesting that because there wasn't a meeting with "trans" or "queer" in the title some
of you seem to think there were no trans speakers, implying that the only thing people of
trans experience can talk about is their gender.
Regards the demands around accessibility in the open letter, again we ask how you can sign
this statement without talking to us or looking at what's been achieved over the years. We
work with DPAC, we have signers on hand (3 this year) at the Bookfair to interpret for
people at meetings and round stalls if needed. We have touch typists on hand for those who
are hard of hearing. We spend ages finding venues that are accessible and we mean the
whole venue. Yes, there are problems. Venues often don't "get it" so we fight them on
this. We had started to get there with the new venue. We had eight keys cut for the lifts,
of which two were on the DPAC stall.
We ask people who want to attend meetings or films to let us know in advance so we can get
meeting notes and further info in advance to make the meeting as accessible as possible
(this is all on our social media and website). This year we offered to pay for cabs to and
from the venue for anyone with mobility difficulties. We specifically have a Bookfair
access stall, staffed by trained people (some of whom have disabilities themselves) to
support this work. Are you claiming that all your venues, offices and events are as
accessible?
Several of us were incredulous when we saw point 7. We find it hypocritical that some of
those signing the open letter (and we accept it's only one or two) have not only taken
photos at a previous Bookfair but circulated them publicly. There were people in the
"melee" on Saturday taking photos of the person being attacked as well as of us trying to
defuse the situation and comments shouted at us included "your face will be all over
social media by tomorrow".
We think it's time for everyone to take a moment to reflect on the event and the state of
the anarchist movement in general, to think how we can move forward in a more positive
way. However, we have decided not to organise another Bookfair in 2018. This is because we
can't agree to implement the list of demands in the open letter and don't expect many of
the groups and individuals who signed it, or made their own statements, to accept our
response. We are sad to disappoint all those who, like us, value the Bookfair and the
contribution it has made to the movement. We are sad that incidents that it may have been
possible to resolve have been widened out and entrenched. Our decision reflects an
increasingly toxic atmosphere, which we do not want to concede to or facilitate. We also
have very serious concerns about organising a Bookfair knowing that we, those who wished
to attend and the venue would face attempts at harassment and disruption.
To reiterate: We will not be organising the Bookfair in 2018. For all those who think we
did such a terrible job, who feel we didn't get it right for people of colour, trans
people, disabled people and probably others as well, show us how to do it properly. The
Bookfair in 2018 is yours. We won't come along and make trouble; we won't denounce you on
social media; we won't criticise from the sidelines. But we are really interested to see
how you solve all the problems you raise in your statement and implement your list of demands.
Last but not least, thank you to all those who have sent messages of support and those of
you who have at least called / emailed to question us about the events and our thoughts
even if you don't agree with us.
(Please note: While others may want to continue this discussion online. We won't be making
any further comments.)
Statement on the future of the Bookfair
There have been a number of demands that the London Anarchist Bookfair Collective put out
a statement on the events at this year's Bookfair. Since we started drafting one there
have inevitably been a range of statements, open letters etc. Elsewhere we will set out
where we think this leaves the Bookfair collective, the Bookfair and the wider movement.
Here we will try and set out some sort of position on the events of the day. It's probably
useful to keep the two separate.
Before we start, we want people to remember there were a huge number of positive things
about the day; it felt more diverse, there were a lot of people who had not been before,
there were some excellent outward looking meetings, the Swiss comrades raised more than
£700 for G20 defendants, the Rebel Riot tour went down a storm and they've secured help
and funding to set up a social centre in Myanmar, a comrade who came over from Hong Kong
is going back to set up a bookfair there, as is another from Bulgaria we hope, and there
were some great books too! What people are expecting us to make a statement about are two
incidents and some leaflets. Like many, many other groups we don't all think the same but
have tried to come to some consensus. From the demands being "made" of us we know we won't
satisfy everybody. In fact we may alienate a range of people, and we may have people who
presently are trying not to take sides disagreeing with us as well. All we can say to
everyone is these are our thoughts.
There were some leaflets being handed out against the proposed changes to the Gender
Recognition Act
We are all unhappy about the contents of the leaflets we have seen. One is clearly meant
only to provoke, the other fails to even acknowledge the real fears and discrimination
that many trans people face in everyday life and, by failing to do so, itself becomes
provocative and therefore offensive. We had not seen the leaflets before the problems
started and most of us did not get to see the contents until the end of the day. As
anarchists we feel "banning" and "no platforming" are actions that should only be used as
extreme solutions and, while the leaflet did cause offense and hurt, we will only remove
literature or people from the Bookfair in extreme circumstances and not just because we
disagree with it or them, even if they do cause offence.
As the Bookfair collective we have been working most of our lives to oppose oppression and
we see worrying tendencies on both sides of this debate to ban, oppress and win the
argument by force. We know people who feel strongly about this; who feel deeply hurt; and
who feel angry. We see the contradictions, we see the splitting of our movement, and we
see and feel the pain caused. Unfortunately we don't have the answers but we are prepared
to be part of any group that wants to look for a less oppressive way to deal with this
debate within our movement.
We are also aware that views and attitudes vary widely. People who disagree strongly with
the leaflets' contents do not all think it's useful to call the people distributing them
fascists, or that anyone failing to condemn them should be attacked. People in our
movement have a range of different views about gender, women's spaces and so on. People
who step in to stop a woman being mobbed don't necessarily share her views or even claim
understanding of all the issues. No one voice speaks for everyone on either side.
The jumping to confrontation, the retreat into "No debate" only hardens positions, poisons
political and personal relationships and makes the possibility of any sort of resolution
less possible. We don't see any winners emerging out of this toxicity.
The fracas
Let's get one thing straight. We did not step in to support people promoting transphobic
hate speech. We saw two women (who had been handing out leaflets) being attacked by a
group of people and separated them from the group. A member of the collective was hit by
the people handing out the leaflets while trying to move them away from the stalls and
lifts. The two women left the venue. The woman who was later mobbed by up to about 30
people did not hand out the leaflets or have anything to do with their production or
distribution - she simply said that they had the right to distribute them. For expressing
this view, she was mobbed by a crowd of people some of whom, had we not stepped in,
appeared bent on physically attacking her. We and other stall holders stepped in to
prevent this from happening. If any individual within our movement is threatened with
physical assault at the Bookfair we always try to do what we can to protect that person,
and have done so (sadly too often) at previous Bookfairs over a number of different
strongly felt issues, regardless of whether we personally share their views.
We have been accused of "protecting a fascist" and of being transphobic ourselves. All of
us in the collective have physically confronted fascists on the streets, at meetings and
in print, and we are baffled and upset by these accusations. Accusing a person of being a
fascist because you don't like their views is dishonest and dangerous. We are not going to
apologise for protecting someone being mobbed by a group of up to about 30 people, and,
along with others, preventing an ugly situation from deteriorating further.
Obviously a lot of people are going to disagree with this, but anyone who seriously thinks
that up to about 30 people shouting and threatening one woman, and in the process
intimidating disabled comrades and children, was a "beautiful moment of direct action"
should consider taking a look at themselves and their politics.
Finally to those who decided to smash and set off the fire alarm, and to anyone who
thought it was clever - have you thought about the effect it had on the creche and older
kids space, the numerous meetings taking place at the time, or relations with the venue? A
number of children having to be led out of the older kids space were crying and talking
about Grenfell. They thought it was a real fire and were really scared. This action
definitely didn't make it a safe space for them.
The end
We are unsure how this debate within our movement (and beyond) will work itself out, as
there is a wide range of strongly held views. What we are sure of is that next year there
are people who would want us to ban those sharing the views of the leafleteers or those
who stickered the loos, others who would want us to ban people who were in the group of up
to about 30 or those who set off the fire alarm. We are not prepared to ban any of these
people, and, while people think the way to resolve their differences is to disrupt and
shut down meetings, like the Syria meeting last year, or the whole Bookfair this year, by
shouting at and fighting each other, we haven't the appetite or the energy to organise
next year's Bookfair.
More positively and perhaps unsurprisingly we have had contacts from a range of people who
do see the need for debate and discussion on the issues and the events. We don't think our
collective is the right facilitator but are prepared to work with anyone who, like us,
would like to look at ways we work these (strongly felt) disagreements within our movement
out face to face. If we don't, the only winners will be capitalism and the state.
(Please note: While others may want to continue this discussion online. We won't be making
any further comments.)
https://freedomnews.org.uk/london-bookfair-wont-happen-in-2018/
------------------------------
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten