Anti-war questions

by Andrew Mon Oct 14, 2002 17:04

From talking to people afterwards the actual debate that happened depended what bus you were on. On my bus about half the passengers were libertarians of one sort or another so the debate focused on how the decision to take direct action should be made. The front of the bus (mostly trots) felt the IWAM committee meeting in Dublin had the final decisions, the anarchos felt that a mass meeting of those taking part should. No real resolution on that question as you might expect.

I was told on another bus the debate was dominated by whether or not the action was itself a good idea. Some pacifists argued it would make the war worse apperantly, which has a nice Skibberen Eagle ring to it. No idea what the conclusions were on that bus.

Its rather obvious that the debate in general would have reflected some rather deep seated convictions of all those taking part in it. So if anyone tells you something was decided by it take that with a big pinch of salt!

by chris Mon Oct 14, 2002 17:29

I was on the "first" bus, ie the one that left first and did not go to the police station in Shannon. After we left the rest stop, we sort of had an impromptu debate.

The main areas of contention were: #1) Whether or not the direct action that took place at the end of the march was a good idea #2) Whether or not direct action in general is something that people agree with.

The overwhleming majority on my bus thought the direct action was not a good idea. A lot of people said a lot of things, so I'm going to try and cover everything. Some of the highlights were

- A gentleman who had a lot of experience with anti-Nazi marches/events getting out of hand because of boneheads throwing bricks at the police talked about some of his experiences in that area, and how what you do can affect everyone else even if they choose not to participate
- A gentleman talked about how he supported direct action, but it had to be MASS direct action; he thought that the idea/spirit behind the action was good, but it was very poorly organized
- A gentleman contrasted the direct action taken by the guy who spoke at the demo, with the big dreadlocks, who went to jail for disarming a B-52, with direct action from Sat. I think the point was that direct action should be powerful and purposeful. But don't quote me.
- At least 3 people spoke out to say that they vehemently disagreed with the action, and considered it to be highly agressive/violent/whatever.
- I added my two cents that when things are that spontaneous, you are putting a lot of people who are inexperienced at this kind of thing - like myself - to a split-second decision which is very difficult to make. Do I want to put myself at possible risk of arrest? For hardened activists to throw caution to the wind is fine, but what about the rest of us?

I have a bus to catch. I will post more tomorrow if people are interested.

chris

by interested Mon Oct 14, 2002 18:01

little old ladies are often the best at spontaneous direct action things though being old ladies they have much well earned experience and we should always step back if they seem pissed off but they did a lovely job on the submarines in scotland.

by chris Tue Oct 15, 2002 09:50

The debate continued...

- A young lad got up and said he did not support the action, thought it was stupid and also though that it was a bit hypocritical for people who claim to be for peaceful solutions, non-confrontation etc. to be doing that kind of thing.
- Another young lad got up and said that the anti-war movement in general should be putting the word out at schools, because he knows lots of people that would be into going to an anti-war demo, and trying to get more younger people. (The age breakdown on our bus would have been about 5 teenagers, 5-6 middle-aged persons and the rest mostly in their 20's-early 30's)
- A gentleman got up and said that he strongly supported the action; that compared to what the US/UK are going to be doing to Iraq very shortly, ripping down a fence is less than nothing.
- An (older) woman got up to say she was strongly opposed to what took place, that she considered it violent and did not want any part of that sort of thing.
- Another woman got up to agree with her and to point out that while one speaker on the demo pleaded with people to make sure that when they come back, they bring 1 or 2 more people with them, based on what happened late in the day, she might not be back herself. In other words she was completely alienated by the mass trespass.

Well, that's about all I can remember. The overall tone of the comments was negative in terms of the trespass. There seemed to be 3 distinct groups of people; one who thought the action was a bad idea, full stop, and wanted no part of that sort of thing; one who supported the idea of that kind of action but thought that it was very poorly done, and as a result was a bad idea; and those who supported the action and the way it was carried out.

So there ya go. If you have criticisms of this, that's fine, but just remember these are not my ideas; I am merely passing on what other people said to the best of my recollection. So keep it respectful, eh?

chris

by Ray Tue Oct 15, 2002 10:00

- The overall tone of the comments was negative in terms of the trespass. There seemed to be 3 distinct groups of people; one who thought the action was a bad idea, full stop, and wanted no part of that sort of thing; one who supported the idea of that kind of action but thought that it was very poorly done, and as a result was a bad idea; and those who supported the action and the way it was carried out.

Have a meeting before the demonstration.
Those who think its a bad idea, full stop, can argue against it. Those who support the idea can suggest ways to carry it out better. Those who think its a good idea can discuss how to do it. Then when its time for the action to go ahead, those who are against it can move away and do their own thing, those who are for it will have a better idea of what they're doing. Everyone is happy.

Holding a meeting is such a new and strange idea, its not surprising that nobody thought of it...

by Andrew Tue Oct 15, 2002 10:36

Thanks for posting the comments Chris, I guess this must be the other report I'd heard referred to.

On one level it serves to underline the deep political divisions within the anti-war movement (this after all is really a discussion about HOW you stop a war). But on another my experience of direct action is in the immediate aftermath reformist activists often feel it was a mistake but over time it becomes something many refer to with favour. The use of the phrase 'spirit of Seattle' being one illustration, another is how even the Sun by the turn of mellinum was referring to the 'great poll tax riot' although at the time it preferred 'shop these thugs'.

One serious point, you referred to a couple of people praising the role of individuals who have scaled the fence in the past to (for instance) spray paint planes but opposing Saturdays action. There is a political problem in supporting the actions of the 'pacifist SAS' but opposing (mini) mass direct actions in that it is just the heroic leader principle by a different route.

These individual/ small group actions have been very useful in making propaganda against the war but stopping it will require mass direct action.

by Maubere Tue Oct 15, 2002 11:48

On the bus down from Dublin the steward said that the official IAWM plan was for us to march to the terminal and to try to get inside and if we didn't then we would stay outside the terminal and protest for a while. We were then told that if anyone wanted to do their own thing then that was fine, it seemed to me that they weren't against people doing direct action stuff, so the debate about people hijaking the march are a bit off the mark. However there wasn't enopugh debate about this because alot of the people on the bus on the way home were really surprised and annoyed about it, esp the older (50s, 60s) people. Of course if no one went over the fence then other people would have been annoyed and considered the trip to Shannon a waste. The movement has to include those who want to do direct action and those who don't. On a previous trip to Sellafield it was made clear to people on the bus before we got there that some people would be doing direct action and if other people didn't want to do it then that was fine. Next time everybody should at least know that direct action is being planned by a group at the demo and if they want to do it they can get more info from the planners. I hadn't planned to do any direct action myself on Sat but when I saw the fence down I decided to leg it across, I just thought that something more than chanting had to be done, after all what are we ment to do when the governmewnt and the Gardaí are breaking the law?

by chris Tue Oct 15, 2002 14:47

"One serious point, you referred to a couple of people praising the role of individuals who have scaled the fence in the past to (for instance) spray paint planes but opposing Saturdays action. There is a political problem in supporting the actions of the 'pacifist SAS' but opposing (mini) mass direct actions in that it is just the heroic leader principle by a different route."

The action that was referred to was the disarming of a B-52 bomber by the dreadlocked dude who spoke at the demo. One person expressed their opinion something along the lines that this action was better/something he would be more likely to support because it had a clear and meaningful purpose - to stop, however temporarily, a killing machine. This particular person expressed their opinion that they supported this type of direct action, that had clear goals, etc., but were less enthusiastic about the mass trespass, since it was more vague/symbolic. I believe that was the jist of their comments anyways.

I don't remember any reference to the painting of planes that took place.

chris

by M Tue Oct 15, 2002 17:55

I was on bus #2 I guess, went to the garda st. before heading for Dublin. Mostly the arguement was about if people thought there should be direct action or not, if knocking down a fence was constructive, if the fence incident was 'violence'.

It started because someone got up and said that they would never come to another march again because of what happened. Those who were arrested and others defended the action. One really sweet older man talked about how torn he was between being frustrated that we hadn't achieved entrance to the airport and knowing he shouldn't go across the fence. He crossed the fence in the end and was glad he did but would have liked to be warned in advance that the action was going to take place.
Other people talked about the disorganisation and the sponteniety. Thats al i have time for but it went on for ages and anyone who wanted to get up and talk could.
It was a good debate.