Amnesty International highlights mass rape of Kenyan women by British soldiers

by Fintan Lane Wed Jul 02, 2003 21:03

I suspect this will receive very little attention in the mainstream press, particularly in Britain. It's all about power, isn't it? Women (black and socially maginalized) vs the might of the British army. Right and wrong won't get much of a hearing I fear.

by R Isible - 1 of IMC Editorial Group - IMC Ireland Wed Jul 02, 2003 22:07

http://www.guardian.co.uk/kenya/story/0,12689,989531,00.html http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2932007.stm http://www.observer.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,906059,00.html http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,6119,2-11-1447_1346177,00.html http://www.ananova.com/news/?keywords=Kenya&nav_src=more_on http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=%2Fnews%2F2003%2F04%2F05%2Fwmasai05.xml This sort of unthinking reproduction of emails, articles etc without extra research on the part of the poster leads to the clutter, spin and distortion of the news on indymedia.ie It turns it into little more than a message board. You've seen the real world equivalents everywhere: swathes of posters and leaflets stapled on top of each other, important interesting information swamped out by commercially replicated messages and the short-sighted arrogance of individuals claiming a huge amount of space for themselves. Indymedia.ie is a shared commons that can only work if most of its users try to write ORIGINAL material. Otherwise it becomes an adjunct to the corporate media, passing on the spin that suits those in power, propagating memes and credulity.

by Fintan Lane Wed Jul 02, 2003 22:44

I'm extremely happy to hear that the Guardian etc (which I didn't see today) picked up on the Amnesty press release (which I only received shortly before I posted). With regard to your other comments: please, if you consider this 'clutter', then I fear we have vastly different ideas on the role of independent media.

by R Isible 1 of IMC Editorial Group - IMC Ireland Wed Jul 02, 2003 23:04

then you can't have done much in the way of trying to add any value. You can't have cared very much whether or not it was hiding a post about some other injustice that corporate media is not covering. You can't have done any fact-checking to see if it was accurate. In short you can't have cared very much about independent media and your role in it. The fact that the central tenet of your post has been disproved ought to give you pause as to whether or not your blind regurgitation of a press-release from one of the largest, most-organized and media-penetrating NGOs contributes to independent media and reveals more than it hides.

by lina Wed Jul 02, 2003 23:17

the Guardian had a piece about this in their G2 section a few months ago .

by maggie Wed Jul 02, 2003 23:38

R Isible might have all day to go poking arounf the internet but this is the first time I saw this information and i think it's an extremely important post. And by the the way, why is 'press release' listed under 'type' on the form for stories if you have no interest in publishing them?? Maybe all of this has more to do with what Risible personally deems to be important news. His comments above are a fucking outrage as far as i'm concerned - he thinks valuable information on mass rapes is just shite clutttering up the airwaves! What does he want intead - more sectarian bickering? I am not a big fan of Amnesty in general but they've done good work in bringing this to lite. R Isible is beneath contempt as far as i'm concerned as i hope his views aren't shared by everybody at indymedia!

by R Isible Thu Jul 03, 2003 01:20

>R Isible should go examine whats
>motivating him here because this is a
>good story

I've already made it clear what's motivating me: that there shouldn't be mass regurgitation of information by indymedia.ie contributors. Read the posts again -- slowly. Use a dictionary for the hard words if you still don't get it.

>R Isible might have all day to go
>poking arounf the internet but this
>is the first time I saw this information
>and i think it's an extremely important post.

Well actually it was delivered to me four times: once in the Guardian, once an Amnesty email list, once on another email list and now again on indymedia.ie. I hardly had to search for it. That's the point: this is not unique information. It is not original.

>And by the the way, why is 'press release'
>listed under 'type' on the form for stories
>if you have no interest in publishing them??

Because there are a lot of Irish organisations that want to publish their press-releases so that _their_ information (which is ignored by mainstream media) is shared with as many people as possible. This is less possible and useful when indymedia.ie becomes full of Press Releases from the hundreds of NGO's, charities and other organisations that release several worthy, important and widely available Press Releases every day.

>Maybe all of this has more to do with what
>Risible personally deems to be important news.

It's definitely to do with that. I'm expressing my opinion, not someone else's.

>His comments above are a fucking outrage as
> far as i'm concerned -

Good for you.

>he thinks valuable information on mass rapes
>is just shite clutttering up the airwaves!

Actually the newswire. But you're right, this story was also reported on the airwaves.

>What does he want intead - more sectarian
>bickering?

No, I want passionate, radical and original telling of the truth. I want an end to people forwarding on chain-mails, petitions, other people's essays and other people's opinions. I want unique and original content.

>I am not a big fan of Amnesty in general

I am.

>R Isible is beneath contempt as far as
> i'm concerned as i hope his views aren't
> shared by everybody at indymedia!

This is an illogical sentence structure. Probably you got caught up in the excitement of being able to fire off an angry post. I'll try to dissect it into two parts: 1. I'm sorry you find me contemptible for trying to help indymedia.ie not degenerate into a swirling mass of "news" that you can get everywhere else. 2. Very probably my views are not shared by everyone at indymedia.

You'll note that I left this original post although I burned and yearned to delete it. I shall be working hard to try and convince the rest of you at indymedia that this sort of verbatim reproduced, widely-available stuff should be deleted on sight (like Fintan Lane's other verbatim press release reproduction here: http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=60232&PHPSESSID=22e694e7348488b01cb4ffb86829cd5b ). Admittedly that had a stronger Irish connection.

by depp Thu Jul 03, 2003 10:54

I agree with the criticism of R isible.

This indymedia site is becoming irrelevant - the infighting and squabbling is a bore.

Many people would like to see news items on the indymedia site that ARE already on other sites, why not? Here people can comment on them.

I notice the huge fall off in postings to Indymedia - don't kid yourselves, this is not just because "the war is over", it is also because of the childish bickering on the site, and the removal of interesting news/ comment just because some censor has read it elsewhere or has grand notions that he is an "Editor".

To my mind this editing is little more than an ego trip. Enjoy the power, there'll be no-one reading you soon.

by Ray Thu Jul 03, 2003 12:50

First, in case its escaped anyone's attention, the original article is still here. It wasn't deleted. Someone expressed an opinion about it, and that's it. The End Times are not yet upon us.
Secondly, indymedia _is_ supposed to be for original news. And it _is_ a problem if the newswire is full of articles that appear elsewhere. That's why we delete crossposts. And that's why I think its fair enough to criticise a post that repeats information that is all over the mainstream media. The Gruadian often carries interesting articles. So does the New York Review of Books. I've seen lots of interesting articles on weblogs and other sources. Should they all be discussed here?
Finally, I know this may disappoint some people, but indymedia is not dead on its feet. Past experience shows us that the site goes through cycles, with lots more activity around events like RTS, the anti-war demos, and stuff like that, and then things calm down again. But the overall trend is upwards - site activity after each peak passes is higher than it was before the peak it. July and August are generally quiet on the left, and they'll probably be relatively quiet in terms of postings here, but indymedia's readership is massive.

by Debbie Thu Jul 03, 2003 13:31

The Irish Times covers it today. They consider it to be news. But I guess they are small fry as far as the Indymedia EDITORS are concerned.

by Ray Thu Jul 03, 2003 13:41

That's not in question.
The question is, should indymedia be duplicating stuff that appears in the mainstream media, or should it be an outlet for those who don't get covered in the mainstream?
Sure, some overlap is possible, but indymedia's front page shouldn't be the same as the Indo's, should it?

by Debbie Thu Jul 03, 2003 13:43

The Press Release was not carried in full on any of the mainstream media outlets.

by IMC reader Thu Jul 03, 2003 14:07

Hi Ray,
we all know where that sort of thing comes from: indymedia is on the way out, etc. Dream on! It must be hard for the various editors of The Real Revolutionary Paper to try to compete with a media outlet like this: in real time, open to all, horizontal. Why don't they copy the model?
That's because it's incompatible with the hierarchical structure of the Party.
How many hits does indymedia get per day? I'd be very interested to know more about this. Can you tell us?

by Debbie Thu Jul 03, 2003 14:10

You can be both critical and supportive of Indymedia. Get out of the SP/SWP mindset!

by Ray Thu Jul 03, 2003 14:18

Here's some raw data. Someone who knows this stuff better than me can probably unpack it. As you can see, there's been a drop-off since the war started, but the figures are still far higher than they were six months or a year ago.

(Figures in parentheses refer to the 7-day period ending 03-Jul-2003 00:09).
Successful requests: 3,011,331 (150,413)
Average successful requests per day: 33,459 (21,487)
Data transferred: 26.641 gigabytes (1.417 gigabytes)
Average data transferred per day: 303.118 megabytes (207.348 megabytes)

month: reqs: pages:
Apr 2003: 1184649: 56827:
May 2003: 1035838: 46469:
Jun 2003: 735864: 25758:
Jul 2003: 54980: 34:

Busiest month: Apr 2003 (56,827 requests for pages).

by Ray Thu Jul 03, 2003 14:24

Yes, the press release wasn't carried by any of the major outlets. But still, the story is being covered elsewhere. If the prupose of posting the release here is to make people aware of the story (and that's how I interpret Fintan's comment), then its making people aware of a story that they're already aware of.

by Debbie Thu Jul 03, 2003 14:27

This gives them access to the full unvarnished report. It is information and news which has not been edited or altered as it would have been in the usual outlets.

by Daithi Thu Jul 03, 2003 14:38

" Many people would like to see news items on the indymedia site that ARE already on other sites, why not? Here people can comment on them."

Um, no. This is not the discussion board for the entire universe of 'interesting articles'. That sort of approach (paste an article and allow comments on it) works well for a high-traffic BBS but is wholly at odds with the purpose of Indymedia. Some aspects of Indymedia peer review do resemble discussion board threads, but that's more to do with the inexperience of users and their unwillingness to think differently.

Criticising a media outlet or even a particular article is good - and necessary - but republishing existing material without context either for information or for starting an argument is parasitic (or parasitical, if you take that side of the grammatical debate) behaviour and fits no reasonable definition of what Indymedia is. It is impossible to filter in a fair way when this sort of info is reposted - and if one Guardian article is eligible, then why shouldn't every other piece from that issue?

by Ray Thu Jul 03, 2003 15:07

Amnesty has a website, doesn't it?
Surely, if you're reading the Guardian and you see a reference to a story about Pat Finucane, or Kenyan women taking a case against the MoD, and you see that an Amnesty press release has been quoted, the thing to do is NOT to go to the indymedia website, and see if there's more information from Amnesty there, but to go to the AMNESTY website, and see what else they say.
Obviously there's a judgement call to be made (which is why this article wasn't deleted immediately), but there is a difference between posting a press release about a subject that isn't being covered elsewhere, and posting a press release about something that's already in all the papers, some of whom even quote the release.
Amnesty are a good organisation (not above criticism, but that's for another time...). They write good press releases. That are available on their website or on their mailing list.

by Mags Thu Jul 03, 2003 16:40

Two points: RIsible's original cricitism of this posting was made in a hostile manner and took no account of the particularly senstive abuse that fintan was making known to many for the first time. Also, i would hope that indymedia is aforum for discussion as much as a newswire.

Secondly, judging by RIsible's comments, it now seems that those of us trying to highlight the sexual and physical abuse of women should be more concerned about the gatekeepers of independent media than those at the Guardion and so on.

Actually, a third point - having scrolled thru comments on this thread a few times, I reckon if this is the cailbre of 'editor' at indymedia, i'll definitely be returning less often. See enough of your type everyday of my life.

by Mags Thu Jul 03, 2003 16:41

Such self-serving rubbish

by R Isible Thu Jul 03, 2003 17:50

>Two points: RIsible's original cricitism of
>this posting was made in a hostile manner and

Possibly true, it could have been phrase better and for that I apologize to Fintan. I was interested in pointing out that Fintan's "it won't be carried anywhere" justification for posting the story would have been seen by himself to be false if he had taken some time to do some research before publishing. I perceived this as part of a trend on Fintan's part when coupled with the fact that he had previously published another complete Amnesty press release further down the newswire. I should point out that I am not attacking Fintan (whom I don't know), but rather his decision to publish these two articles. His refusal to accept that his premise for publishing them was incorrect and his (and your) assumption that there was some sort of special perogative granted to Press Releases about the mass rape of women (coupled with your expletive post [if Mags == maggie ]) demonstrates that there is a problem: his and your insistence that you should be allowed to swamp out other information with what _you_ deem to be important to the detriment of other users of the site.

>took no account of the particularly senstive
>abuse that fintan was making known to many

So, I suppose that all the other issues reported on Indymedia are less important? They deserve to have their voices stifled by this one instead of sharing the space in a co-operative manner?

>for the first time. Also, i would hope that
>indymedia is aforum for discussion as much
> as a newswire.

There is discussion, but the primary purpose is the _creation_ and dissemination of news that won't be told or read elsewhere. The discussion of this _original_ news which is _created_ by _you_ can help add to the news.

Unison.ie and irishtimes.com both have excellent bulletin-boards for the discussion of mainstream news content. There are also large numbers of email lists which do the same thing. Indymedia aims to fill a different purpose: instead of reacting to the stories created by big media it breaks and creates its own stories. You (and me) as site users can either help this or hinder it. I'm suggesting that if we all decide to republish widely disseminated information then we hinder this and become a weak echo of big media.

>Secondly, judging by RIsible's comments, it
>now seems that those of us trying to highlight
>the sexual and physical abuse of women should
>be more concerned about the gatekeepers of
>independent media than those at the Guardion
> and so on.

If you produce original material about the sexual and physical abuse of women and manage to create an _original_ feature, with relevance to Ireland on the subject then I'll be the first to argue for it's promotion to a front page article. If you reproduce unoriginal material created by someone else I'll be the first to argue for its deletion.

It's that simple.

by Debbie Thu Jul 03, 2003 18:34

You really dont see why a report on Rape is any more important than one on motorways. You really make IMC an attractive option for women to get involved in.

by iosaf Thu Jul 03, 2003 19:02

& whilst we are at it, no mention of Gay Lesbian Global day on IMC ireland either.

Here above 23 comments linked to a story which went into mainstream british press yesterday outlining the most horrific humanrights abuses and the use of sexualcrimes as a war technique.

Does anyone remember such extensive allegations being made against a British regiment in the past?

and why isn't there a womens section?

by Daithi Thu Jul 03, 2003 19:34

"You Are A Bunch Of Arrogant Male Scumbags
by Debbie Thursday, Jul 3 2003, 5:34pm

You really dont see why a report on Rape is any more important than one on motorways. You really make IMC an attractive option for women to get involved in. "

Would you care to substantiate that?

One of the core values of all the Indymedia sites is that editors do not take an approach of selecting 'more important' stories. Instead, that decision remains with the empowered reader.

You may wish to set priorities for what you consider important news; you may even think that rape should be written "Rape". If you want to set up a website or a forum based upon those founding principles, then all I can say is more power to you :)

On this site, however, editors are not going to start ranking stories based on the perceived importance of the issue being discussed. Personally I think sexual crimes in the international/wartime context are constantly and maliciously ignored and marginalised. The statute of the ICC did take a step forward in recognising some actions as crimes against humanity - feminist academics recognised the change in approach in the forming of the statute - however it is far from enough, and stories like the reports about British troops are painful reminders of how far we have to go.

So, Debbie, are you suggesting that I should act upon my own convictions to ... well, what? You say that we miss the importance - are you calling for a feature, or for flashing lights, or merely refraining from criticising the method of posting (i.e. regarding originality)? Because in your detailed and persuasive two-sentence post above, you managed to miss any suggestions for how we could act to fix our alleged bias.

Debates over the form of newswire articles has taken place in response to articles on numerous topics - Israel/Palestine, Northern Ireland, Israel/Palestine, the war in Iraq, Israel/Palestine, child abuse, Israel/Palestine, reform v revolution, Israel/Palestine, financial systems, Israel/Palestine....and on and on. Funnily enough, Debbie, in most cases the unsubstantiated accusation of bias against whatever perspective has been made. When we deleted two spammed articles, one related to Islam and one on Judaism, we were accused in the space of seven days of simultaneous bias in both directions. When we deleted an article by a character known as Adrian More, the convincing evidence of our being in the pay of the CIA was hinted at but yet never produced. And, yes, when we removed an article crossposted by Emma Goldwoman, we were accused of only deleting articles by women.

There is one common thread running through this amusing history (two if you include my verbose and slightly tetchy responses), and that is the absolute ignorance of the possibility that our editing actions on the newswire are content-neutral. The ultimate goal of open-publishing newswire editors is to remove the possibility for distortion and interference as a result of personal opinions or prejudices. That's why (as an example) we don't delete so-called 'unimportant' stories.

So if you can show how the approach of criticising reposted materials, which is certainly open to debate and is in fact in progress at this moment in the comments above, is somehow hostile to women's issues, then I would be happy to respond as best I can.

by Bewildered Thu Jul 03, 2003 21:40

I find it deeply depressing that the editors on indymedia.ie decided to get on their high horse about a posting like this. Worthless postings are put on the newswire on a regular basis attacking political groups on a unmitigated sectarian and I can't remember a case of the editors wading in with such venom.

This press release was posted on indymedia.ie before the Irish Times got the story. Hot off the press, so to speak. What is indymedia for if not alerting readers quickly to such revelations.

And the content is particularly horrific. The mass rape of women is a damn sight more important in my eyes than most of the issues covered on the newswire.

by me Thu Jul 03, 2003 22:07

i personally don't have access to the likes of Irish times guardian etc and therefore tehis articel was of great interest to me, shocking actually, I unfortunately misundersood what the whole indymedia thing was about, but now I'm even more unfortunately wise to it, but i'm too bored (yawn) to go into it, thanks to poster of article on brits in kenya

by Red Dub Thu Jul 03, 2003 23:25

I consider myself a committed activist.

I try and read 1 or 2 papers a day (without buying them if possible). I like to settle in a pub on Suday with a pint or two and the Tribune (O; Reilly I know but the most left wing of the Sundays).

I surf independent and alternative news sites when I can.

I believe I am resonably up to date and aware, without being arrogant.

But I missed this.

Now I know the horrific, horrendus things that happened to the women of Kenya. And I will tell others.

Thank you Indymedia.

Now for the rest of you pricks. How much have I missed due to 'doubole posting'?

Get off your fucking holes and do something other than bitch about the WELL INTENTIONED repeat.

There is plenty of space on the net

by Red Cork Thu Jul 03, 2003 23:56

Fuck off Red Dub....it's such a shame that your passive aprroach to Indymedia is interrupted by editors and readers having a discussion. What have you ever done to help the site, you asshole? Contributed? Helped with fundraising? Promoted? I don't get much time to be on the web and haven't volunteered for editorial, so I'm not going to talk shite like you. maybe you could keep your mouth shut until you actually DO SOMETHING!

by Geoff Fri Jul 04, 2003 10:13

Maybe if R Isible had e-mailed his comments to Fintan directly (he did leave his address on the original post). And the same goes for his comment to Barry Finnegan in the ISF post he might have spared us all having to trall through this. I don't know Fintan but he has contributed some valuable posts to indymedia in the past and he his one of the few people who use their own names so maybe he deserves a bit of respect. This is not a criticism, just a suggestion because when the opinions of the editors become more of a focus than the stories themselves no one gains. Maybe a bit more focus on getting rid of the constant bickering about the minority, self important left wing parties (no one else cares about them any way.
Cheers

by depp Fri Jul 04, 2003 11:12

“The Independent Media Centre is a network of collectively run media outlets for the creation of radical, accurate, and passionate tellings of the truth. We work out of a love and inspiration for people who continue to work for a better world, despite corporate media's distortions….”

This is what Indymedia is about is it? “Telling the truth”. Ye should rewrite this I think, change it to “….tellings of the truth that have not appeared on any other website anywhere in the universe.”

And what about “corporate media’s distortions”?. If ye believe that corporate media distorts news then why should anyone go to them AT ALL to find their news, cannot Indymedia be a site where people go INSTEAD of going to the corporate media sites?

Daithi >>Um, no. This is not the discussion board for the entire universe of 'interesting articles'. That sort of approach (paste an article and allow comments on it) …………………….. is wholly at odds with the purpose of Indymedia.

Why is there a segment called opinion/analysis when posting a piece on the site if ye don’t want opinion/ analysis?

Why is there facility to comment on postings if ye don’t want people to comment on postings?

Clarity is needed on what you the Editors, the controllers, the Humpty Dumptys, WANT on this website.

Surely some proof of what the readers want is in the amount of comments a posting produces. Do ye want the site full of notices about meetings between two humans and a cat in a pub in Dublin?

A new definition of what Indymedia is About is needed. I think I have made a mistake myself in thinking what it’s about.

by Daithi Fri Jul 04, 2003 13:51

"Why is there a segment called opinion/analysis when posting a piece on the site if ye don’t want opinion/ analysis?"

It seems clear to me. What part of "opinion/analysis" means "paste in an article you found on the web?" If you check out the exact point of mine you were responding to, I was criticising the posting of copied articles merely for the purpose of responding. Copied articles aren't purely opinion/analysis, right? In fact, the very word 'opinion' implies that the author has one, rather than the use of a mouse and its right-click button.

"Why is there facility to comment on postings if ye don’t want people to comment on postings? "

Wrong again. You add comments as part of peer review. If this was a discussion forum then there would be a thread-based system - discussion takes place, but as an addition to the primary purpose of providing new news. Now as we are all aware since the site went online it has become the main destination for being the discussion forum for the Irish left. This is cool, but there are some forum-type acts that are inappropriate for a newswire. Such as - chasing a particular person across multiple articles to get an answer, copying articles just as a talking point, etc. There is no problem with discussion and comments but there must be a connection to the original function as a wire.

by depp Fri Jul 04, 2003 16:17

Would it be fair to say that you could summarise Indymedia as

a) a place for amateur journalists to post some investigative piece that would not make mainstream press, and

b) a noticeboard for upcoming events?

If it is, then unless one is an amateur investigative journalist, or holding a meeting of some kind then one has more or less NO business contributing to the site. One should confine ones visits to reading not writing?

Totally seriously, if you can confirm the above I will have clarified that I for one probably have no business contributing my thoughts to the site, and that's perfectly fair enough, no hard feelings.

by Daithi Fri Jul 04, 2003 16:53

Not really. You don't have to be an amateur nor an investigative journo. You said it perfectly yourself - contribute "my thoughts". That's why we have the new categories for opinion, report, and press release. So if someone wants to track down all the anti-war opinion pieces, for example, they can do that.

Events are another matter - the argument over where event notices should go has been fought a few times. I'm somewhere in the middle on it - notices are useful but I would take a hard line on advertisments.

I think the real think about an Indymedia site is that it doesn't fit into the categories of what Internet users or even 'media consumers' are conditioned to expect. It evolves and grows, but there are certain basic attributes - like open publishing. So I don't agree with the categories as you describe them - I would say it's much wider than that. In any event, the subject of this particular kerfaffle, copied articles, are also included in the current set-up - if I worked on a consensus of one, I would automatically delete cut-n-paste articles from other websites. But luckily for one and all, I don't have that power. Ray would probably agree with me, but certainly when it's been discussed in the past, there were different views, and no action is taken. But there is very much a preference for originality - that would be how I would rather see the site go. On a forum that sets itself out as no more than a discussion board, there is less of a concern with this. On a self-professed newswire, it would be nice if contributors could note the difference.

by ollie - katalyzer Fri Jul 04, 2003 17:17

Daithi, this was particularily insensitive:

'You may wish to set priorities for what you consider important news; you may even think that rape should be written "Rape". If you want to set up a website or a forum based upon those founding principles, then all I can say is more power to you :)'

In particular the smiling face at the end. I mean, did it occur to you that some one on this thread might themselves have been raped? Or might know someone personally who has? Rape is ubiqutious, it exists here, today. Of course, for example, distant wars are real too, but the reality of rape is much much closer to hand than the reality of being bombed. So people ,people using this newswire, hurt more when you do things like put smiley faces at the end of sarcastic comments.

A bit of sensitivity please....

And sensitivity (imo) does not involve cut and pasting examples of your own supposed sensitivity to placate your self


Over the last few months, so many posts have degenerated into leftie bickering that even the afforementioned 'serious topics' get left behind as snide remarks flow into yet more snide remarks. And not everyone is on multiple mailing lists.

That said, a link to the amnesty site, and a synopsis would, of course, have been the best thing to do. No question. It's more in keeping with the old skool activist ethos of the net too.....

by Daithi Fri Jul 04, 2003 17:52

Pleased to respond. But first off, would you explain what you mean by this?

"And sensitivity (imo) does not involve cut and pasting examples of your own supposed sensitivity to placate your self"

Are you anticipating my answer, or referring to something I've already written? Because I'll say very clearly that I haven't cut and pasted my "supposed sensitivity", whatever that is, and don't intend to do so.

Now as for the substantive point. Bear in mind the context - the response was to the accusation of 'arrogant male scumbags'. Directed at myself and other editors, the claim is that we don't care about rape, don't understand it, etc. Do you not consider that to be insensitive, Ollie? Is it not possible that any of us HAVE knowledge of the issue and would be equally hurt by such a claim? Should you not address your complaint at Debbie, also?

So what I said was that if Debbie wanted to be able to create priorities and rank stories by some kind of criteria (a list? a guide?) - I don't even intend to get into the foolish debate of 'is rape more important than war' because it is completely not the issue - that was fine, but it wasn't something that happens on Indymedia. I'm not going to start apologising for using an emoticon, especially when it is extremely clear that I was talking about all stories being of equal importance, not that people who wanted to discuss rape (or any issue) should go someplace else. If you reread my full post, that's the theme that runs through it.

Sure, it was sarcastic, and I could use a lot less of that, but I feel your response is a bit over the top - I am not going to start bowdlerising my contributions on the grounds that it could possibly maybe offend someone. If you replace the issue being discussed here with any of the previous disputes - 'you're not recognising the importance of ... anti-Catholic violence in the North, Rachel Corrie's murder, the killings in Falluja, even the wacky ones like chemtrails - the point is the same. It just happens to be that the issue on this day is provocative (although the criticism of our perceived suppression of the Rachel Corrie story was more virulent).

I shouldn't even have to do this, but for the sake of clarity, and correcting the record, I had and continue to have no intention to belittle the gravity of this particular story nor the crime of rape in general. Any comments I made and make are directed towards the format of postings to the site and are designed to stand apart from my personal views on the importance of what's being discussed in the postings.

by R Isible Fri Jul 04, 2003 20:01

>Maybe if R Isible had e-mailed his comments
>to Fintan directly (he did leave his address
> on the original post). And the same goes for
> his comment to Barry Finnegan in the ISF post
> he might have spared us all having to trall
> through this.

And should I email _every_ other of the numerous contributors personally and in secret each time instead of posting it out in the open so that we can _all_ see and learn instead of having to go through the whole mess again and again with each individual person who is unaware of the problem? You must have a lot of time on my hands.

>I don't know Fintan but he has contributed
>some valuable posts to indymedia in the past

Of this there is no question.

>and he his one of the few people who use
>their own names so maybe he deserves a bit
>of respect.

He already has my respect for his activism and his good posts. My criticism of his reproduction of unoriginal material is just that: criticism of reproduction of unoriginal material. It's not a question of "disrespecting" Fintan.

>This is not a criticism, just a suggestion
>because when the opinions of the editors
>become more of a focus than the stories
>themselves no one gains.

Agreed. And hopefully now that the issue is clearly in the open there'll be more of an awareness that cut and paste reproduction of these materials is not something many of us agree with. There is now hopefully an awareness of this issue.

>Maybe a bit more focus on getting rid of
>the constant bickering about the minority,
>self important left wing parties (no one
>else cares about them any way.

Well, that probably helped to achieve the goal of getting rid of bickering!

by J. Fri Jul 04, 2003 20:10

1) As 'Bewildered' says above, it is really strange that RIsible decided to go in boots and knuckledusters on this posting when far too many items on the newswire are just baiting exercises. Why don't the editors put the same effort into confronting the endless sectarian backbiting and bickering that is really damaging the resource that indymedia is?

2) 'Press release' can be found on the terms to select on the form to be filled in before uploading a story. Likewise, 'international' is a choice on the same form. Why, if you are not interested in publishing important press releases like this one? The soldiers that did this belong to the army of the country right next door to us!

by R Isible Fri Jul 04, 2003 21:06

Your comments about Daithi seem to lack them:

>And sensitivity (imo) does not involve cut
> and pasting examples of your own supposed
> sensitivity to placate your self

What on earth does that mean and how does it contribute anything except an attack on Daithi? If you are referring to the part of Daithi's post where he is pointing out that he refuses (as an editor) to engage in selective promotion or demotion of articles expressing a particular viewpoint then all I can say is that you've missed his point.

The point of this whole thread is that there is a limited, shared resource: indymedia.ie. It was intended for the dissemination of views that don't get heard eleswhere. Although it has many examples of that working (look at the frontpage) there is also a lot of stuff appearing that hinders that. Among that stuff are widely available Press Releases from AI and other organizations. This, in my opinion, should be discouraged in the strongest terms, because it wastes the shared resource, thereby taking away from the unheard voices.

As I see it the job of an editor is to try and preseve this space for the original contributions that so many people make to indymedia.ie.

None of Daithi's or my opinions about anything to do with the _topic_ are relevant or have been expressed. The subject under discussion is whether or not unoriginal, widely available material should be posted by the most powerful people involved in indymedia.ie : YOU.

I'm requesting that you don't do that: hence my comment as opposed to the deletion of Fintan's post.

by red army Fri Jul 04, 2003 23:06

I dont agree with what the english soldiers did to women in Kenya, and of course they did the same in other countries that they colonised including this one. In fact armies throughout history have done this. But it also goes the other way such as when the Nazi women in Berlin got a taste of what had been done to women in the countries repressed by germany.

by ollie - katalyzer Mon Jul 07, 2003 02:48

Glad to see you agree -

'Sure, it was sarcastic, and I could use a lot less of that'....

On the main theme of the thread, as you probably saw, I basically agree with your position on repostings

I said:
'a link to the amnesty site, and a synopsis would, of course, have been the best thing to do. No question'

That cut n paste comment of mine was more about the potential of it happening, not about the 'fact' of it happening previously in the thread. Nothing more.

You said:
'Bear in mind the context - the response was to the accusation of 'arrogant male scumbags'. Directed at myself and other editors, the claim is that we don't care about rape, don't understand it, etc. Do you not consider that to be insensitive, Ollie? '

You are completely right. But, there are many many reasons not to 'fight fire with fire' or take an 'eye for an eye', or whatever cliche you want to insert about how its better not to become the thing you are criticising. So seeing someone else using insensitive language at you doesn't automatically give you carte blanche to do the same thing. If it does, we're bac to that old testament blind, toothless world where nobody can see or chew ,the death penalty is OK etc etc... Related to this, I think that when it became clear how hurt and angry a few contributors were, a bit of sensivity would have made sense...not smiley faces. As I've mentioned I agree with you on the substantive points about 'what indymedia is'. But yes, calling you an 'arrogant male scumbag' was wrong. Maybe irrational too, and then of course we could get into a debate about the nature of rationality...instrumental vs. communicative reason...weber and habermas....which is why I'm slower to criticise Debbie, though , as I said, it was obviously wrong to call you an arrogant male scumbag. (Remember she said 'you are a bunch of arrogant male scumbags' I mean, that's technically every male contributor to the thread, maybe even the male readers...)

You said:
'Is it not possible that any of us HAVE knowledge of the issue and would be equally hurt by such a claim? Should you not address your complaint at Debbie, also?'

Yes, it is of course possible. But you weren't getting emotional, you were getting sarcastic. If you have some sort of rape-related pain, then you hide it/supress it well. If I were to insert a 'fair play to you' or 'good luck with it' here, then this paragraph would become insensitive. If I was to add a specific emoticon (thanks for the word) representing a smiley face, it would, most certinally, be over the top. It would be wrong.

It would be wrong even if I thought it was apparantly clear that I was talking about something else, which in your case was the prioritising of stories, as opposed to the story itself. I was, after all, handling a sensitive subject, even if it was just as an example.

(though I'm not 100% sure if the claim mentioned in the above quote from you refers to what I said or what debbie said. I am presuming that your reference to the claim is about what debbie said about you being a bunch of arrogant male scumbags...)

Overall, as it happens we agree on more than we disagree. I agree with your 'vision' of indymedia, and, when I post stories elsewhere available, on-line, I put a link...everytime. Usually, this involves publicising a decent website, which I like doing. our only area of disagreement was your sarcastic language/style, but you seem to agree that your language/style was ott....