Press Statement - Catholic Worker

by John Kelly Wed Feb 12, 2003 11:49 Dromiskin

Deidre and her gang have disgraced all of us who are trying to argue against the war by peaceful means. In terms of public relations, their actions were a complete disaster for the anti war movement. The vast majority of people want nothing to do with Deirdre and her imported friends who have demonstrated extreme violence. Nothing, nothing, nothing justifys what they did. If we are to believe that violence like this is sometimes acceptable we are on a very dangerous road. Some idiots could then think about attacking American interests in Ireland or the homes of people who are employed by US compaines here (thousands of them). They will no doubt justify it through their own warped logic. Look at the scumbags in London who destroyed the place on a May Day march a couple of years ago. What was achieved? Precisely nothing other than more money being spent on policing, instead of health, eductaion etc.

Thanks Deirdre for leaving the Irish taxpayers with a huge ongoing policing bill, not to mention the cost of repairing the aircraft. In the very parish you were brought up in, they need money for school improvements, your local hospital is in dire need of funds yet thanks to your actions our (taxpayers) money is being diverted elsewhere.

I dont want war, but I certainly dont want more violence from the rent a mob that are being attracted to Shannon. Peaceful protest should mean exactly that.

by jm Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:42

i am sick and tired of hearing the actions of the catholic workers and mary kelly as 'violent.' well, maybe it is, if you look at it from the plane's point of view.
violent acts hurt living beings. as far as i know, nobody got hurt (except for the policeman who, at last telling, was set on fire and stabbed to death with a rusty lawnmower).
why are so many people so chickenshit? stand with your friends, we're all in this together.

plane: "please don't hit me."

by Terry Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:55

I applaud the actions of the ploughshares 5. The only problem I have with it is that there were not
100 or even 1000 people involved instead of just five. Nevertheless I disagree it has done the anti-war
movement damage. There are alot of people delighted with this action, not only because it has high-lighted
it further, but because it shows you can make a difference through peaceful actions and help stop this
war and all other wars. Imagine if people everywhere had the courage to sabotage the military machine,
this would show those in power, then we do not want war and if necessary we will take action to prevent
them from waging war.

John, -you are being very simplistic in your arguments. You called the action violent, when in fact it was
peaceful. There was nobody hurt and in it's own small way, may help prevent many others from being very
seriously hurt or killed in Iraq. There was nothing disgraceful about it. You seem to lump this action
almost in the terror category. You really ought to recognise it for what it is and most importantly the
context in which it took place. In your argument against the action, you totally ignore the real violence
about to be committed by the US administration and their military. You don't even condemn it. There is
little evidence that Bush et all will pay any attention to people nicely asking them to stop.

For a little bit of history, the First World War, largely came to an end because of massive revolt by
soldiers who were sick and tired of the war and just got up and went home. Likewise in the Vietnam war,
massive numbers of soldiers refused to obey orders. And there was much sabotage of military equipment
-something which you seem to consider disgraceful and violent. Well their actions probably saved another
few 100,000 Vietnamse from death.

As for the damage at Shannon being paid by the taxpayer. That's a nice little weapon used by the Irish
government to polarize the debate. The fact is I totally object to the use of my taxes to be used to
pay for the war machine in any way.

See
http://www.isreview.org/issues/09/soldiers_revolt.shtml

by Andrew Wed Feb 12, 2003 12:58

To repeat once again that there are many of us in the anti-war movements in Ireland who support the action of the CW5 and those who went before them.

And to ask a question of those who call themselves anti-war and do not?

'Public opinion' opposes the war in Ireland as all the polls show.

Yet the government is determined to not only allow us war planes refuel here but to actually vote with the US gov in the UN.

The direct actions at Shannon have had a visible impact on the war (one plane grounded and 17 diverted). In the light of the governments position what on earth do you hope to acheive by attacking those who engage in Direct action.

It looks like some are more concerned with the moral high ground then effective action to end refuelin.

The CW5 are religious, I am not but even I can see a biblical equivalent here in those that want to publically wash their hands of the war but condemn those who act against it.

by Chekov - WSM Wed Feb 12, 2003 13:18

Hey John where do I pick up my cheque?

I've been down to Shannon a half dozen times and what with printing up leaflets, bus tickets, making banners and all that I'm a couple of hundred yoyos out of pocket, maybe you can tell me who I lodge my claim form with?

When people use this offensive phrase, what they seem to be saying is that we (the 'mob') have the audacity are willing to protest on several issues, how dare we care about more than one issue?

As for the argument that the actions of the CW 5 and Mary Kelly are counter-productive and violent, I just fail to see how. Surely disabling a part of the war machine without hurting a single human being is the very opposite of violence, reducing by whatever tiny fraction the violent potential of the war machine.

As far as counter-productive, well these are actually the only actions that are provably productive in that they have a real effect on the war machine. Maybe purely legal protest like marching and petitioning does allow you to have the moral high ground in your own eyes and those of the media, but guess what? This isn't a goodness competition. Bush and Blair are perfectly happy to ignore the oppostion of the vast majority of humanity and cede the moral high ground to them while they pulverise Iraq.

So you have the choice to do something practical that has some effect on the war machine, or take the moral high ground and pat yourself on the back while the bombs fall. But please, whatever you do, don't snipe from your moral hill at those people who are brave enough to put themselves on the line to stop the war.

Fighting imperialism within the bounds of the law is like playing soccer while agreeing to stay within your own half - it just ain't gonna work.

by Lone gunman Wed Feb 12, 2003 13:40 preacher104 at hotmail dot com

Talk about a Clusterf**K operation.
Piss poor planning,badly thought, out achived nothing.
First off, a bit of study of disabling aircraft was in order.You disable aircraft by damaging the intrnal components of the engine or cockpit.By taking out the big red engine blocks and pushing a piece of steel in behind the turbine fans you would have permently blown that engine on spool up. If you can figure how to get them off of course.Not by beating the engine housing or cutting the hydaraulics.Pity that dumb woman Ryan didnt hit the hydarulic lines.The oil is under 3.5TONNES per sq inch pressure.You would have had a mayrter for the cause then. Once you recived her body back in an envelope after the plane fell on her.
Two, the consequences of the attack were not thought out public backlash,or security backlash.Where there was no security ,there is now ARMED security, thus preventing more competant militants having a go.
Three, All over effect World air moved out for awhile and will be back as soon as Weisbaden is at full handling capacity.{Yes,Shannon is an overflow handling airport for Lakenheath and Frankfurt]Troops and equipment are still using the field.The peace camp folded its tents and ran away when the pressure came on.The whole peace movement is discredited in the public eye.By what looks like a cult,and wouldnt surprise me if they were in the pay of the CIA.[It has happened before]The action made a neutral airport a world feature,and now I would say Bin Ladin &Co know a good easy place to hit one day when they want a laugh and are not too busy.What will the peace crowd say then?Oh we didnt think they would attack a neutral country?
Did noone think of a peaceful disablement?Can we say arm breakers boys&girls?Never read up how the real protestors stop Nuke waste trains in Germany?Three sets of cuffs and pieces of pipe and three voulenteers cuffed to the nose wheel,would still be there have had a better media impact,and would have gained more sympathy for the cause.The movement has destroyed itself by piss poor planning. Bet you all provided Dubya with a good chuckle.Maybe those wannabe peace workers now in Limerick jail should be left there to rot considering the damage they have done.

Know you your enemy and know yourself and victory is assured
Know neither your enemy nor yourself and you are assured defeat.
Sun TZU [the art of war]
A war monger of 2000 plus years ago,who knewhis stuff

by Chekov - WSM Wed Feb 12, 2003 16:55

Incidentally your pseudonym, your disregard for human life and your detailed knowledge of military machinery do no favours to the impression created of your sanity.

Aside from that, you are missing the point. The worth of an action like that by Mary Kelly of the CW5 lies not in its efficacy in inflicting maximum damage on the machinery in question, but rather in demonstrating that ordinary individuals can actually have some effect on the apparently omnipotent war machine. That is quite an achievement indeed.

by Annonymous Wed Feb 12, 2003 17:48

It is hard to take your argument seriously when you label the actions of the Catholic Workers as demonstrating "extreme violence"!!

Nevertheless I don't remain totally convinced as to whether direct action works. I need to see more evidence of this. And I think this is a very important issue for everyone to engage in for future purposes.

But for the moment I believe it does work, though I think this needs to be properly ascertained. And I send out my commendments to the five who have been prepared to go to prison for a most just cause. How many of us would be prepared to do that?

by lone gunman Thu Feb 13, 2003 01:07 preacher104 at hotmail dot com

Well Mr checkov,
if you really put some thought into your actions.you would see how futile the operation was.Knocking out one plane by a symbolic gesture is worthless.Trouble is you see is the omnipotent war machine as you call it can absorb twenty downed transporters A DAY.Please dont go on with this Bulshit that transporters are war machines.it is crap propaganda.Keep it for the sheeple who dont know any better.And yes I do know plenty about aircraft and disabling them I was trained by Uncle Sam .Love my country just hate the idiots who are now running it.Inc the last democraticJackass.Anyone who is so DUMB to go messing around on one like the way you lot did really do deserve to get killed,because you are really too stupid to be let loose in the general public.

by . Thu Feb 13, 2003 01:49

Starting a War for Peace.

Comforting a policeman is attacking him.

Disarming a weapon is violence.

by D Thu Feb 13, 2003 08:52

What was done to the plane was not violence. Come
on! What was done was both a symbolic and practical action. I can't say that I have the courage to do what the CW5 and Mary Kelly did but I do believe that they deserve support and solidarity from people opposing the war.

by . Wed Feb 19, 2003 11:35

Ciaron's second letter from jail "From Protest to Resistance" can be found at:
http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=29551

More info at:
http://www.geocities.com/londoncatholicworker

by . Sun Mar 02, 2003 12:08

PIT STOP PLOUGHSHARES - Ciaron Out; Damien, Deirdre, Karen, and Nuin Remain in Limerick Prison

"Minimum Security"
1 March 2003
http://ireland.indymedia.org/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=31664

by - - Tue Mar 04, 2003 03:42

Deirdre Clancy responds to John Kelly's points.

see the letter at

http://www.indymedia.ie/cgi-bin/newswire.cgi?id=32171

by pwdyson Wed Mar 19, 2003 03:14

All the above information can now be found at the Pitstop Ploughshares web page.

by Anne Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:43

When did you think that damaging property was non-violent? The first clue that something was wrong was that you snuck on to the airfield and then to the hanger. When did violence ever beget anything but violence?

I thought that your founder Dorothy Day opposed violence or maybe you're just a Catholic Worker in name only. You are only making yourselves look bad. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth is never good policy and doesn't work even if you are only trying to destroy their weapons.

Maybe an actual non-violent protest would unite more people to your cause. The terrorist acts that you do only scare people. You sound like the PETA people throwing paint on people's clothes or letting animals go from laboratories. What you are doing is not non-violent contrary to your beliefs. In the end you only justify opinions that you should not be listened to by anyone.

by pat c Tue Sep 28, 2004 10:55

it takes a rather strange mindset to see damage to property as violence, well maybe just a capitalist mindset.

this non violent direct action targetted the US war machine. supplies are just as vital to the war effort as troops are. "an army marchs on its stomach".

by Anne Tue Sep 28, 2004 11:56

dictionary definition of violence:

Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing

dictionary definition of damage

Harm or injury to property or a person, resulting in loss of value or the impairment of usefulness.

Well here are the definitions of violence and damaging. So what they did was violence. Maybe you should learn the language that you speak and learn tolerance for other's beliefs. I understand that mine is not a popular viewpoint, but then again, Dorothy Day had quite a few unpopular viewpoints regarding non-violence also. She would not have approved of doing violence to promote non-violence.
It just hurts your cause and makes people want o distance themselves from you.

by Homer Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:01

Of course damage to property is violence [you betray your hardened ideologue mindset when you sneer at it perhaps being a Capitalist definition]. If your ignorance of language is anything to go by then no wonder some wide-eyed idealistic idiot like yourself is tempted by the evangelical overtures of the extreme left.

In my experience, the ones most converted to a "cause", with little question and who offers fumbling excuses are the first to man the internment camps and stamp out freedoms.

Think for yourself and don't be tempted to over-simplify the situation. We are human beings; a species of primate with a talent for innovation and survival. The enlightened nature of our self-wareness and intelligence has bestowed upon us a responsibilty to generalise and promote the moral intuitions we've inherited from the evolution of both our psychology and our cultures.

There is no single answer. No utopian paradise. Only the struggle to promote justice and fairness while being careful not to destroy the progress made already. Being wilfully blind is an insult to the efforts made by all those who struggled for the prosperity and freedoms we enjoy today.

Violence should ALWAYS be the last resort.

by SDR Tue Sep 28, 2004 12:09

So by Anne's definition of violence it would be an act of violence for the US to dismantle its nuclear warheads. Or it would be an act of violence to make handguns inoperable. And every bomb disposal team that ever existed must therefore be guilty of violence.
Why not go the whole hog and declare that General De Chastelain is commiting an act of violence by helping to put IRA arms beyond use?

by pat c Tue Sep 28, 2004 13:03

this damaging of property prevents violence. ithis was the damaging of a part of the US war apparatus.

btw i love your show. i wish you werent so violent towatrds bart though.

by Homer Tue Sep 28, 2004 13:21

"this damaging of property prevents violence. ithis was the damaging of a part of the US war apparatus."

Nobody is contesting that this is the point of the damage done to US planes at Shannon. The point is, it is a form of violent protest; however your opinion as to its legitimacy.

The overall effectiveness of this form of protest is debatable. If it becomes too much of a nuisance, the US military may stop using Shannon; the issue will be forgotten and the planes will merely land elsewhere. There is also the risk of the anti-war facations lose credibility as the use of violence in a democracy with other available alternative forms of protest and change is generally unpopular.

by Anne Tue Sep 28, 2004 13:38

I am think ing for myself. People that think that it's write to do things like that are wrong. That isn't a form of non-violent protest, but a way to make themselves feel important. Think of it this way, is it more non-violent to stage a sit-in or hunger strike or stand in front of a tank or to destroy property? For me I find it morally objectionable to destroy things. It is so easy to destroy, as opposed to finding some peaceful solution to let your views be heard. Why be like every other group? Why not set yourselves appart by actually promoting peace and non-violence?

by pat c Tue Sep 28, 2004 13:45

but not in agreement.

you believe that damaging a warplane is violence. i disagree.

Remember opinions are are just that. your opinion is no more a law of nature than mine is.

you think such acts will lead to a loss of support for the anti war movement. there is no proof of this. quite the opposite.

by Homer Tue Sep 28, 2004 14:28

It's not what I "believe" so much as what the definition of the word is. Destroying or damaging an airplane [or anything else for that matter] is violent by the very definition of the word in the English language.

Because you "believe" it is not violence in the everday use of the term regarding injuries to a person or because it is a morally justifiable act doesn't change the bloody meaning of the word.

We're not arguing politics here. We're arguing vocabulary.

Is the bombing of a mosque by US warplanes violent, even if nobody were inside?

by Eoin Dubsky Tue Sep 28, 2004 14:45

At first I thought you were trolls, but then I remembered hearing very similar arguments made by well-meaning folks at anti-war demos. It's probably not just capitalist thinking. An anarchist recently posted elsewhere on this site about the common belief of "inherent goodness" in labour and production.

When Trident Ploughshares activists emptied the contents of the Maytime barge into the Lough Goil, they brought a note for the owner of the barge explaining their action and acknowledging the hard work which they had come to undo. It's sorta sick, but lots of creativity and hard work goes into building and servicing these killer machines. So people can get upset when they see "work being undone", as it was when the Pitstop Ploughshares grounded a US Navy plane at Shannon Airport last February.

I guess people who believe in this "inherent goodness" of labour and production might cry out "violence!" when a warplane is damaged, same as someone who believes in "inherent goodness" of life might cry out "violence!" when they see someone hunting.

Homer said earlier: "If it becomes too much of a nuisance [these protests], the US military may stop using Shannon; the issue will be forgotten and the planes will merely land elsewhere."

If the planes land in some other airport, some other country, then those people will probably face the same dilemma as we do now: Support the war or not. For now it's our choice.

by Chekov Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:00

Just to correct Eoin. He says that

"An anarchist recently posted elsewhere on this site about the common belief of "inherent goodness" in labour and production. "

The passage that he was referring to is the following

"I disagree with a hidden assumption of Eoin’s that working for companies is inherently bad...The problem libertarians have with work as it stands is that it is organised in an exploitative manner, not with the notion of work per se. "

As you will see, the anarchist in question was not making the point that Eoin claims, nor was the quoted phrase used. I can't imagine that there is an anarchist in the world who thinks that production is inherently good.

by Homer Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:09

You cannot just reinterpret the word to suit your meaning.

Even if I did agree with a demonstration or protest which involved destroying or damaging military equipment - and I'm not the ideologue that you are; the situation and provocations of the US military may yet get to the stage where I agree that it is imperative to destroy as much military equipment as possible to drive the point home that their actions are wrong.

Right now I think that's counter-productive but let's say, for argument's sake that I do wholeheartedly agree; I would still describe the act as a "violent" one because that is what it is defined as in the English language. If I believe all dogs are actually named "cats" or all doors are actually called "windows" or "elephants", no matter how much I believe it to be so, dogs would still be called dogs and doors still be called doors.

The word has negative connotations and I understand you want to avoid getting into that situation in the argument but please do it in such a way that you make yourselves look completely ignorant of English vocabulary.

by Litcrit Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:30

A disrespect for words (i.e. a belief that we can have our own definitions, seperate from those used by everybody else) is always a bad sign in anyone talking politics. It suggests someone who relies on their own beliefs only, and who discounts everyone else's view.

Lets imagine language as a democracy. We have a standing agreement that "cat" means one thing and "dog" means another. Somemone who comes along and says that they have their own definition of "cat" (or "violence", in this case) is placing their own beliefs on a higher plane than the accepted meaning of the word, and therefore acting in what, in the context of this analogy, is an undemocratic manner. Before you know it you get statements like:

"If the president does it, it's not illegal" - R. Nixon

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky" - B. Clinton

A society in which you don't know what the law is, is a tyranny, because you never know when seemingly innocent actions will suddenly lead to your arrest. Similarly, if we can't rely on definitions of words to be stable and commonly accepted, things can mean whatever the man who shouts loudest wants them to mean. You end up, in extreme cases with the kind of beaurocratic despotism Kafka and Orwell wrote about, where all certainty disappears from beneath you when meaning is made subject to ideology.

by pat c Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:33

you are stating as absolutes things which are matters of opinion.

i do not consider damage to property to be violence, you do. that is 2 opposing opinions. if anything i could argue that in this case my opinion is superior to yours because the damage to the warplane made things at least slightly more difficult for the US to inflict violence on iraqis.

there is little point in continuing this discussion, your argument is that:
you are right because you say you are right, therefore you are right.

homer, your opinion is just that; not a law of nature.

by Curious Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:35

Words mean what Homer/LitCrit decide they mean. Rome has spoken and all further argument shall cease.

by Joe Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:38

Like it or not Homer the way we choose to define words has political consequences. Pretty much everyone agrees that pubching a person is violence, pretty much no one agrees that punching a punch bag is violence. Whether or not you choose to call disabling a plane with a hammer violence is really more to do with what you think of the act then anything else.

Beyond that why the debate over the word at all. It seems to me that it is to short cut debating the act. IE to proclaim that disarming = violence = bad rather than making the much harder argument for disarming = bad. While the first argument may seem the easier to make your not going to convince anyone who disagrees with the second through using it. Your just going to make yourself feel rightous (but perhaps misunderstood) while prompting this sort of pretty meaningless discussion about meaning.

BTW like the show but feel it is getting a bit stale lately, especially the shows about being stale.

by LitCrit Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:38

Ever heard of "violence against the person"? Why the need to state explicitly that the violence is against the person? A simple matter of language Pat. You can be "violently ill". A vehicle can "lurch violently". It's a word, it has a meaning. That's all.

by pat c Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:43

but i do not accept that damaging a warplane amounts to violence. language is constantly evolving. you are using semantics to advance your political position.

anyway, we get back to the position that Linguistics & Semantics are unlike Chemistry and Physics. therefore we are both expressing opinions.

i repeat: your opinion is just that, an opinion. it is not a law of nature.

have a nice day.

ps whats the weather like in Langley?

by homer Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:44

It's not my opinion, it's the definition of the word.

Sometimes the act of damaging military aircraft is "morally justifiable", even if by a dictionary definition it is "violent", and I think this is what you are arguing for but you're getting muddled in the semantics of the English language because you only perceive my criticism of your use of English as an attack on your views. It's not; I'm merely pointing out your factual error with regard to the meaning of the word "violent". I'm not drawing any conclusions as to your opinion on its justification.

The damaging of Hawk trainer aircraft destined for sale to Indonesia by an all-female anti-war group in Britain during the nineties was wholly justifiable and the courts saw fit to uphold their claim that they acted legally. It was still a violent act, by definition, but a morally [and legally] justifiable one. Damaging aircraft at Shannon is a violent but morally justifiable act [in your view].

by Homer Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:48

You people are idiots.

by pat c Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:48

yes homer it is your opinion. no matter how many times you recite it, it will remain an opinion. nothing more.

see my comments to litcrit above re semantics not being a perfect science.

good day to you now and i hope you are also enjoying the weather at langley.

by Litcrit Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:48

Punching a punchbag is an act of violence towards the punchbag. The issue is whether it's a reprehensible act of violence, and of course it isn't. Breaking the window of a house is an act of violence towards the window, and is reprehensible if the poor sod who lives in place has to get a new window. In the case of Shannon, the issue is whether the violence against the planes was reprehensible or not. I'd say probably not.

I am concerned at violence towards the english language though. words don't mean what I say they mean, they mean what the english-speaking community agree them to mean, and codifies in it's dictionaries, everyday speech, works of fiction. The idea that we can inject politics into the dictionary was a briefly fashionable post-modern theory (remember that moron who took to writing all his "words" "in" "inverted" "commas"? God that was annoying.) Thankfully it's on its last legs now.

by Litcrit Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:50

Language may be evolving, but apparently people aren't. Loved the gag about langley by the way, satire at it's best

by Slarti Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:51

I don't think there is a single definition of a term like violence. It means different things to different people and in different contexts. We try to write short concise definitions for dictionaries which encompass all these varying views.

For instance, I don't consider the use of physical force against property violent per se. However, it depends on how it's done - there are situations where the only thing physically damaged is property but I would consider the act violent - if it was done aggressively so as to cause other people present to fear for their safety. You may consider any damage to property violent. That's your right but it doesn't mean you have a monopoly on the word.

To give a few classic examples:
* Someone plants a car bomb in a city street. The bomb squad come along and carry out a controlled explosion or in some other way damage the bomb and the vehicle it is in in order to make the bomb safe. Is that a violent act?

* An ordinary member of the public sees the same car on a deserted country road shortly before and realises that there is a bomb in it and that it's being taken into the city. They slash the tyres and put sand in the fuel tank in order to prevent this happening. Violent?

* Your passing a house and see it's on fire. You break a window in order to get in and help someone out. Is that violent?

Also, what is the difference between damage to property and altering/improving it? To give a personal example, I was recently in court charged with damaging a fence at a military base as part of an attempted weapons inspection. I didn't deny having cut a hole in the fence. The prosecutor referred to it as "malicious damage". I considered it "constructing an entrance". In a case like the CW 5 action this is even clearer in my view - it was an act of disarmament,. If you disagree that's your right, but you have to recognise that others hold different views.

To give a final example, the original draft of the Terrorism Bill 2000 in the UK referred to "serious violence against people or property" as part of the definition of terrorism. one of the few victories we won on the campaign to make that bill a bit saner was that this was changed to "serious violence against people or serious damage to property". The reason? The law does not recognise the idea of "violence against property" (in that there is no legal definition of the phrase "violence against property")

by Chekov Tue Sep 28, 2004 15:59

Words and their meanings are not set in stone. Dictionary definitions often miss the current meanings of words.

Specifically, the dictionary definition of 'violence' is not the same thing as the way that it is used in the media and in this age of global media, the media usage of the word is its best definition.

To prove that the definition of the word is different to the dictionary standard, consider the question "do you believe in violence?" which is often aimed at oppositional political figures. As violence is an abstraction which obviously exists, the question would have no more sense than 'do you believe in weather?' if we were limited to the dictionary definition. So we need to look elsewhere for the meaning of the word.

The media today largely uses imagery to transmit meaning. In this case, the media imagery that is associated with the word is 1) terrorist bombings (espec. 9-11) and 2) riots (genoa, seattle...)

So, if you were to say that the pitstop group engage in 'violent' protests, the meaning that most people would take from this is that they are either terrorists or hooligans, which they are clearly not.

by Joe Tue Sep 28, 2004 16:01

"Punching a punchbag is an act of violence towards the punchbag"

Err right, who is abusing the language now?

It's not at all uncommon for the meaning of words to be contested or indeed even for what words you use to describe something to be contested. EG what do you call that city up in the north west corner of the island.

That said the average guy on the street would consider the sentence "Punching a punchbag is an act of violence towards the punchbag" to be absurd. Your welcome to experiment with this if you like and report the results. That is because the idea that it is violent to strike an inanimate object is not an uncontested use of the word even in everyday speech. In relation to inanimate objects people only use the word violent if the intention of the person doing the striking is considered to be angry and destructive.

For instance if I go home to make chips tonight I'll first of all drown the poor potatoes, then I'll skin them alive, then I'll chop them into fragments and finally I'll plunge them into boiling oil. But if you called this a violent process people would think you were a nut (again feel free to confirm this by experiment).

So if as it seems the intention of the person and their state of mind are considered you can see that the question of disarming is not at all clear. Some would see this as a calm and constructive thing to do (much like making chips). Others as a hostile and destructive act. Use of the V word tends to depend on which camp your in and as I say above is simply intended to short cut the real argument.

by Joe Tue Sep 28, 2004 16:06

I acknowledge the need for occasional violent political action as does just about everyone else in the world (would shooting Hitler have been a good thing?). So whether or not disarming could be called violent is not an issue for me in whether or not I would support it. I just don't like property being given the same rights as people which is what the legal end of this debate is all about.

by Homer Tue Sep 28, 2004 16:06

"I don't think there is a single definition of a term like violence. It means different things to different people and in different contexts. We try to write short concise definitions for dictionaries which encompass all these varying views."

So you're saying we can define any word to have any meaning we choose? Of course not. Yes, language evolves but not in the way you are implying. Older words can acquire new meanings but do not lose their older ones [for instance the word "cool"]. Modern dictionary definitons are our guide as to the meaning of the words, not a recommendation fo what they should mean - and every english dictionary would define physical damage inflicted on something as violent.

As to your comparison to the legal term "malicious damage". I think you'll find legal terms have definitions in their own rights, according to the legal texts of the jurisdiction, not according to dictionaries.

by Slarti Tue Sep 28, 2004 16:56

No, of course I'm not saying we can define any word to mean anything. I'm saying that a word which is trying to describe as emotive and contextual a concept as violence is diffcult to define in 15 words or less and haas slightly different meanings to different people.

The dictionary definition tries to cover all possible meanings of the word and not every meaning is appropriate in every situation.

I think we can all agree that some actions are "more violent" than others. Where along that range we choose to draw the line and say "beyond here everything is violent" is a personal choice and not one we'd all agree on.

by Slarti Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:02

"The damaging of Hawk trainer aircraft destined for sale to Indonesia by an all-female anti-war group in Britain during the nineties was wholly justifiable and the courts saw fit to uphold their claim that they acted legally. It was still a violent act, by definition, but a morally [and legally] justifiable one."

I know some of the people who took that action and am sure they would describe it as a non-violent act. I wasn't at the court case but I'm certain they would have described and justified it as a non-violent act as part of their evidence. How much that contributed to the jury's decision we don't know, but it could well have been a significant factor.

by Homer Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:23

I'm sure they would characterise the "act" as a form of non-violent protest but I'm sure they would readily agree that it took a considerable force of violence to smash those nose-cones [with a hammer]. I'm pretty sure they're smart enough not to insist on redefining the dictionary terms of a word in the English language. Besides they had enough arguing [successfully I might add] the "legal" definition of what they'd done.

Interestingly, it took them hours to be caught and only after they stood waving at the CCTV for quite a while!

My point is that when arguing a legal definition of an action, it is separate from the grammar and vocabulary of the language used. Legal deifnitions are open to interpretation, linguistic definitions aren't.

by Slarti Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:42

"I'm sure they would readily agree that it took a considerable force of violence to smash those nose-cones"

I doubt it. Certainly I wouldn't. I'd agree that "it took a considerable force to smash those nose-cones" but not that it was a force of violence. Read Joe's comment above about making chips. Or think about a sculptor, hitting a block of stone with a hammer and chisel and then explain to me how he is being violent?

I'm understand your point about legal definitions being different from everyday ones (I only mentioned them because you were so stuck on written definitions that I wanted to show how they varied)

I'd actually disagree with "Legal definitions are open to interpretation, linguistic definitions aren't." Legal definitons are written to be applied fairly specifically. The degree to which they are open to interpretation is often very limited. They are written very carefully, often including the context to which they are applicable within the definition and in the knowledge that any mis-interpretation could result in someone being wrongfully imprisoned. Dictionary definitons are much broader. They are usually devoid of context and aim to cover all possible uses of the word in all contexts imaginable.

The discussion here is deadlocked because you are trying to put a single (in my view almost legal style) definition on the word violence and then apply it to all contexts in a very rigid manner.

by Barrister Tue Sep 28, 2004 17:47

Legal definitions aren't written carefully at all. If they were, there wouldn't be half as much work for lawyers. Legislation is often drafted extremely shoddily, and there are, in any case, several different schools of legal interpretation.

by Eoin Dubsky Tue Sep 28, 2004 18:24

I would have dug out the exact quotation if I'd known someone would immediately try to misrepresent what I was saying. In an earlier comment here I wrote that 'An anarchist recently posted elsewhere on this site about the common belief of "inherent goodness" in labour and production.'. Then Chekov quoted the first part of the article anarchist's comment which I meant (good guess!), but left out the rest including this bit: "Labour and production are in themselves good."

Joe's comment above is the best attempt to salvage something from this otherwise boring discussion: The "disarming" = "violence" (the word) = "bad" equation is misleading. Furthermore I think that the pitstop ploughshares have gone to great lengths to try to put their disarmament action into a religious and cultural frame which Homer & Co seem to have missed (read the press release!).

by Eoin Dubsky Tue Sep 28, 2004 18:26

:-)

by Anne Wed Sep 29, 2004 11:38

"St. John Chrysostom says in regard to our Lord's sending us out as sheep among wolves, that if we become wolves ourselves, He is no longer with us."

This is what Dorothy Day believed and what I beleive also. This is why doing damage to other people's things is wrong. It is very easy to do violence to property because you can say that it doesn't hurt anyone, but it does, it hurts yourself. It makes it easier to do violence to people once you start with things. I mean that soldier supports a war that you don't, what's a little paint or blood thrown on him going to do? All violence leads to is more violence. I understnad why they did it, but violence done in the name of doing good is still wrong. It makes you no better then the people you protest. It means that it wouldn't take much for those people to go too far and hurt someone.

by James O'Brien - WSM Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:25

Eoin,
I'm not sure what the point of bringing up my comment on production in this thread was: you just throw the comment out assuming what you mean is clear. You seem to be implying that anarchists view all production as good, even say the production of B52 bombers and this is a similar mindset to capitalists'. But I qualified the view that "production is inherently good" by mentioning some of the negative effects of capitalist production - for example degradation of the environment, the exploitation of others. It is possible to take something that is inherently good and useful, such as making things, and twist it for poor ends. But I don't think that invalidates production per se. The workers on the B-52, from the designers to cleaners could, in a more rational world, better employ their labours on making trains.

Life is a bit more complex than a one-to-one link between the validity of a general statement (making things is good) to a 100% implentation (every product is a good one). A bit of common sense should be enough to figure this out in most cases. It's going to make for extremely long-winded comments which cover every possible misinterpretation if you're going to imply incorrect meanings without taking the trouble to spell out what you mean.

by Anon Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:36

It can be a slippery slope from disarming a foreign military aircraft to, say, disrupting a part of the airport which is needed for life saving work. Luckily ploughshares actions normally happen after many weeks or months of preparation and reflection. Ploughshares activists aren't above the law, and they're not above society and the peace movement either. These actions are done openly and accountably so that we can all help make sure we don't slip down that slope too far.

In the Maytime ploughshares action Dubsky referred to earlier the anti-trident activists emptied everything they could move except the first aid kits and fire safety equipment. Likewise the Pitstop ploughshares damaged only what was necessary to get to the plane and ground it. Had the slanders about "overpowering" a cop been true they would surely be facing charges for assault too (indeed I'm surprised the cops haven't added the charge just for PR's sake, only to withdraw it when the case begins).

Anne, like others who believe in an inherent goodness in things, maybe need to explain why things (like chairs, windows, warplanes, etc.) have inherent goodness. Any Christian, Muslim or Jew can tell you why life has inherent goodness. But from where comes the goodness in stuff?

My take on it is that stuff is as good as its purpose. Life is just plain good.

by SDR Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:40

Altering the shape of the nose cone of a warplane is quite different from attacking someone physically. And to the best of my knowledge neither Mary Kelly nor the Pitstop Plowshare crowd have used physical violence on any individual, so what are you referring to when you talk about paint being thrown on soldiers?
By damaging the warplane Mary may actually have prevented the deaths of a number of people. I cannot put a figure on that. You seem to believe that we should do nothing to prevent people being killed or injured. Would you stand quietly on the pavement and do nothing while some thug is mugging an old lady? I can just imagine you objecting to some concerned member of the public wading in and stopping the attack.

by Anne Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:43

I do not know a great deal about these ploughshares and it worried me that they would sneak on to a military base. For one thing, they could have been shot. It just seems like there could have been a safer more peaceful way to demonstrate like a sit in or something. I am just worried that they or someone else could get hurt doing imitating them.

by pat c Wed Sep 29, 2004 12:58

While Dorothy Day herself would not use "violence" even against property she fully understood and empathised with the actions of those who did. Here she is writing about the Berrigan brothers and others who undertook NVDA against the US War apparatus during the US war of aggression against Vietnam:

"But we take this opportunity to tell the Fathers Berrigan, and all those who are suffering imprisonment now, that not a day goes by that we do not think of them, and hold them in our prayers together with all prisoners, who are the poor, at Compline and Rosary at the Tivoli Farm, and at First Street, St. Joseph’s House of Hospitality.

Our love goes out to them, and love, like wisdom, is the most active of all active things, according to the Book of Wisdom. You have chosen suffering for your lot, dear friends, suffering and bitterness and depression and hopelessness, which must in many ways be comparable to that which is suffered in Vietnam and in all those parts of our struggling world (where the United States has military installations and personnel--in 48 of the countries of the world)."

More about Dorothy Day & the CWM at:

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Sep 29, 2004 13:06

Sorry James, you're right. I didn't make myself clear. I was trying to avoide those long-winded comments, but alas what I've done is worse. :-)

I'll try again: In your comment on that other article you guessed that I don't believe in an inherent goodness in stuff or doing stuff for that matter. I guess it might be part of the human condition or something, but we keep doing stuff, almost automatically from when we first start playing as babies. Still I'm not convinced that there's anything inherently good about it. It could be because I came to this whole activist thang via environmental conservation, I dunno.

On the other hand I take it that you do. You just wrote: "It is possible to take something that is inherently good and useful, such as making things, and twist it for poor ends." In your comment in the article you also wrote: "I disagree with a hidden assumption of Eoin’s that working for companies is inherently bad" (and I take it that it would be fair to put [capitalist] in there somewhere).

by Anne Wed Sep 29, 2004 13:22

But you forgot to add this to your quote from Dorothy Day. Yes, she sympathized, but she didn't participate in actions like those.


" In general the Catholic Worker takes the position of the War Resisters, Quakers and Fellowship of Reconciliation peace groups in not taking part in these actions, on the principle that, although it was only property which suffered destruction, we ourselves have suffered violence, vandalism by hostile right-wing groups, the beating of individuals, the destruction of mailing lists and records, the burning of houses and barns, etc. So we repeat the golden rule, "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you," and its contrary, "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.""

by SDR Wed Sep 29, 2004 13:30

Thats right, Anne. We should just let the warmongers get on with it. Perhaps we should only go as far as standing on the sidelines and going "tut-tut" without actually doing anything to stop the war.

by pat c Wed Sep 29, 2004 13:46

Read what I actually wrote:

"While Dorothy Day herself would not use "violence" even against property she fully understood and empathised with the actions of those who did."

by James Wed Sep 29, 2004 13:53

I suspect getting into more detail would end up being a discussion on the nature of reality! So, briefly, it depends on how one slices up reality. There being no one thing absolutely unconnected to everything else, I guess you could make a strong argument that few things are “inherently” anything. A lot depends on the context: I was trying to get that across by saying that good things can be produced, e.g. bread as well as dodgy things like B-52s. The general process of producing things seems to me to be on the whole quite valuable in surviving and making life worthwhile. But it doesn’t apply in every single case. So if you like, the starting point is one of usefulness, but one’s view is modified by the particular application. Personally I think it’s useful to take as given that certain things are discrete and can be talked about in their own right. This is a simplification of reality, but then all philosophising is (there’s more to the world than talk).

"I disagree with a hidden assumption of Eoin’s that working for companies is inherently bad". I suppose I’d rephrase that as “all bad”. There are many dodgy aspects of course, but there also positive things and it is the latter I was emphasising which made sense in the overall context of that thread. Often these positive and negative aspects are mixed together. A useful product like bread can be made in an exploitative environment, which is bad. Anarchists would like to reorganise production to eliminate the nasty aspects and foster the good ones. Which I hope makes clear that linking capitalist and anarchist attitudes about production is not accurate.

by Eoin Dubsky Wed Sep 29, 2004 14:07

Anne's got a point. If even 10% of the peace movement in Ireland had the courage and discipline to sustain a campaign of ghandian nonviolence against the war -- disrupting work at Shannon Airport, Government Buildings and corporations like Top Oil with sit-ins, vigils, die-ins, teach-ins, whatever -- there'd be no need for disarmament actions. Trouble is people are involved in so many different campaigns and other things, plus many don't want to risk arrest, feel disempowered protesting quietly, and maybe even distrust peaceniks just a little.

When I was questioned by police after running out to stop a plane full of US soldiers back in 2001, one of the cops asked me what's normally a rhetorical question I guess: "And what do you think would happen if everyone went and did what you did?"

Most everyone understands that the Irish peace *movement* is just that, a movement. We've got lots of different tactics and ideas for what might work best. Like Dorithy Day said, breaking stuff mightn't be her thing, but she could tell what the draft card burning actions were about, and she supported those who did them. They supported her too. That's mutuality.

Anne might be one of those people who'd participate in a sit-in, it's not fair to say that she'd let the warmongers get on with it or whatever. Lots more could be done in the use of ghandian nonviolence against this war.

by SDR Wed Sep 29, 2004 14:33

I doubt if she would take part in a sit in. I could be wrong, but the impression I get is that she might regard that as "violence". Perhaps she could tell us precisely what actions she WOULD take part in. I'm sure we would all welcome her active participation.

by SDR Wed Sep 29, 2004 14:45

I still think her characterisation of nose-cone bashing as "violence" is wrong. Damage to war machines cannot be compared to real physical violence against the person.

by Leon (Anarchist Drivers Federation) Wed Sep 29, 2004 15:06

Most everyone understands that the Irish peace *movement* is just that, a movement. We've got lots of different tactics and ideas for what might work best...