Help advertise next Shannon Direct action protest

by curious Tue Feb 18, 2003 22:03

Has anyone asked them,or are the views of mere workers irrelievent?

by mike Wed Feb 19, 2003 00:14

It appears that appealing and working patiently with the workers involved with the war apparatus is seen by some as just a silly waste of time. Instead are we being asked to take on armed soldiers, after we get past the cops present there in order to occupy the runway.

by Chekov Wed Feb 19, 2003 04:34

Do we have to just sit back and do nothing?

In any case this is another of those false choices that certain people like to throw our way. Before the movement demonstrated mass support on Saturday we were faced with the
direct action vs. mass action dilemma. Now we have strike action counterposed to mass civil disobedience. Apparently, either you appeal to the workers to take strike action (granted the most powerful form of direct action we have) or else you take direct action yourself. What about both? How on earth could one detract from the other?

I know that if I was a worker at Shannon, malcontent with my role the war machine, and I saw thousands of people engaging in mass direct action it'd give me a hell of a lot of confidence in refusing to service military traffic. I mean if thousands of people are breaking the law, defying the state and risking arrest, I can say to myself that at least I have the backing of the union while the protestors essentially have no such powerful force to protect them and the burden of the state's repression is unlikely to fall too heavily on my shoulders.

On the other hand, if the protestors just march around and politely issue appeals for me to risk my liveliehood by going on stike or (in the case of the army) risk many years of liberty by staging a mutiny, it might seem that the protestors were happy for me to risk an awful lot myself without being willing to risk the slightest danger themselves, and it's them that are supposed to be the committed peace activists!

by pete ranks Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:10

Just wondering if any other groups have called, and are supporting the protest at shannon on march the first apart from the WSM? And also if this is being promoted explicitly as a direct action demo? Is there anyone out there from the various antiwar groups who expressly support DA?

by Andrew Wed Feb 19, 2003 13:09

I don't have an official list but my understanding is that this demonstration is supported by the various groups involved in the Grassroots Gathering and groups like the Cork Peace Alliance and MWAW.

It is being called as a direct action demonstration although the exact form of the action is still under discussion. However the IAWM also intends to have a seperate march to the airport around the same time (or so Aoife told me Saturday morning). Certainly any groups or individuals who want to take part will be very welcome and hopefully the two events will both benefit from their proximity on the day/

by Greg Wed Feb 19, 2003 15:00

If the iAWM are supporting the March 1st demo, even a separate one, they are keeping very quiet about it. There are one and a half weeks to go. Can one of their representatives notify the newswire what their thoughts on this are?

by pete ranks Wed Feb 19, 2003 15:16

This issue would want to be sorted out sooner than later. If there is to be a demo supported by the IAWM, then they should start saying it, and also if there is going to be DA, then those who wish to be involved need some sort of tactical discussion to get going. After a meeting I attended last night, it became apparent that there needs to be information passed on by those who wish to get involved in DA, because if someone goes along there with their kids, they probably don't want to end up getting pistol whipped or baton charged, which certainly could happen in the current climate. Those who are going to attend should be made aware that DA could happen, and be able to distance themselves from it, not fair to embroil those who came just to demonstrate.

by Andrew Wed Feb 19, 2003 15:27

Hi Pete,

yeah in general I agree that people should be aware of what is going to happen and thus have the option of staying back. This has been difficult in the past because of lack of co-operation between the anti-war movements, something that hopefully is now being overcome.

Ideally I reckon what should happen is a brief rally at the gate which starts with someone getting up and explaining what is going to happen and inviting people to come along to either get involved or observe (an important role in detering cop violence) and possibly get involved. Then those willing to do so head up the approach road for the action and those who don't hang back for another 20 minutes of speeches until the action has happened.

This sort of set up will also be essential for helping the vast majority who want to get involved in an action but feel very nervous about it to go along as observes and then join in if they feel conditions are right. Previous experience indicates that maybe 50% of those attending will do so IF they feel they are not going to be arrested or battered in doing so.

by denise Wed Feb 19, 2003 16:12

hey just a question, coz its so well organised arent the police going to be out in mass force too, making any kind of effective direct action almost impossible?

by Andrew Wed Feb 19, 2003 16:34

Good question. So one approach this time is basically that after the 100,000 strong march in Dublin its possible to talk of having sufficent numbers to simply walk past the gardai. The airport has a 3 mile perimeter, it would take thousands of police to form a continuous line around it so IF we have the numbers all we do is form one big line and walk towards the fence. Each cop can hold his arms out and stop maybe three people while those on either side just keep walking past them.

If they start battering people to stop them its pretty obvious where the violence is coming from and in the context of the massive opposition to refuelling it would be pretty damn hard for them to get away with this. If we fail to mobilise the numbers required or they come up with some clever way of stopping us then we do something else instead. The main point being that with sufficent numbers it will be very hard for them to stop us without using violence.

But really its all down to numbers rather then secrecy or smart tactics.

by pete ranks Wed Feb 19, 2003 17:49

you're absolutely right about numbers being what will make the direct action happen. If it turns out to be a few hundred people who get onto the runway then it will be a success. And non violent direct action is what must happen. Even taking account of some peoples definition of violence including smashing up a plane, what would be best in my humble opinion, is a mass trespass, without any major damage, as the 'other' media will immediately look to this. But if the DA turns out to be just a few pacifists (few = couple of hundred at least), getting onto the runway and sitting down, singing(someone bring a guitar and a couple of copies of that tune sung to the music of if you're happy and you know it....), then what can the dissenters say? 'Bleedin hippies, all that peace and love stuff does my head in........'???

by John C - Polysoc-Mary I Thu Feb 20, 2003 15:24 polysoc at micsu dot ie

I think that in this age of mass media that part of the anti-war movements aim is to maintain the high level of positive coverage which we have had so far. The main probelms with taken a direct- action is that it will cause a public back-lash from the people who are not strongly pro or anti war. another seperate and personal issue is that it may be used as a poltical venichal by some groups.... don't get me wrong but this is about anti-war and peace and I don't think the issue should be hijacked. Finally the planing for any direct action is vital I did a CND action in Scothland and they had so there for two days tarining before the protest, plust they made sure there were legal aids (law students) to go with so when we were asserted. Last word if your going to go and do a direct action make sure you no why your doing it and be sure that there will be more positive than negative results form doing it.

JC

by Andrew Thu Feb 20, 2003 15:49

Well John far from 'hijacking' anything those involved in the Direct Action planning have been at over 8 protests at Shannon over the last 18 months - back in the days when the attendence was only 70 or less. Secondly please don't assume that you are the only one capable of thinking through the implications behind all this, others have also but have perhaps come to different conclusions for the reasons below. You'll find if you avoid accusing people of hijacking things and/or implying they are thick that a more civil discussion becomes possible.

And now the repetition

1. We are not opposing the war beacause we want to be popular, we are opposing the war because we don't want it to happen and if it does we want to stop it.

2. The anti-war cause IS popular, or perhaps you missed the 100,000 in Dublin last week and another 15,000 in Belfast.

3. The government have responded to those who marched with a 'fuck you, we are backing the war anyway and there is nothing you can do about it'.

4. In that context we can either sink further onto our knees and plead a little harder or we can decide to take the sort of action that can stop refuelling. This might not be universally popular but I suggest after Berties two fingers to them many more people may understand the need for this then you think.

I hope you come along, but rest assured, even if you want to just march to the terminal we won't be accusing you of hijacking anything. Please consider extending the same courtesy in return!

by Aisling Sat Feb 22, 2003 20:45

If the form of direct action decided on is to get on to the runway (And this is not clear from the discussion)you need to be aware of aviation law, which is different from civil law. You can be given a prison sentence of 2 years for going onto a runway without authorisation.
Also, there is the question of safety- there are only two runways at Shannon, and they are both in use quite regularly during the day- you run a real risk of having planes land on top of you, which is obviously not a desirable outcome.
Surely it makes more sense to do a sit-down on the road, blocking traffic from entering the airport, which most people will probably participate in, rather than having a smaller group of people getting onto the runway and risking injury and other serious consequences.
I suggest that anyone contemplating a runway invasion familiarises themselves with aviation law and that this information is made available to anyone who decides to join the action. Being aware of what flights are due in and out would also be a good idea.