Direct action: now or never?

Friday February 28, 2003 12:33

by Ray

There are plenty of groups and individuals in the anti-war movement who are opposed to direct action as a general principle. They think protests should always stay within the law, and aim to change the minds of government ministers through sheer numbers. Fair enough, that's their position. But what about the other groups, that say they do favour direct action?

Reasons to oppose direct action:
It doesn't have public support
Its elitist
There are other more effective actions to take
Its not the right time

"It doesn't have public support"

Over 100,000 Irish people marched against the war less than two weeks ago. Survey after survey has shown that the vast majority of people oppose the use of Shannon by US warplanes. This level of support is completely unprecedented, and no other issue in our lifetimes is likely to have so much support behind it. If you're afraid to act with this many people behind you then you'll always be afraid to act.
Nor is this support conditional on campaigners avoiding direct action. Again, many surveys have shown widespread support for the Dubsky, Kelly, and CW actions. Its not unanimous support, but huge numbers of people can and do differentiate between cutting down fences and attacking planes on the one hand, and bombing people on the other. It will always be the case that some people are turned off by direct action, and would prefer compleely legal protest. So again, this is the high water mark. If this isn't enough support for you, you are effectively ruling out direct action _ever_, because nothing else is likely to come close.

"Its elitist"

One of the more common criticisms of direct action is that only elites can take part in it. Direct action, the argument goes, must always be organised in secret, and that rules out mass participation. It requires special training, special equipment, a willingness to climb fences in the middle of the night and risk long jail terms.
That's not true here. The planned action has been widely discussed. Everybody involved knows what's going to happen. No special training or equipment is needed. There is some risk of arrest, its true, but the level of illegality involved is quite low, and the number of participants is potentially high, so the risk is as low as it gets for these actions. Certainly no more risk than is involved in occupying a Gap store, going on wildcat strike, or refusing to pay bin charges.
Again, this is direct action with a real potential for mass participation.

"There are more effective actions to take"

Like marches? There has already been a march of 100,000 people in Dublin. If Bertie was going to be convinced by marches, surely that would have been enough. Where do you go from there? Try to have a march of 200,000 people? Try to hold a march every week? Public opinion is already clear. The Feb 15th was as clear a statement of public opinion as we can hope to get. Time to move on.
How about strikes? Sure, it would be great if Shannon workers refused to deal with US planes. But that's not going to happen any time soon, is it? There have been no mass union meetings in Shannon, no calls for a strike, and there's no prospect of industrial action in the near future. So calling for industrial action _instead_ of direct action is just a recipe for doing nothing.
And besides, direct action has been the most effective tactic so far. Of the four US carriers that were using Shannon, three have already stopped. Not because they were impressed with the turnout on the 15th. Not because Bertie was scared into chucking them out. Not because the Shannon workers refused to deal with them, or any threat of future industrial action.
No, 3 of the 4 US carriers have stopped using Shannon because people kept breaching security. People got into the hangars and painted or attacked US planes. Hundreds of demonstrators broke through the fence. Direct action is _working_.

"Its not the right time"

The anti-war movement in Ireland has unprecedented levels of support. The direct actions that have already been taken in Shannon have incredible levels of support. And war is less than a month away.
If you're in favour of direct action at all, you have to be in favour of direct action NOW.

save preference

Comments (12 of 12)

Dangerous move

by Anon

Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:49

Ray, the danger with breaking the law in a manner like this is that some others that use the same logic as you will take things a step further. What if they say lets attack US factories in Ireland? Or the homes of those who work in US factories?? You might say that's ridiculous, but they may argue differently. They might say none of us has the right to collaborate with war mongers. They might say what about Iraqi children? They will use all sorts of arguments to justify breaking the law.

You are wrong to say ripping down the fence at Shanon is alright. Its not. I cannot understand why you have to resort to violence to make your point. Perhaps you feel you are unable to articulate your views properly, thats fine - dont be ashamed. Bullies are never respected anywhere, whether it be Geroge Bush or Eoin Dubsky.

And if you feel strongly enough that the law is worng, then why dont you stand for election and get it changed? I am sure you will top the poll if you say public opinion is so strongly behind you.

Err what

by Joe

Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:54

So we should wait till the next elections and run in them on stopping a war in Iraq that will have already killed tens of thousands!?!? If this is your 'alternative' to direct action its easy to see why direct action seems a more effective option!

The rest is a smelly collection of red herrings pulled out from the bottom of a really dank barrel.

Joe... grow up

by anon

Fri Feb 28, 2003 12:56

Thanks for the insults Joe.

Says a lot about you.

So Called 'peace' protestors

by T O'Brien

Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:11

Funny how Ray and Joe are so passionate about condeming one war only. I dont ever recall this rent a mob protesting about Irish terrorism. I dont recall this mob setting up peace camps in the aftermath of Omagh. I dont ever recall them marching on Sinn Fein/Ira to give up their semtex. 30 years of murder in our very own country and you weren't too vocal.

Very stange guys that you pick and choose what wars suit you and which ones are apparently ok.

anon

Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:13

When's the next election, anon? Four years from now? So you reckon that I should stand for election in 2007? And my platform in 2007should be that US warplanes should not be allowed use Shannon to attack Iraq? Hmm, I know there's a problem there somewhere, but I can't quite see it...

Fianna Fail - the party in government, remember - made a big deal about Ireland's neutrality during the Nice referendum. Inserted a special clause and everything. Turns out that they have a different understanding of 'neutrality' to the rest of us. (Just like they have a different understanding of the word 'will', as in 'there WILL be a referendum on membership of the Partnership for Peace')

The people have spoken on this issue, again and again. They don't want Shannon airport to be used in the build-up for war. Its that simple.

rent a mob - I wish - could use the cash !

by conor (wsm personal capacity)

Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:15

COMMENTS
Dangerous move
by Anon Fri, Feb 28 2003, 11:49am

me: this is not argument its disingenous, hysterical, hyperbole (sorry for spellings)!

anon: Ray, the danger with breaking the law in a manner like this is that some others that use the same logic as you will take things a step further. What if they say lets attack US factories in Ireland? Or the homes of those who work in US factories?? You might say that's ridiculous, but they may argue differently. They might say none of us has the right to collaborate with war mongers. They might say what about Iraqi children? They will use all sorts of arguments to justify breaking the law.

me: in philosophy I believ this is called reducto ad adsurbo or some such

- taking some thing to a logical conclusion to emphasis its ridiculous nature

whats on offer here - a large group of people approaching a fence and - if lucky - doing some minor property damage

THAT IS ALL thats "on offer"

I just don't think we're at a stage of struggle where peoples homes/places of work are about to be attacked.

whats on offer is not mindless, anonymous, violence - its open, public, mass civil disobedience - no more no less

You are wrong to say ripping down the fence at Shanon is alright. Its not.

obviously you are entitled to hold that view !

I cannot understand why you have to resort to violence to make your point.

wow, wow pony
- again where is this violence
- this is stretching ANY definaition of violence beyond breaking point.
Its minor property damage

Also its not about "making our point"

30 million people world wide "made their point" on February 15th - it was a great day
- we were among them.

Now we have to actually TRY to have some small material effect in the real world! what is happening in England and Italy RIGHT NOW shows that the war effort can , at least, be slowed by the ACTION of ordinary people

The point has been made but it HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN

Perhaps you feel you are unable to articulate your views properly, thats fine - dont be ashamed. Bullies are never respected anywhere, whether it be Geroge Bush or Eoin Dubsky.

me: get real a guy spray painting a plane and paying a harsh price for it is a "bully" - anon you inhabit a strange place ungaced by either logic or the English language

me: Because we think all law is wrong and parlimentary talk shops are a waste of space for sad, insecure, wankers to get favours for their business chums.

Conor

T O'Brien

Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:16

I've marched on the IRA exactly as often as I've marched on the UDA, and on the British Army. How about you?

And you do realise that people have been protesting against Saddam Hussein for decades, don't you? Since back in the days when Donald Rumsfeld was supplying him with intelligence, and Margaret Thatcher was signing export credit guarantees so that British taxpayers would underwrite arms sales to Iraq. Were you on any of those protests?

Remember Sharpeville

by Paul O'Donnell

Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:26

To those who oppose the proposed mass trespass / fence pulling tomorrow I say remember Sharpeville.

Were those outside the fence at Sharpeville the aggressors? Were the South African Police right in attacking them and opening fire. The whole world knows the truth. Yes, at Sharpeville a few people pulled at the fence. The murder of 64 of them by SAP became worldwide news. Everyone knew who the violent ones were.

In case I'm misinterpreted, I'm not equating the Irish soldiers and gardai at Shannon with the South African Police, but there is a definite similarity with the US military and their weapons of mass murder which Irish torops are being asked to guard.

If there's trouble tomorrow it won't come from the mass trespassers.

Shame on those who are now pulling out from the demo. Obviously you've decided that while you don't like Bush, your middle-class consciousness is more important to you.

Direct Action is moral

by Anon_2

Fri Feb 28, 2003 13:59

As a member of the GP and one who would presumably be dismissed as a "softie" by those organising the DA on saturday - I think it needs to be said that many/most/all individual members of LP/SF/GP/PANA etc have NO problem with what's proposed for Saturday. Unfortunately, the respective leaderships of these parties/groups are taking their bearings from the mainstream media and so, I believe, are talking themselves into a corner vis-a-vis their members. The same mass media will slaughter the GP/SF etc in any case so trying to bend over backwards to please them, thus alienating members, is not very clever.

The point that direct action is working to reduce the importance of Shannon in the build up to war, is well made and, of course, true. F15 was largely symbolic, the real work is being done in Shannon.

Finally, I would refute the suggestion that once the second resolution is agreed at the UN the GP, for one, will jump on board the pro-war party. Most, if not all, GP members will still remain opposed to war 2nd resolution or not.

T Obrien, Ray

by Ali la Pointe - fun lovin anti imperialistas

Fri Feb 28, 2003 14:06

Come off it, you're not seriously equating provo political violence with US and British State violence and UDA violence.

It may be wrong. It may be counterproductive. But it is not genocidal or intended to pulverise a people into submission.

The extension of this scheme is that NVDA= bombing military installations= bombing civilians in their homes = pulverising 3d world countries = pol pot = hitler. so lets make youghurts and vote labour every few years.
plain nonsense

I am travelling 10 hours to get to Shannon and I'll be there at the fence!

What pressure is being put on the Dail parties?

by Jim

Fri Feb 28, 2003 14:33

We've all wondered what George Bush has on Tony Blair that makes him such a supine puppett. The same is true for Bertie Ahern. Why is he prepared to risk so much for George W?

Now it seems pressure has forced a u-turn on the Greens, Sinn Fein and Labour (were the latter ever with us anyway?)

Stories abound. Urban legends are being born. Latest I've heard was 300 anarchists in balaclavas going for the fence! Next we'll be told Osama Bin Laden personally organised tomorrows demo. Get real folks.

Peaceful direct action (including a mass trespass) is a perfectly legitimate tactic. If the Greens, Labour and Sinn Féin believe otherwise then that's their problem (and their supporters). The Provos have truly come a long way haven't they. Those Armani suits must really be effective.

Mass Direct Action?

by jenny hannon

Fri Feb 28, 2003 16:48

The point of this demo, was ,and correct me if i am mistaken, was for a mass non-violent direct action.

Now we can criticise the GNAW all we want but at the end of the day , the plan has been laid.

Wether it is a mass action is up to all of us that attend the demo, if it is violent ,well thats in the hands of the garda and the army.

We all want this to be non violent and the plan of events accomodate this,once we all stick to it and stand side by side peacefully.

To be honest i think that a blockade is a more effective mass DA,and one that will include all types of Anti War protestors, of all ages and experinece.

My advise is that we suss out the vibe tommorrow and the amount of people willing to do the DA.If we have the numbers and the majority and they all know what they are doing and why, then go for it. The ball will then be in the gardas court.

If the majority of people want a blockade then ,the people will have spoken and that is the course of action that we should take.

As for the second UN resolution that is on the table, this war is wrong with or without the passing of this resolution and whoever does not agree with this is part of the wrong movement. There is no room for sell outs when peoples lives are at sake.Bombs,wether UN or US still do the same damage.

I am hoping that tommorow is a success, and that we achieve MASS NONVIOLENT DA. We should all aim for that.

Number of comments per page

Upcoming Events

New Events

Other Press

User Preferences

Feeds

Blog Feeds

Anti-Empire

The Saker

Lockdown Skeptics

Voltaire Network

Direct action: now or never?

Comments (12 of 12)