The Shannon blockade: an appeal to Irish anti-war activists

by Concerned Anarchist Thu Nov 13, 2003 13:12

So what are you doing to ensure that the trots in the steering committee arent "steering" the campaign to suit their own naked self interest?

The weak kneed nature of this message makes me suspect that this is going to be another trot them out and listen to speeches, when are we going to have some real direct action?

by Chekov Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:13

The above post by 'concerned anarchist' is almost certainly an impersonation. There was also a comment, containing much the same content but more harshly worded, which purported to be sent from me. That was an impersonation and it has since been deleted. I am fully in agreement with Fintan's statement and think that he has done a good job in a difficult situation over this blockade.

I wonder who the impersonator could be?

by Bob C Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:19

I note that Fintan makes no mention of stewards, Labour party politicians, and has not tried to discourage Direct Action activists from participating. This is evry different from Aoife's message? Who has the mandate to represent the IAWM and, more important, what will the IAWM do on the 6th of December?

by lish Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:20

fintan, well done for getting the blockade idea through in the first place. you may be walking a tightrope but you do have support.
we'll be there on the 6th.
i for one would like an assurance from the iawm steering committee that the leadership will not attempt to intervene in or undermine the actions of its own or other groups.
& will stick to the original proposal: that the nature of the blockades be decided at public meetings & that the blockades belong to the participants.
this means no speeches, stewards or megaphones. also i would like to know offlist what timelimit you're working on. when do your buses go back?
trust the participants.
as you know, we do not need to be led.

by Aoife Ni Fhearghail - IAWM Thu Nov 13, 2003 14:52 info at irishantiwar dot org PO Box 9260, Dublin 1 087 7955013

So far the IAWM has booked 1 bus from Dublin and will book others depending on demand. Thus bus will leave Dublin city centre at 9am and will leave Shannon in time to reach Dublin for connecting buses/trains.

Contact 087 7955013 to book a seat on the bus. Tickets will cost €15 (waged) and €8 (unwaged).

The demonstration will be stewarded and there will be speakers from different organisations.

Aoife
087 7955013

by s.d. Thu Nov 13, 2003 15:08

'The demonstration will be stewarded and there will be speakers from different organisations.'

will the stewards be as diverse as the speakers?

How do people sign up to be a steward?

there is nothing wrong with the idea of stewards at a demo - it is good safety and valuable assistance to demonstrators.

but what is the IAWM doing to prevent the impression that the stewards are usually SWP members and are there for the agenda of the SWP?

RBB's Hillsborough incident is what people fear and is why people do not trust the IAWM.

Fairplay to Dr Fintan for his efforts and they should be supported from within and outside the IAWM.

by barry Thu Nov 13, 2003 15:22

Aoife, although it probably won't affect me as I doubt I'll travel from dublin, could you be a bit more specific about the time the IAWM bus will be leaving shannon?

What does 'in time to meet connecting busses and trains mean? does it mean last DART and city bus? does it mean last train to belfast or gorey?

to meet connecting busses and trains ye may have to leave shannon within an hour of getting there, or ye might be able to stay 'til 7pm.
Which will it be?

Also, I thought this was to be a blockade, yet you refer to it as a demonstration, am I being pedantic?

Finally,
what will be the powers of the stewards on the day?
how closely will they be liasing with the gardai?
where is the blockade planned for? the terminal, the roundabout? the town center? wherever it is allowed?
will the speechifying be done from a flatbed truck ala bloody sunday and hillsborough? will this platform be placed in advance at the agreed/desired blockade site.

And really finally: will ye all form a protective cordon around your 'own' protesters and chant "stay with the real demonstration(see above), stay with the real demonsration" once again?

by Dunno But Thu Nov 13, 2003 15:41

Dunno, but handing the stewarding of a blockade to the SWP who oppose nonviolent direct action whenever it emerges (and has tried desperately to keep the peace movement away from Shannon) sounds like the weirdest thang since the Indonesian military were given the security role fot the UN ballot in East Timor in '99!

by Joe Thu Nov 13, 2003 15:57

Ainfos is reporting an Israeli anarchist group has initated joint Israeli/Palestinian attacks on the border wall that the army are constucting

"Some two hundred Palestinians, 35 Israelis and a similar number of internationals gathered yesterday in the village of Zububa to mark the international day of solidarity against the wall, by tearing a portion of it down."

See http://www.ainfos.ca/en/ainfos13043.html
and the link below

by David Thu Nov 13, 2003 16:34

Seem to just be money collectors, they have no training and are not even briefed on what the heirarch plan to do. there are no contingency plans, they have no special medical or legal skills. people are approached, given flourescant bibs, buckets and sometimes leaflets and told to police the parade.
There will probably be stewards at shannon but they have no authority other than what the people present choose to give to them

by IMC reader Thu Nov 13, 2003 16:53

Aoife has sent the message about stewards to delegitimate Fintan Lane. In the other thread Fintan said that the debate within the IAWM re. stewards was still ongoing, and next thing Aoife is sent in by her paymasters to restore order.
A blockade is voted by steering committee? No problem, the SWP bosses will turn into business as usual: sit down, be stewarded and listen to the speeches.
Now there are 2 explanations:
1. The SWP bosses believe that people want to go all the way to Shannon to listen to Michael D, RBB and Patricia McKenna. Maybe they genuinely believe that we are all ignorant and need to be explained what's wrong with US warplanes refuelling a Shannon. This of course begs the question of why people would bother to go there in the first place.
2. The SWP is actively working (on behalf of whom?) to police the movement and prevent any effective action.
I admire Fintan's efforts, but I honestly think that he is genuinely misguided in believing that it is possible to work with the SWP.

by Protestor Thu Nov 13, 2003 17:08

I will go with option (2

by Excited Thu Nov 13, 2003 17:30

I just want another crack at the can can.
The boys in blue wont know what to do again, hee hee. Yeaahh direct action.
Daa, da da da da, daa daa, da da da da daa daa...

by s.d. Thu Nov 13, 2003 17:36

'Michael D, RBB and Patricia McKenna'

I'm willing to bet that two out of those three would even consider the possibility of doing non-violent civil disobedience if they knew that the IAWM wasn't a SWP front.

I don't know what RBB's plans are for NVCD.

The IAWM is not an SWP front, the IAWM has a diverse membership, but the membership of the Sterring Committee is dominated by the SWP - which is why few will take part in the NVCD.

Fintan should be supported in his efforts.

by Cynical Thu Nov 13, 2003 18:06

I heard a rumour that Fintan is actually a front for the SWP, and that the "walking a balancing act" is merely a charade for doing nothing...

by Anon Thu Nov 13, 2003 18:32

The SWP opposed the blockade, continue to whine on about it being a terrible idea, but want to control it on the day!! Fuckwits. Ignore them. They can't control us unless we listen.

Well done to those who've stood up to them within the IAWM but it now seems clear that you're wasting your time. How can you work with people who vehemently oppose something but still want to determine its format? That's crazy. If they had any decency they'd have worked with what was proposed (or hit the sidelines) instead of trying to marginalise Fintan and staging an organised attack at the last committee meeting to undermine him and the other organisers of the blockade. I heard they packed the meeting - is that true? And they pushed for 'closed' meetings?

Are there any other party political blocks on the steering committee, or have the SWP a home run?

Onwards to Shannon! I know a lot of good and sound SWP members but their leadership needs a good kick up the hole. They're a destructive element within the anti-war movement if they can't even work with people like Fintan Lane.

by Yossarian Thu Nov 13, 2003 18:36

Cynical above is probably a state or other unspecified troll. Fintan has no connection with the SWP other than working with some of their members on the IAWM steering committee. Do not be fooled.

by Cynical Thu Nov 13, 2003 18:45

Just saying what I heard, of course it could be complete and utter shite, but so what if it is? this is Indymedia after all!

The talk shyte website!

by 1 of Indymedia Ireland Editorial Group - Indymedia Ireland Thu Nov 13, 2003 18:58

Some people may talk shite on this website (and even shyte), but its usually identified as shite very quickly. So please take your shite elsewhere, unsubstantiated pub gossip is very unhelpful to us all. You can shite all you like on your blog, but please spare us the smell.

by Justin Morahan - Peace People Mon Nov 17, 2003 14:23

I understood that there was a subcommittee organising the Shannon action and other subcommittees dealing with European Social Forum etc.

Fintan is not only a member of the first subcommittee but also PRO for the IAWM.

For both of these reasons his version of events should be regarded as the correct one.

Re "demonstration" or "blockade" there's no difference of opinion here. The IAWM, he says, decided that the demonstration would take the form of a blockade.

Here is a request from Frank Cordaro, courtesy of Ciaron O'Reilly, to direct action people in the US recently. I pass it on as a suggestion for discussion on non-violent conduct here.

"We ask everyone participating in (a Demo and Direct Action) to reflect upon and respect these commitments to nonviolence during the demo.

Accordingly ---- We will carry no weapons. -- We will not vandalize. -- We will not use or carry alcohol or illegal drugs. -- We will not swear or use insulting language. -- We will not run in public or otherwise make threatening motions. -- We will not assault -- either verbally or physically -- those who oppose or disagree with us...even if they assault us. We will protect those who oppose us from insult or attack. -- We will honor the emergency decisions of the empowered coordinators and organizers of the demo. -- Our attitude as conveyed through words, symbols and actions will be one of respect toward all -- including police officers, military personnel, members of the larger community, and all demonstrators, friends and foes alike. -- If prosecuted we will use the judicial process to continue our resistance. Where possible, we will put the US illegal, unjust and immoral occupation of Iraq on trial."
Beir bua.

by Steelie Mon Nov 17, 2003 15:14

Because the stuff he is saying here is crazy. In fairness I think he is more likely to be a priest - another type of cop.

"We will not vandalize" - even warplanes and fences? What is the moral argument against vandalism if it can help in any way to preventing acts of war?

"We will not use or carry alcohol or illegal drugs" - looks like he's just trying to slip in a few of his personal prejudices here in a guise or righteousness. What on earth does this have to do with anti-war activism?

"We will not swear or use insulting language". Swearing and insulting language are part of our everyday expressiveness. If we feel something, then we should let those who create the feelings know about it - its just honesty. So, we'll use whatever bleeding language we like, you bollix.

"We will not run in public or otherwise make threatening motions." Is running a threatening motion? Sounds like he's swallowed the agenda of the cops wholescale. We'll run if we want to.

"We will not assault -- either verbally or physically -- those who oppose or disagree with us...even if they assault us." How can you verbally assault somebody? And, if somebody attacks me physically, I'm going to defend myself as best I can. Also, if we felt that we could stop the war by beating up the cops at Shannon, we would be morally obliged to do so.

"We will protect those who oppose us from insult or attack" - first line of police.

"We will honor the emergency decisions of the empowered coordinators and organizers of the demo." - we will honour decisions that we are party to, we will ignore commands from people who have made decisions on our behalf without asking us.

"Our attitude as conveyed through words, symbols and actions will be one of respect toward all -- including police officers, military personnel" - we have no respect for cops or squadies. They are the lapdogs of imperialism, we shall let them know what we think of them.

Finally, one of my own. "We will tell assholes who attempt to foist their own pious principles undemocratically on us where to get off."

by barry Tue Nov 18, 2003 18:46

Steelie, you are entitled to your opinions, on forms of NVDA as in all things.

The statement of guidelines for an NVDA above are frequently used on actions in the states and elsewhere, generally they are selected by the organisers of a particular action or block and agreed by all participants in advance of the action. Those who cannot agree with the guidelines of the action or block are asked to respect those who choose to abide by them.
See Non-Violence Guidelines at http://www.bpf.org/html/current_projects/peace_pages/nuclear/livermore.08.10.03.html for example.

Since the actions on Dec. 6th are likely to be of an autonomous nature it will be up to each affinity group to decide on their own guidelines, and their own limits.

For my part I'd ask just one thing of yourself and others: don't stand behind me whilst you're showing how little respect you have for 'cops and squaddies' or anyone else. Hide behind your mask by all means, just don't hide behind me(or anyone else choosing a different path to you).

by Phuq Hedd Tue Nov 18, 2003 21:56

QUOTE:"We will not use or carry alcohol or illegal drugs" - looks like he's just trying to slip in a few of his personal prejudices here in a guise or righteousness. What on earth does this have to do with anti-war activism?

ANSWER: If you're going to do a direct action or any other situation where there's a potential for arrest then it's pretty fucking dumb to be carrying a baggie isn't it? All you have to do is to look at how cops attempt to fit up arrestees on other charges by planting drugs or weapons on them in order to get a conviction of the arrestee. Add to this that if you're going to be stoned or drunk or whatever during the situation then your judgement is impaired. Drink, drugs and direct action just don't mix well.

by Lil - csf Wed Nov 19, 2003 18:29

Let's just hope that plenty of people turn up to show that we haven't given up or forgotten.
Buses from West Cork;
Dominic 023 40881
Mike 026 26500/087 1300191