DGN Mayday feedback meeting - Sat 22nd

by Pusher - DGN Fri May 14, 2004 12:29

2.30pm, Saturday May 22nd, Teachers Club, 36 Parnell Square - come one, come all, the big ape is coming.

by dunk Fri May 14, 2004 13:24

v nice poster,

mayday was a massive springboard.
this is just the beginning.

what is happening now is that more and more "normal" people are thinking, asking questions, learning new things about how this world is working: workmates, friends, strangers......

so its essential for more open events whereby those starting to become "political" can do so.

i hope there is a lot of publicity aobut this and future events with the result that more and more get invovled

id propose a little "publicity stunt" before meeting, perhaps a wander around the city to inform and remind people about whats going on.
a load of little wallet sized flyers and a few printflares would be most welcome


http://easa.antville.org/stories/348675/#372882
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regions/oxford/2003/07/273800.html

by Tom Fri May 14, 2004 19:04

If you held it around 4 p.m. you might get some more from the demo. I guess things always clash.

by dunk Sat May 15, 2004 12:27

tom
would you do something similar then
if so send mail

by Joe Tue May 18, 2004 17:21

Yeah the clash is a pity, I'd have liked to get to both as well.

by Leon Tue May 18, 2004 18:00

If you dare to offer any criticism or disagreement you will be screamed at. Look at what happened to anyone who made the slightest criticism here.

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 12:00

All that happened was I pointed out your criticism was based on either
1. A lie
or
2. Sloppy reading of my report

What else would you expect me to do given the circumstances? Allow a falsehood to stand for fear of upsetting you?

ps On indymedia no one can hear you scream THEY CAN HEAR YOU SHOUT THOUGH

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 12:07

The DGN PolitBuro held a last minute meeting with the Black Bloc where deals were struck. You admitted it in the reort. I presume you are Joe Black. This deal was not announced to the crowd at the GPO. People had a right to know that this meeting had taken place. They also had a right to know that the Black Blocs intentions did not coincide with the DGN guidelines.

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 12:14

Thanks for removing the doubt about your motivations here 'Leon'. As I've already pointed out what I hoped was simply careless reading on your behalf I now know you were actually lying.

I'll repeat this to make sure a lie does not get accepted as the truth through repetition

"That aside Leon is either lying about what it [the article] says or simply has not read it carefully. He thinks there was a secret plan available at the GPO and that the articles says this. In fact it says something very different which indicates that no such plan was available at the GPO. Specifically in reference to the stop made near the end of the Navan road it says

"Around 1km from the [Ashtown] roundabout we stopped to take a break and allow stragglers catch up with the march. ... AT THIS STAGE it also became clear that the black bloc wanted to advance to the police lines and at least mount a token attempt to push through them."

Like everyone else the Farmleigh planning group had seen the padded bloc statement on indymedia. Like everyone else we had read the various media reports. As part of DGN we knew from some months back that some people were talking of a padded bloc. So that, along with many other things, was part of the contengency planning for the march. We had agreed that IF we thought there would be a push through we would stop 100m or so back from the police line. However we didn't KNOW this was going to happen for sure until we were very nearly at Ashtown.

Now at the GPO we could have gone through a long list of IF x THEN y statements. It's certainly a suggestion worth considering in future. However given that the Gardai had already tried to ban the march once I'm not sure how wise it could have been to do this and perhaps given them an excuse to intervene before we had got off O'Connell st (Some of the IFs would also have been a lot more alarmist then what happened)."

The article being talked about is at http://struggle.ws/wsm/news/2004/farmleigh1may.html

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 12:20

"The DGN PolitBuro held a last minute meeting with the Black Bloc where deals were struck."

There is no DGN politburo.
There was a DGN group concerned with the march, but they didn't hold a last-minute meeting with the BB.
When the march group met with the BB - not at the last minute - no deal was struck.

"You admitted it in the reort."

So far all of the retorts have been people telling you exactly why you are wrong. In more detail than you deserve, to be honest.

"This deal was not announced to the crowd at the GPO."

There was no deal to announce.

"People had a right to know that this meeting had taken place."

Why should the crowd be informed of everything that the people involved in DGN do? If there had been a change to the guidelines, that would have been announced, but the guidelines weren't changed.

"They also had a right to know that the Black Blocs intentions did not coincide with the DGN guidelines."

The DGN guidelines clearly and specifically applied to the march, and made a point of stressing that DGN did not seek to limit the tactics that could be adopted by groups outside of the march. Since the Black Block had agreed to adhere to the guidelines WHERE THOSE GUIDELINES APPLIED there was nothing to tell.

So, are you finished flogging this dead horse, or are you going to get 'George O'Toole' to take over for a while?

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 12:31

Woops I just noticed the 'You admitted it in the reort' line in 'Leon''s post. He now seems to be insisting that one of us should haved steped into a time machine at Ashtown (where the BB intentions were confirmed) which would have whizzed us 90 minutes back into the past and allowed us to announce this 'deal' at the GPO. The trolls aren't getting any better, are they!

In any case 'deal' is the wrong term to use as it implies negotiation. In reality we were told what the BB intended to do (which was to happen regardless of what we thought of this intention) so we implemented the contingency plan to seperate the DGN march from the bloc.

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 12:33

from the WSM report -

"This had been a subject of some controversy in particular with the relatively small numbers of international activists who had arrived in Dublin. Some were inclined to misread the guidelines as either an ideological statement of pacifism or as an insistence that everyone, everywhere in the city must follow them. For the most part this was cleared up at a meeting involving most DGN activists and most of the internationals. One tactical difference that still existed was on the question of what we would do when we got to a police line. The guidelines clearly stated that we would not try and push through but many people both Irish and international felt that at least a token effort should be made."

This secret meeting did take place. If it wasnt secret then where and when was it advertised?

"While we respected their freedom to adopt different tactics we needed to also stick to the guidelines we issued. We figured the best way to do this would be to halt our march some 100m short of the police lines so that those who wanted to push through could leave it and so try to push through without automatically involving everyone else when the police attacked."

Therefore you changed your conduct and how the march would be run to satisfy a violent vanguardist organisation namely the Black Bloc. You put the rest of protesters at risk by not informing them of your secret dealls with the Black Bloc.

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 12:36

You had met with the Black Bloc prior to the march, you were aware of their intentions. Yet you put the peaceful majority of marchers at risk rather than fall out with the Black Bloc Vanguard.

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 13:19

No one who stayed with the DGN banner was exposed to any risk that they could not reasonably have expected to face in advance. (They had chosen to go on a banned march remember, it could never have been viewed as 100% 'safe').

Anybody who choose to advance past where the DGN march stopped was making a free choice when they did so. We issued guidelines in advance that said what would happen and this was exactly what happened. Repetition of lies doesn't change this. I'll answer any new points raised but I'm not replying to further repetitions of the same old lies.

by Chekov Thu May 20, 2004 13:21

Link below. Advertised VERY widely. It did exactly what it said on the tin.

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 13:35

Nowhere did it state that the Black Bloc would be in attendance. It did not state that DGN would negotiate with the BB at this meeting. Why dont you refer to the WSM report?

by David Thu May 20, 2004 15:14

It is a tactic.

Nobody can have a meeting with "The Black Bloc". it doesn't exist before an action and it stops existing when the action is finished.
many people on who took part in the Black/padded bloc on mayday did not even know each other.

Leon. You must already know this, but you're trying to stir up shit.

The Guidelines for the march always facilitated diversity of tactics should people want to seperate themselves from the DGN banner. Everybody who made an effort to inform themselves would have been aware of this.

by George the tool Thu May 20, 2004 15:21

I have heard that a guy called Frank was at the meeting. Nowhere in the guidelines was it announced that Frank would be there. Why wasn't the crowd at the GPO told about Frank? Why were we kept in the dark?

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 15:32

Imagine how I felt when I realised the SWP had turned up! How dare the DGN members not hand-deliver a letter to my home informing me of the possibility of a Leninist presence? No wonder people were so eager to dance under the water cannon!

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 15:40

If the Black Bloc is not an organiation then who did the DGN meet with in the WSM report below?

"This had been a subject of some controversy in particular with the relatively small numbers of international activists who had arrived in Dublin. Some were inclined to misread the guidelines as either an ideological statement of pacifism or as an insistence that everyone, everywhere in the city must follow them. For the most part this was cleared up at a meeting involving most DGN activists and most of the internationals. One tactical difference that still existed was on the question of what we would do when we got to a police line. The guidelines clearly stated that we would not try and push through but many people both Irish and international felt that at least a token effort should be made."

Were these internationals a concept? Did they actually exist? Did you have tactical differences with a concept or did you have differences with a "Bloc" which was going to carry out a certain set of actions?

Who do you think you are fooling? You are following the Goebells motto - "Tell the big lie first, the truth will never catch up." In this case the truth has caught up with you because a WSM member was stupid enough to give the game away.

As for George, he really is a tool.

by David Thu May 20, 2004 15:50

I was a part of the Black Bloc on the day and i'm from Ireland.

Leon. you're saying it's undemocratic to hold meetings?

Are you suggesting we shouldn't have talked to the internationals that were invited by us to take part?

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 15:55

I am saying that the meeting should have been accurately advertised. The outcome of that meeting should have been informed to the crowd at the GPO on Saturday. Of course the Internationals should have been at the meeting. But Saturdays marchers should have been told the real story instead of being led like lambs to the slaughter.

A short while ago there was no Black Bloc now you are a member of it. Make your mind up.

by Badman Thu May 20, 2004 16:02

It has become common for there to be bitter acrimonious disputes after summit protests between those who advocate purely non-confrontational tactics and those who want to go a bit further. The Dublin Mayday protests were exceptional in that this did not occur at all. Everybody involved came away happy. The DGN march organisers held a non-confrontational march and stuck to that, while ensuring that if others wanted to go further, they clearly seperated themselves so that nobody was unwittingly dragged in. The pushing block respected the guidelines and clearly seperated themselves before the confrontation. There has been no bitterness from the participants in the aftermath.

Leon, who was clearly not involved in any of the preparations or debates, is indignant. This seems to be of the form: "how dare you organise something that showed a healthy respect for diversity? How dare you not split the movement? How dare you hold meetings where issues could be explained to internationals and their co-operation sought? How dare you not have a single party line and prevent others from doing what they wanted to? How dare you provide a textbook example of a diverse and democratic movement in practice? How dare you?"

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 16:02

Leon maybe you should stop trying so hard to 'read between the lines'. You seem to be assuming above that 'internationals' (meaning people who traveled to the protest from outside Ireland) is in fact a code word for 'black bloc'.

It's not. Not all of the 'internationals' were part of the bloc and not all of the bloc were internationals (a lot were Irish). In any case note that this new variation (that 'most DGN activists' were involved in this meeting) is at odds with the lie you have been pushing to date that either the WSM or a DGN politboro and been making decisions. I won't hold my breath for you to acknowledge this.

In fact following all your posts your argument has transformed and transformed again as one bit after another was shown to be false. Your grasping at straws now rathen than backing down and saying 'OK I misunderstood the original article'.

It was no secret in advance of Mayday that some people wanted to push through police lines. Remember the call for a padded bloc statement posted to indymedia around a week beforehand. So there was no 'game to be given away' beyond the fact that "most DGN activists" took part in a discussion about what the guidelines meant with 'internationals' before the protest itself.

Nothing wrong with the organisers of a protest having such a discussion, is there?

by Castro Thu May 20, 2004 16:03

'many people on who took part in the Black/padded bloc on mayday did not even know each other.'

Is this really the best way to carry on like how do you know if someone is there for the right reason. On the day anyone could turn up and you could have cops or crooks among you. Could this be why some of your lot were throwing missiles while most were acting in a controlled fashion trying to push through the cops.

by David Thu May 20, 2004 16:07

Is that so hard to understand?

There are participants in a black bloc, but they are not members of "the black bloc"

It's an association that is formed and dissolved in a short space of time.

I don't believe there was anybody outside the GPO who had informed themselves of the DGN guidelines who were misled in any way.

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 16:07

""most DGN activists" took part in a discussion about what the guidelines meant with 'internationals' before the protest itself.

Nothing wrong with the organisers of a protest having such a discussion, is there?"

Nothing wrong with it provided everyone knows what the outcome was. You lot kept it secret to yourselves. I misunderstood nothing you are the one who has to keep changing his position.

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 16:10

The 2,000 people at the GPO were not informed of what transpired at the Friday night meeting. They were not informed of the agreement that had been reached with your quantum Bloc which seems both to exist and not exist. Are you saying that no one prepared the BB action in advance. You really put Goebells to shame.

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 16:10

"Nothing wrong with it provided everyone knows what the outcome was."

The outcome was that everyone had a better understanding of the guidelines, and agreed to adhere to them.

Now Leon is going to tell us that the fact the guidelines had not changed should have been announced. Right after announcing that DGN still stood for Dublin Grassroots Network, that DGN had not decided the march was to congratulate Bertie on the fireworks...

by Badman Thu May 20, 2004 16:12

Anything can be infiltrated. The plausible tales of infiltrators so far on Indymedia have been people who were not masked or part of this block. The beer cans were not thrown by people in the pushing block - they were thrown by drunks behind the lines.

The pushing block did not all know each other, but they all knew the parameters of the action, just like the people on the main march did not all know each other, but they knew the guidelines. If somebody on the pushing block acted outside the parameters by throwing stuff, it would be dealt with in exactly the same way as it would be on the main march - they would be asked to stop. In fact, because of the cohesiveness and tightly linked nature of the pushing block, it would be much more diffiicult for people to do stupid stuff on it than it would on a regular march. You are going to notice pretty damned quick if the guy with arms linked to you is doing something stupid, and given the considerable risk to yourself when in direct confrontation with riot police, you are going to be very motivated to make him stop.

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 16:18

But Leon the bit you quoted makes clear that there was no outcome 'The guidelines clearly stated that we would not try and push through but many people both Irish and international felt that at least a token effort should be made.'

In other words the DGN guidelines said one thing, some people continued to disagree. As I said stop trying so hard to read between the lines. After that meeting the issue about whether people would or would not try to push through was no more resolved than it was before the meeting.

And again the article you are so fond of citing selectivly actually tells everyone when the march organising group became aware that a push through would definetly be attempted, ie ""Around 1km from the [Ashtown] roundabout we stopped to take a break and allow stragglers catch up with the march. ... AT THIS STAGE it also became clear that the black bloc wanted to advance to the police lines and at least mount a token attempt to push through them."

This selective quoting of something that doesn't say what you want it to say is dishonest. It becomes a lie when further down the situation is further clarified by the sentences above. It becomes a very obvious lie when this is pointed out to you for the 3rd time. Time for you to retract.

by Castro Thu May 20, 2004 16:21

The reason I was wondering was cos I saw a masked guy with rocks on the day. Thers also a picture somwhere on a Indymedia story has a picture of a guy in a mask with missiles . Maybe he wasnt with the Black Bloc.

by Leon Thu May 20, 2004 16:24

You guys did a deal with an undemocratic violent group. You were prepared to put the safety of the mass of the crowd at risk rather than to fall out with the Black Bloc. Most of those injured and arrested had nothing to do with your Bloc.

You bear full responsibility for those arrests and injuries.

by James T Hooker Thu May 20, 2004 16:31

"Everybody came away happy" not those who went along on a peaceful protest and ended up behind bars. If information that made it clear that the protest was not going to be purely peaceful was available it should have been given to all so that a free and informed choice could be made. Obviously this would reduce numbers and could split the march so it wasn't delivered. I was at the front of the march and I never heard any information of the nature 'our march has finished anyone who goes beyond here is risking violence' this just wasn't said and it wasn't obvious. When we arrived at the police lines there was no risk as nobody was pushing then one section 'the black bloc' formed up and pushed. It then escalated and put everyone at risk of violence and arrest all the way back into the city.

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 16:32

Is to hype up the emotion and then re-assert the original point never minding that all the 'evidence' for it has been swept away. Your wrong Leon, it's that simple and making the same assertion again and again does you no favors.

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 16:39

"I was at the front of the march and I never heard any information of the nature 'our march has finished anyone who goes beyond here is risking violence' this just wasn't said and it wasn't obvious. "

I was also at the front of the march, and I heard it announced several times over the megaphones, and I saw the DGN banner (and the WSM banner) moving over to the side of the road. I think it could have been done better - perhaps by making the announcement at the rest stop, which was where the decision was made, and where it might have been easier to hear. But its simply not true to say that the DGN didn't announce that the march was stopping, and that anyone continuing was doing so at their own risk.

(Though the DGN did try to help people who left the march, by providing first aid and legal observers, and by waiting to help get people back into town, this was above and beyond what they said they'd be responsible for)

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 16:45

James those of us leading the march did out best to inform people of what was happening. In hindsight there were things that could have been improved on but not only did we stop the banners and move them to one side we also made multiple announcements through the two megaphones. We then went up to the police line and repeated these announcements.

Now some people despite repeated requests not to do so had gone ahead of the banner. There was nothing we could do about this. If you were at the front of the march (ie with the banner) there was no way you could be unaware that the DGN march had stopped. If you were ahead of the baner you would not have know this. If you were a fair bit back you MIGHT not have heard the announcements or noticed that the banners had moved to one side but you should still have heard the people who went up with megaphones. And if you looked over your shoulder you would have seen the banners turned around behind you and facing the other way.

As I said with hindsight things could have been handled better but an honest effort was made which is why I find Leon's lies so annoying.

by hooded idiot Thu May 20, 2004 16:46

the DGN march WAS peaceful

there WAS an announcement that the DGN march was stopping and anyone who continued to the police lines was leaving the march

"I was at the front of the march and I never heard any information of the nature 'our march has finished anyone who goes beyond here is risking violence' this just wasn't said and it wasn't obvious"

Then you were one of the people who repeatedly ignored the DGN request to 'stay behind the banner'. They weren't requesting this for no reason. If you'd stayed at the banner you would have heard the announcement. If you're going to ignore the march organisers and walk off ahead of them you can't turn around and blame them for anything that happens.

by James T. Hooker Thu May 20, 2004 17:07

On reflection I do remember there were announcements before we arrived at the police line saying 'stay with the march' or stay behind the banner'. I was at the front of the march but I never say anyone turn around with any banner nor got any feeling that a section of the group had stopped or left. In fact throughout I say prominent members of both the DGN and the WSM at the front. Clearly this is their choice but this does signal to me that everyone was still going forward. The only voice of restraint I heard was RBB of the SWP pleading with people not to get hurt. Either way the point still remains that if it was known that a section would go forward and court state violence and arrest everyone should have been told as early as possible. I don't attend many meetings and visit indymedia rarely so I could only have been told on the day. Normally I suppose the two marches, black and white, would be totally separate but on the day there wasn't room to separate properly and on my way back into town I came close to being arrested. This would have been the second time and I wouldn't have been happy.

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 17:21

"I was at the front of the march but I never say anyone turn around with any banner nor got any feeling that a section of the group had stopped or left."

The DGN and WSM banners both moved to the side of the road, and there were repeated announcements that the DGN march was stopping there. I find it extremely unlikely that you didn't notice any of this.

Lots of people continued beyond this point. Some to push, some to just go to the police lines, some to observe, for indymedia, as legal observers, or curiosity, and some as medical support. But the official march stopped, the banners stopped, and this was announced several times. If you somehow managed not to notice this at the Ashdown roundabout, I'm sure you'd also have failed to notice any announcements made at the GPO. And then you'd have something else to complain about, 'James'.

(And since plenty of people joined up en route, an announcement at the GPO couldn't have been heard by some.)

by Joe Thu May 20, 2004 17:22

As I said James with hindsight things could have been done better. Given a re-run what I'd have proposed is that once we had heard that a push through was to be attempted (ie at the last break before Ashtown) we'd have got everyone to sit down and got one of those organising the breakthrough to explain it on the megaphone. Or failing that done so ourselves.

At the time we thought that bringing the banners to one side and announcing what was happening would have got through to everyone. The main miscalculation here was that we expected most of those at the front would stop and so it would be obvious to everyone that the march was splitting. In fact of the 2,000 or so who made it that far at least 1,800 went beyond the DGN banner. The vast majority were aware that the DGN march had stopped but its quite possible a good few were just following the crowd and in the excitment failed to realise what had happened. (And of course there were the drunks).

It is true those who went to the police line included WSM and DGN people. Both organisations left it to individuals to decide whether or not to go beyond the guidelines but in terms of our banners we had people to stop and remain with them at the end point.

by James T Hooker Thu May 20, 2004 17:25

You piece of shit Ray, you come on here with no evidence and you call me a liar. I was their and I didn't hear or see, I told honestly what my opinion was and I get met with abuse. The fact is the fact I was there I know maybe 75 people who could tell you the same. Take back your lies and get yourself a life.

by pat c Thu May 20, 2004 17:37

Come on, thats no way to talk to Ray. He was just telling it like it was. I was also at the front and I heard the organisers continuous ly calling on people to remain behind the banner. After the march halted the organisers made strenuous efforts to get marchers back behind the banner. I joined in this, these efforts to get bystanders away from the Garda lines continued as the water cannon were brought up and the riot police moved forward.

All of the way on the long march back into town the organisers made efforts to stop panic and to get the people fall back to the banners and away from the cops. I spent most of the march back with the WSM banner and know what I saw.

I had some disagreements with Joe earlier about some incidents with the press. But this was minor stuff in comparison to whats happening here. There is a concerted attempt to denigrate the DGN and WSM.

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 17:39

"I never heard any information of the nature 'our march has finished anyone who goes beyond here is risking violence' this just wasn't said"

It _was_ said. More than once.

I can understand if someone towards the back of the march didn't hear it, or didn't see the banners moving to the side. But you said you were at the front of the march, where you couldn't have missed it happening.

Frankly, if you've been around enough to recognise the prominent members of the WSM and DGN at the police lines (but miss the prominent members of the DGN and WSM at the side of the road with the banners!) then I reckon you'd be able to spot a Black Block for what it is, and stay away if you don't want to risk arrest.

I'm getting tired of the complaints that boil down to "Why didn't the DGN have a line of stewards to keep me away from the police".

by James T. Hooker Thu May 20, 2004 17:52

He accused me of lying. I was there, he tried to say I wasn't and that I didn't see what I saw or hear what I heard. He is also a snide prick and will get the first dig in every time however he's slow witted so I won't worry too much. I said that I heard people saying get behind the banner; they were Dermo and Fergal mostly. I then said that I never say anyone turn away or stop and that I saw many of the organisers continuing on. I wanted to raise the point that what was going to happen should have been told to us earlier as there was no way to let everyone know what the score was when we reached police lines. I wasn’t in Gothenburg or Genoa I don’t know what happens at police lines, when I saw the so called Black Bloc form how was I to know that this was a separate thing. Nobody told me and I needed to be told. I think Joe answered me fairly and took some of the responsibility for slight mistakes that were made. This is totally fair enough nobody expects things to go perfectly and it’s always a learning curve. All in all I think it went well on the day but lessons can be learned. I’m sure the organisers knew they would bear some of the responsibility for injury and arrest and they will do there best to see the wrongs committed against these people righted.

by Ray Thu May 20, 2004 18:01

"I never heard any information of the nature 'our march has finished anyone who goes beyond here is risking violence' this just wasn't said"

It is untrue that it wasn't said. You wrote something untrue. This makes you a ...?

If you agree that you were mistaken, and that the DGN actually did make those announcements, then fair enough. But it _was_ said - said by Dermot, in fact, one of the people you recognised telling people to get behind the banner.

"there was no way to let everyone know what the score was when we reached police lines"

Which is why the march stopped and the announcements were made 100 metres back. Now, with hindsight it would have been better to make the announcement a few minutes earlier, at the rest stop. But not the GPO, because at that point the DGN didn't even know what was going to happen, so they couldn't have announced it.

by David Thu May 20, 2004 20:57

If you were in fact there, and if you had inadvertedly gone up to the police lines and did not hear the DGN announcement, I find it impossible to believe that you didn't notice the Black/padded bloc advancing very slowly behind a specific banner towards the police and shouting at people to get out of the way if they didn't want to be caught in the middle.

Everybody who was there is responsible for their own decisions they made on the day. The DGN is not there to nanny people or to protect them from themselves. It was very clear what was happening at the police lines and nobody was forced to be anywhere they didn't want to be.

by Jed Thu May 20, 2004 21:22

nobody is expecting anybody to nanny folks, but the demo was promoted as a peaceful event and many joined in (including myself) expecting it to be just that. I'm not a leninist who insist on stewards acting like police but I do expect the organisers to play some role in enforcing the guidelines under which we all marched.

Violence has no role in my life and i'm probably what some people dismiss as an old hippie. (I spend 8 months of the year living in a tent on the side of a mountain.) The idea that guidelines can be handed out, and folks asked to adhere to them, but then a small group in masks (what's to hide?) can completely breach these and put everybody else at risk is an issue that concerns me. Hundreds of people were drenched and baton-charged because a handful of folks threw things and acted aggressively. In my opinion there should not be any alcohol allowed on a peace march, especially if confrontation is a possibility. I'll be going to the Anti-War Ireland march in Shannon on the Friday night that Bush arrives and I hope a tougher attitude is adopted at that towards folks with drink. A few drunks put us all at risk and damage the credibility of the event.

by David Thu May 20, 2004 21:51

I personally agree with you about the Alcohol and i will be raising this at the meeting on Saturday.
If you want to make a contriibution you should attend too.

by DGN May 1st marcher Fri May 21, 2004 10:25

"In my opinion there should not be any alcohol allowed on a peace march, especially if confrontation is a possibility."

It was a beautiful Saturday and drinking alcohol is a favourite past time of most young Irish people. All you are doing by making a statement like this, is falling into neat stereotypes that suit the establishment. I saw many people drinking cans. And I also saw most of those who did, collect their cans in plastic bags and deposit them in litter bins en route.
How do you suggest enforcing your no alcohol on a peace march? BTW, was it really a peace march. Bring the Noise doesn't sound too peaceful to me.

by pat c Fri May 21, 2004 10:57

david is correct about the alcohol. it has no place on these demos. the black block were not drinking, it was assorted winos and others. these were the people who threw cans bottles and other missiles. many of which hit other marchers.

a demo is not a picnic.

by dunk Fri May 21, 2004 13:28

re
"a demo is not a picnic."

front line full of people shouting "cops yez are cu**s" is not a pleasent place
some were there drinking and being completely non violent, myself included

tension zones should be changed to creative humourous fun zones, a picnic perhaps

can a family bring their kids to the front line- now no
should things change so they can go to the picnic, definately
are we attempting to make this happen?
yes

hope to see you on the "bush walk"

by pat c Fri May 21, 2004 14:00

if a section of a march is going to attempt to push through police lines, then the demo is not a suitable place for kids and a picnic. the savage way in which the gardai reacted proved this. while not all of those drinking threw missiles, many did.

there is no place for alcohol on a demo, drunks do stupid things. on 1 may drunks threw missiles, many of which hit the black block and other marchers.

by index Fri May 21, 2004 14:39

I agree with pat that the police did over react and when people start drinking they end up doing stupid things. I presume that everyone wants to see as many people out on the streets for demos against Bush, like Feb 15th whether it is organised by the “Irish Anti War Movement”, “Irish Anti War” or” I can not believe its not Anti war movement” with people from all walks of life and families attending. If they think there is going to be any hint of violence people will stay at home we saw that.

So I will ask the people from Grass Roots if there are people at your demo that are intent, are you just going to ask them “no violence pretty please” or will there be people from Grass Roots intervene to ensure the anti-bush/ peace really is exactly that peaceful.

by Joe Fri May 21, 2004 14:44

The events described didn't happen on the DGN march, they happened on the breakaway. By definition the guidelines didn't apply on the breakaway.

Also on F15 I saw a drunken teenager throw a can off beer at an old women he was arguing with outside TCD. Lots of yellow bibs on that march but it still happened.

by Leon Fri May 21, 2004 17:58

You brought the march to the riot and then you wash your hands of the behaviour of drunken louts. These alkos were drinking all the way on your march. You are a disgrace and totally devoid of integrity.

by Bemused Fri May 21, 2004 18:08

After a meaningful discussion on a thread, Brian Cahill of the SP came on and pointed out that the SP frowns on trolls (after all 'its rare for the SP to do it) and that he would have no bother saying so. So, it's surprising that he is silent about this Leon.

Anyway I wouldn't waste too much time on this muppet. It is a sign of how successful DGN must have been, that 20 days after the event, this gobshite is still trying to hone in on something, to say that DGN did something wrong. Nearly three weeks after the event, Leon has not been able to acheive that aim.
Leon stick to SWP organised events, the change from being a sheep does you no good.

by dunk Fri May 21, 2004 22:45

re
These alkos were drinking all the way on your march

i had a few cans on march, as did my friends, all of which were completely non violent and amonst the strongest in terms of diffusing the violent and tense atmosphere

i enjoyed the day, they should be celebrational creative fun spaces, as opposed to many roaring "fuck the pigs"- i dont think this helps matters, and it allows them to view us as objects and not concerned rational human beings

"artistic ahimsa" is a phrase i put together today.
ahimsa is non violent action, a word from the jain religion, used by gandhi.
it is a spiritual exercise
it is also a chance to DO more artistic stuff, more creativity

these systems are exciting and fun, while also a real method of attemptig to change things.
the fact that they are exciting makes them appealing, therefor more can come and participate.

i want the demos to become more playful and positive
up with the laughing leprachaun bloc
up with acting the bolllix


eg- bush walk
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=65106&condense_comments=false#comment75810