I know it was said in a jeering way, but I thought that the comment you just removed made the fair point that police and bystanders may suffer from trauma too, especially people who have seen windows smashed and so on, or the (unarmed) police at Stirling faced with a group of screaming activists who for all they knew may have been carrying anything from petrol bombs to chains. It is wrong, surely, to hold activists up as the only sufferers, it makes other people seem less important, when they are not. Or is anyone suggesting that some people are more human than others?

A little over dramatic don’t you think ?

Storming the beaches of Normandy would bring on all these symptoms and rightly so
Standing on a Train carriage as others are blown to bits, Absolutely, Witnessing carnage death and destruction would always have an adverse effect

Getting hit by a Baton, being searched, Kept in a pen. Painful yes, irritating yes, annoying definitely , but likely to cause post traumatic stress disorder

Don’t talk bollocks

>>

there is a vast array of types of trauma and I can assure you that getting hit with a baton is traumatic. Whenever someone is abused in anyway, it gives a shock to the system that needs to be nudged out... Simply talking about it can often help and there is a large number of different counselling and healing techniques that can aid in trauma recovery.

As for members of the military - yeah sure - they suffer trauma in huge quantities! Read up about suicide rates in ex-military personnel for some shocking facts and figures.

But why did you post your comment? It seems you actually wanted to disempower people's experiences? seems a bit odd to me.

Seems like someone at IM doesn't like to be reminded that they aren't the only people with feelings on the planet. And for those of you who blinked and missed it, I'll restate it:

_________

Diddums


Police officers and bystanders also suffer from trauma when assaulted by protestors.

________

Blimey, how controversial. Must've been a mate of our erudite "folk hero" ACAB.

Did the nasty people hide a magoo masterpiece?

Maybe you need help too magoo.

Hopefully lots more magoo posts will be hidden as well - imagine having threads where we can discuss things without them being dominated by the beligerent magoo and his band of fellow psuedognomes.

You are right though magoo - cops can suffer from ptsd when they get assaulted. One thing you still haven't however realised is that Indymedia wasn't set up as a resource for cops.

It was however set up as a resource for activists.

IMC may, as well as being independent media, be a resource for activists, but are you suggesting that activists either can't, don't want to, or don't need to contemplate the fact that their actions have consequences?

You know what? - I reckon any activists who did attack coppers are less likely to suffer a stress reaction - because at least they will feel that there was a reason for what happened, and that they had some control over the situation.

On the other hand, the many who did not exhibit violence or aggression but were treated to violence and aggression from the cops anyway are less likely to be able to feel that they were in control, or that they played part in their traumatic situation.

But, you are not alone in thinking that all activists are exactly the same - just like many activists think that at the end of the day, all cops are the same.

But just as a Brazilian Catholic isn't a Pakistain muslim, so a "fluffy" activist isn't the same as a "violent" one.

Many people at the G8 were there wanting justice, believing in ideals such as liberty and rights, and wanting a fairer world. They broke nothing and hurt no-one - and yet they were baton charged, beaten, detained and brutalised in other ways.

Depersonalising people and treating all of them as a threat isn't a healthy way to feel, and its not a healthy way to be treated either.

We have magoo who insists that we should bear in mind every ones "brutalisation" and then exhibits signs of PTSD because a post of his gets hidden. And you declaring that people might feel brutalised because they imagine that activists are carrying Molotovs. And "a realist" who thinks s/he is an expert on the situations in which people are entitled to experience PTSD. Its almost as if theres a gang of you trying to undermine the article or something.

Why don't you go and do something constructive instead of this bollocks?

It isn't as itf there aren't a million and one problems in the world that don't need with dealing with urgently, is it?

"Magoo" raises some interesting points here. Of course cops and other folk feel trauma.

Imagine some poor scally joining the police force... You set out with all good intentions: "There is too much crime, too many rapes, too many robberies, too many murders. I'm gonna put my life on the line in order to protect my community. I'm gonna be a copper and stop the bullies and scoundrels that are ruining our streets."

On the surface, it sounds great and honourable!

Then suddenly you realise you're not spending your time solving murders. Instead, you are now spending your time oppressing people who speak out against government policy... you are now stopping people from expressing themselves... You are being used by the politicians as a pawn to silent dissent... Such a rude awakening - and there is no union to join - and suddenly you realise how abused you are being and of course, you're gonna end up needing trauma counselling.

Magoo's right. Police do suffer post traumatic stress disorder. That's why the police has institutional forms of counselling. So why shouldn't we protesters?

Isn't trauma subjective since both sides believe they're in the right?

And as for bystanders, the only people I'm aware of who've claimed they were seriously traumatized by spectating on the G8 protests (like the woman who claimed her kid was hit by a stray brick in his bed) - were proved to be liars.

anon: yup. I was wondering when someone would raise the issue of the police having a support structure. I won't be so silly as to suggest the NHS (that could be manipulated to kill of all dissent through poor hygene <-- semi-joke!) I think it is GOOD that people seek to establish their own support structures...

It was the *pious* title of the post that annoyed me. It implies that it is all one-sided and that activists can do nothing to avoid police brutality or that somehow the police response to activist brutality is unfair. Sorry, you act antisocially you get thumped= life.

I'm not saying that peaceful people deserve a beating. I am saying that activists can do a lot to avoid conflict by taking a stand against twats who turn up for violence and destruction. Until you do that people will continue to get brutalised in both camps.

In essence, I think the topic is devisive and delusional.

I wouldn't wish to deny anyone humane treatment be it some poor sod in a crap job trying to be heard to that shitbag Saddam Hussein.

As for bystanders never being traumatised: get real! I have been on enough demos to have seen the innocent being dragged into things, hit by debris, hit by coppers (which wouldn't have happened if some twat hadn't kicked it all off), people's property being trashed, their shops looted etc etc etc. I'm not for a second suggesting that ALL activists are therefor to blame, just that people tend to turn a blind eye and ascribe all woes to the plod.

Live by your own standards.

Magoo writes >

Magoo, do you also encourage cops to take a stand against the cop mates who brutalise protestors? If you've been on plenty of demos you know full well that there are numerous bad donut cops who enjoy suppressing the outspoken masses just a little bit too much... Why do cops never (or *very rarely*) speak out against other cops abusing people? Why do the never (or very rarely) go witness against each other in cases of false arrest? Until the cops speak out against their bad eggs, people will continue to get brutalised in both camps.

Cheers for a lucid point (for a change! Not you personally!!!)

I thought that'd be taken as read, but:

I do not agree with anyone that uses acts of violence in any capacity other than self defence. That goes for ANYONE.

Every social grouping is a magnet for arseholes looking for self-justification. The police included and anarchism too. Why don't more cops grass up their colleagues? I *guess* they don't want to lose their jobs, lose their preferential motgage, have their family harrassed, get a kicking etc etc etc. Should their be better support for police whistleblowers? Yes! Should there be better handling of complaints against the police? Yes! Should activists do more to discourage twats from hijacking their demos? Yes. I'd go as far as to say: why don't more anarchists give evidence against thugs?

Both sides are valid points, but don't cancel each other out. I'm neither a brutal cop or brutal activist.

All I have been trying to do here is encourage some adult thinking on the matter of violence on demos and blame culture.

"I'd go as far as to say: why don't more anarchists give evidence against thugs? "

Because within the anarchist community, there is no recognised authority figure to give the evidence to. Within a grass-roots, consensus-based model, anarchists deal with people who work differently to us in our own ways; within our own communities; with a respect for a diversity of techniques.

But perhaps more importantly, "thug" is a completely loaded term in this context.

People like Bush and Blair (and the organisations that back them) are responsible for untold environmental destruction across the planet. They are responsible for the violent hideous deaths of many many thousands of people. And they are responsible for the proliferation of all kinds of really nasty weapons included depleted uranium, mines, torture devices etc etc.

This is a huge injustice on our planet! and our police forces have been co-opted by these politicians to stop people expressing themselves and to stop people from excercising our right to engage in democratic debate.

I do not get to vote on free trade agreements; I did not get to vote whether we went to war or not; Most people did not want war and did not believe in war... We want our say in how this world is run else we must realise we live in a dictatorship.... From this point of view, it is the cop who is the thug, because it is the cop who is doing the dirty work of stopping democracy from taking place; It is the cop who is physically stopping me from attending the meetings where decisions will be made that affect my life... So from this angle, who is the thug?

sean:

No thug isn't loaded, thug has very CLEAR negative connotations. I see anyone who uses violence to make their point as thugs. Again, ANYone: cop, chav, politcian or "activist"

The anarchist community doesn't really exists as a social structure (yet) and if it ever does it'll need some mode of criminal justice system like any other society. Or are you suggesting a society based around a lack of responsibility is a virtue?

I think most coppers couldn't give a shit about people expressing themselves so long as they don't become antisocial. And the general parameters of "antisocial" that apply are fairly universal sociologically: do not harm, do not destroy, do not disturb the peace without good cause.

Sorry if you think any of things are just forms of protest then you are just a thug and deserve to be held to account.

What gives people the right to smash other people's stuff up and assault people. Oh, I see it's a "cause"... same thinking as the IRA mate: thuggery with an ideology.

Bush & Blair are WORSE than thugs. Does that mean I have free license to act like a twat? Shall I come round and smash your place up on that pretext? I don't think so. So, what if you are frustrated: go SELF harm and leave the rest of us alone.

We don't live in a dictatorship, get your head out yer backside and do some research and a reasonable point of reference. We live in a society with an unhealthy influence of private wealth and demagogary. We have NO mass graves; We have NO concentration camps; we have NO Gulag; No Sachsenhausen; No Stasi/Gestapo.

Bigging up your cause makes you look like a misinformed arrogant eejit! Sure, there are lots of valid things to get angry about, but you just alienate people every time you reach for unreasonable comparisons.

People causing trouble on these demos aren't revolutionary heros a la Spain or Chiapas. They are antisocial twats! There is NO comparison.

Is there a cop stopping you from seeing your local MP? No. You want to change things then start with the things you CAN do and work maybe you'll get somewhere. Fixating on how disempowered you are is about attractive as scabies to the outsider.

And in case you haven't noticed, the police have more public support than anarchists (rightly or wrongly). So who is the voice of democracy and "the people"?

I guess I was wrong: grow up mate!

Magoo,

I'm not sure where you're coming from, spending your time dissing people for the completely trivial offences of being "antisocial" when in the next breath you readily say you feel that ..."Bush & Blair are WORSE than thugs."

Bringing up your cause of "antisocial behaviour" is a complete avoidance of all important issues facing the world at the moment. Why would I give a fuck if you thought I was "antisocial"? What the world needs now is more people to be anti-social!

We need more tabou breakers who are willing to step out of line and stop the status-quo from it's fearful, zombified acceptance of what they see going on around them. We need more people to rise up and speak out against these fuckers who are working on every thread to consolidate their economic, political and military power. We need more people to be antisocial in the presence of the war machine, the free trade machinations, the media lies and the corporate cocksucking done by politicos in our country.

Who the fuck are you to rant about "antisocial" behaviour carried out by people trying to get to express themselves? My MP is a politician and he ain't listening!! Best if I go make myself heard. The word "thug" implies a mindlessness to it. Whichever way you look at it, there is nothing mindless about trying to stop the Gathering of 8 from meeting to consolidate their power on this planet.

In the middle of your post, you say "Bigging up your cause makes you look like a misinformed arrogant eejit!" Well with this as your stance, how can you ever expect to get a decent argument? Fancy some thug bringing up a cause on this website - call the cops! If someone bringing up their cause on an indymedia site makes them look like "misinformed" and "arrogant" then what are you doing here? I gotta ask, who's the eejit?

There's plenty mindless in turning up on someone else's doorstep and shitting on it. Or did I miss the "non-hierarchical, directly demotratic municipal forum" that empowered the thugs to go ruck with the old bill and raise the locals' council tax? I guess the d-notice comittee did a better job on that one than the Ricin Factory.

Go practice what you preach: democracy Because as far as I can see you are no anarchist: just another hypocrite. Like the politicians you refuse to engage with.

"Bigging up your cause"= adding grandeur to yourself by citing wholly inappropriate analogies; I'm not the idiot who can't understand plain English.

You can rise up against anything without having to resort to thuggery. Violence has it's place as an act of self-defence. You can't credibly argue that Edinburgh is a war zone.

Come back with with the democratic pretensions when you have some sort of credible mandate. Till then you speak for no-one of any relevance.

Your sneering tone about a dehumanised zombie population indicates the amount of respect you have for your fellow man and how much you truly believe all to be your equals.

Thankfully your type will never achieve anything, because you reach out only to other thugs and have no meaningful strategy. You turn anarchism into a joke and play right into the hands of all those that wish to diminish alternatives.

Well done; my hero!

Yes. While my previous comment stands, I do think we need to bear in mind that the most "violent" of the G8 protests saw deaths: nil, serious injuries: nil, and from the videos of Stirling, people were acting more in sorrow and fear.

Sean,

Leave it out mate. Magoo is well known around here for continuous but hollow arguments. He rarely addresses the points raised and is only trying to waste your time. Please don't respond to his bile. I'm sure there are more worthwhile causes. Wait til he addresses some of the issues you raised (e.g. The need for more people to be anti-social or the evils of the G8 consolidating their power) before you respond. There was very little violence in Scotland so he is just trying to provoke angry argument; not informed debate.

Respeck,

I'm still bang on topic. Perhaps then you can enlighten to solution to this mathematical problem:

2 x wrong = ?

Ah but I forgot there are grander things afoot than any individual's suffering/loss. Perhaps you want to repeat that for the original poster's benifit.

"Magoo is well known around here for continuous but hollow arguments"


Aye, right.

A healthy degree of cynicism, a demand for better evidence to support theories, and a frequent level of posting does not contitute a "hollow" argument.

Sheesh. Bet someone now accuses me of being Magoo/Artaud/Boab/whoever.......

Exactly. It's called "peer review" in egghead circles. I care too passionately about the same issues, but I am tired of people postulating poor tactics and loony theories, and being anti-social (in the true meaning): i.e. not seeking a mandate for their selfish actions.

" I am tired of people postulating poor tactics and loony theories, and being anti-social (in the true meaning): i.e. not seeking a mandate for their selfish actions."

Where did you get the mandate to screw this thread up from magoo?

Where did you get the mandate to bring your pro-cop stance to so many threads from magoo?

Isn't it time you found a bulletin board magoo?

sort it out:

Um, I'm repsonding to the topic. Do I need a mandate for an opinion? I'm not lobbing bricks at anyone in the name of "the people".

Pro-police. You're having a laugh! I'm anti-self-appointed saviours of the masses who brutalise people. Violence is after all the topic here.

Can you back up your insults with something remotely resembling an on topic post?

London activist,

i can see he's baiting me but cheers for the reminder. He's what we call a "Crazy Maker". Getting his kicks from disturbing the flow of conversation and disrupting conversation. (This conversation was about trauma - remember!) With a lot of time on his hands, effectively, he is able to shut down discussion on any thread he wants to.

Magoo writes - "No thug isn't loaded, thug has very CLEAR negative connotations. I see anyone who uses violence to make their point as thugs."

By magoo's definition every cop, soldier, politician and judge is a thug. Every freedom fighter is a thug. Parents smacking their babies are thugs. And everyone who supports the state is a thug because we of course, the state is based on violence. By reading into his definition, everyone is a thug. Which makes his definition of thug pretty useless, all things considered. And I do not want to get bogged down arguing about semantics on a thread about trauma.

laters,

Sean

"Um, I'm repsonding to the topic."

The topic being trama advice for activists from the activisttrauma.net

Are you giving activists advice on trauma magoo? Or have you decided that you should decide what the topic of the thread is?

"Do I need a mandate for an opinion?"

No, apparently only those you disagree with need a mandate for an opinion. The question is why people using this newswire have to put up with your controlling threads and pushing your pro-cop agenda all the time.

If you want to debate your ill-informed analysis of anarchism and the police, you can do go that on a bulletin board - I suggest urban75.net/vbulletin as a place where you will right at home.

" I'm not lobbing bricks at anyone in the name of "the people"."

Another magoo stereotype/

"Pro-police. You're having a laugh! I'm anti-self-appointed saviours of the masses who brutalise people. Violence is after all the topic here."

No magoo - stress reactions are what the topic is about - it says nothing about "lobbing bricks at the police 'in the name of the people'" in the original post - its advice and information for those activists who might be expariencing trauma, or might have friends experiencing trauma.

"Can you back up your insults with something remotely resembling an on topic post?"

sorry magoo - where are the insults? What is the topic.

Go where you're wanted magoo - and yes I know Paranoid Pete and Zorro and the other thread wreckers are going to protest - why don't you let them know where it is you're going magoo? - they can go too

Then we can have what it promises on the tin - a newswire

Magoo said > I think most coppers couldn't give a shit about people expressing themselves so long as they don't become antisocial.

You wanna try coming on a peaceful animal rights demonstration mate! Then see how many coppers don't give a shit about people expressing themselves!

Well nice to see that two attempts to post a replay were redacted.

Is this the "unacceptable face of freedom" or the kind of "anarchist democracy" you wish to impose on us all?

The topic refers to police violence at demos... My response has to been to point out that police violence on demos isn't *just* down to police brutality. That the violence isn't simply down to police on protestors. Hardly what I call off-topic... considering it refers to the topic of the post.

Funny I have never had my head kicked or been arrested on any demo including several that turned into riots. I guess I must just be lucky? Or possibly just not "an unelected folk hero".

"Go where you're wanted" so who wants YOU causing grief on their doorsteps? No bugger knocked on my aunt & uncle's door and asked if it were okay to start trouble on their doorstep.

Who asks the troublemakers to join the demos? Who wants them. A sad little minority.

Antisocial behaviour: All I can do here is challenge your beliefs, I don't need a mandate for that. People however do not have a choice about whether they are hit in the face with a brick. But someone has a choice whether or not they throw it. To act in defence of someone else in a martial capaicty you need a mandate to be credible... think about it.

If you bother to follow the thread you'll note that I already stated I believed violence is only valid as self defence. Does self-defence qualify as thuggery in your vocab... doesn't in mine. Are some cops and soldiers thugs? Yes. There are thugs everywhere. I do not think everyone a thug at all, only the people who use unwarranted violence.

Just do us a favour and stop pretending you are doing it in the name of anything but your shabby little cliques. There was no groundswell of support asking you to go to EH and act like twats.

So you STAY where you are wanted: at home and away from serious issues.

Magoo, I'm not sure if this is the right spot for it being a thread about trauma support, but I would like you to clarify which violence you are condemning. I would like to know what happened on your aunt's and uncle's doorstep. It's likely I'll condemn that if it's a seemingly random act against an innocent.

On the other hand, you make it pretty clear, by stating several times "I already stated I believed violence is only valid as self defence."

What about defence of a friend against an attacker? Is that valid? I believe it is!

What about defence of a random stranger against an attacker? Is that valid? I believe it is!

What about defence of our city against an attacker? Is that valid? I believe it is!

And what about defence of our planet against the politicians who are clearly hijacking the political and social culture away from democracy? Surely an attack against these politicos can be seen as defence? They are valid targets and to attack them is to defend the planet.

But smashing your aunt's doorstep is a bit silly and not worth supporting.

When I was at the May Day demo in 2001 when the police hemmed everyone in around Oxford Street, I felt traumatised by the police. I was pushed up against the shield of a riot cop with everyone shoving from behind while he continued to force his shield into my face. I asked him quite reasonable to stop pushing me and he just looked down at me (a 5'3" woman) and sneeringly said "Shut Up!". The only thing I could think to do was scream "Fuck you!" at the top of my lungs in his face and I was literally shaking after I did it and nearly in tears. It was really upsetting.

But when I thought about why I was so upset by something that only escalated to words, no physical violence and that he didn't even try to retaliate for, I realised that it was most likely down to the fact that I come from a segment of the population (white, middle class) that never has to deal with harassment or clashes with the police outside of demonstrations. I don't have to worry about whether the police are going to stop me when I'm just walking down the street because I'm black or dressed in clothes they don't like.

But then again...I've tried on many occasions to bring up race and the white privilege that may be informing people's posts and I have been treated much like Magoo has been treated on this thread. Ridiculous accusations of just having some kind of grudge or of going off the supposed topic. I've seen it done to other people who point out the stupidity of some people's conspiracy theory rants. The people on this threat insist that Magoo is going off topic but then responding directly to his posts and never referencing the original article.

So yes, people join the police force and the army who don't have that many other options. In America, army recruiters prey on poor, black kids who have no hope for the future and lure them in with empty promises of paying for their higher education, provided they aren't killed first. Look at where most people in the British army are from, the Northeast, a historically economically depressed part of Britain where hopes of employment in the working class community are non-existent. Sometimes these people even take a stand and refuse to obey orders. But we are supposed to hate them all despite knowing these facts or we will be branded as "pro-cop".

Brand me a tool of the state as you will, or even better, a fucking spy who's out to infiltrate your oh-so-radical non-existent community where every lefty-loony idea is promoted and anyone who asks you to be the tiniest bit self-reflexive is ganged up on.

Magoo, Paranoid Pete, et al, if you find another place to go where you can have some intelligent discussion let me know. We could always start our own space, it could be called: "Something approximating Indymedia but for people who can think critically and don't want to congratulate themselves constantly or pretend to be the biggest victims in the world".

London Activist: seems we may have been arguing at crossed purposes then. I kind of hinted at defence of others needing a credible mandate. In plain (i.e. non-defensive... university education isn't always helpful) English that means: others can defend others, but they need good reason... Iraq being a good example of a bad reason. Someone defending their friend, or any stranger for that matter is a good reason. Chucking stuff at coppers who aren't attacking you is a bad reason. Chucking stuff at coppers who are attacking you for no valid reason is a good reason... but usually bad tactics.

And just to round it off: so long as there are arseholes in the world, there will be a need for defence. And before anyone asks: no I don't think attacking coppers constitutes a defence of the poor and oppressed- a bit like giving the postie a hiding for your leccy bill. I may however tell my morals to look the other way when someone punches Fatty Two-Jags' lights out tho ;-)

I hope that clears things up?

All the best to all!

Hmmm,

Not sure. I'll give it some thought and let you know!

:-)

It was said by Magoo - "no I don't think attacking coppers constitutes a defence of the poor and oppressed- a bit like giving the postie a hiding for your leccy bill."

Does this not depend on what the coppers are doing at the time? Earlier you said self-defence was valid but this more blanket statement would seem to contradict that? So if the cop is being a menace is it valid to attack?

And if some arsehole is ordering bombs to be dropped on Iraq, is it valid to attack him? what about attacking one of his body guards?

Me thinks there are many dilemna no-easy-answer questions about the use of violence in making the world better...

You ar right: the world is far too complex a place for there to be no dilemmas. But I stand by my point that violence as a form of protest is wrong.

I'd say that violence should always be regarded as a last desperate option. If you have to beat your point into someone what have you achieved? THAT is no better than the authoritarian mindset we are supposed to be against.

I think evil bastards like Blair, Bush, Saddam et al deserve to be treated better than they treated others, simply because if I act otherwise, I become as bad as them.

Battering a copper that isn't attacking you is doesn't consititute any sort of legitimate protest and smashing up a High Street. I might bepursuaded that disabling a UK-based US airbase is a legitimate action, so long as it didn't involve willfull brutality or put other people's safety at risk.

I think that masking up and endangering peaceful protesters by using them as a human shield to attack other human beings without provocation is cowardice and thuggery. If you think otherwise, I doubt either of us will be able to pursuade the other.

And the underlying message is: anarchism means if you can't get YOUR way smash someone/thing up.


Sound familiar?

“I am saying that activists can do a lot to avoid conflict by taking a stand against twats who turn up for violence and destruction.”

Aah yes – the Peace Police (who were in fact in evidence in Stirling and DID stop damage happening to non-corporate property). Soooo, Magoo thinks that in addition to the thousands of police paid to police the demos, protestors should be assisting them by policing the demos as well. Why do people go to demos in Magoo’s head? Is it to make a stand on the issues, or to be unpaid volunteers for the police? There can be no doubt that magoo thinks that his view of the world is correct, and that anyone who does things differently is wrong. However, many people believe that their responsibility is for their own actions, and that they should respect a diversity of tactics, and that it is up to the thousands of paid police to apprehend and charge those who break the law.

“Until you do that people will continue to get brutalised in both camps.”

Hmmm, is the magoo suggesting that the police NEVER use violence when protests are non-violent? Does the magoo think this is credible?

“As for bystanders never being traumatised: get real! I have been on enough demos to have seen the innocent being dragged into things, hit by debris, hit by coppers (which wouldn't have happened if some twat hadn't kicked it all off),”

Hmm – yes apparently he is. He’s saying that it’s the twat (ie protestors) who kick it off. OMG – does he really think that some of the cops don’t “turn up for violence and destruction” ? Does he have no understanding of the psychology of groups at all? The cops are well tooled up, and sanctioned to use violence with virtually nil comeback – they’re psyched up in their briefings and the adrenalin is flowing. It isn’t rocket science to see that people who come from a culture where they can use violence with impunity will do so.

“I'm not for a second suggesting that ALL activists are therefor to blame, just that people tend to turn a blind eye and ascribe all woes to the plod.”

Well, perhaps there are demos where “violent anarchists” kick it off, and others where “violent police” kick it off. Maybe the magoo can give an example of a demo where “violent anarchists” launched a totally unprovoked attack on the police?

“Yes. I'd go as far as to say: why don't more anarchists give evidence against thugs?”

They often do – “it was A904 who hit the little old lady your honour”

Is it down to anarchists to make the states case in a prosecution? Maybe magoo just hasn’t got the hang of this anarchism malarkey yet…….

“The anarchist community doesn't really exists as a social structure (yet) and if it ever does it'll need some mode of criminal justice system like any other society. Or are you suggesting a society based around a lack of responsibility is a virtue?”

Yup – its true – he hasn’t. He thinks that anarchism is about a “lack of responsibility” despite the fact that a formal “criminal justice (sic) system” forces people to abdicate responsibility to the state – who have the monopoly on dealing with whatever it is they have declared a crime. The moment that an anarchist society implemented a “criminal justice system” which delegated power and authority to specialists it would no longer be an anarchist society. Anarchism requires that each individual takes responsibility for their own actions – and that the community collectively deals with transgressions of the social order. The current “criminal justice (sic) system” often encourages people not to take responsibility for their own actions, and court cases become a game about precedents and point scoring from which the defendant is a step removed.

“I think most coppers couldn't give a shit about people expressing themselves so long as they don't become antisocial.”

Lol . And the coppers have a well rounded definition of what “anti-social” means, don’t they? Magoo says that he has been to demos – just seems they’re nothing like the demos I’ve been to.

“And the general parameters of "antisocial" that apply are fairly universal sociologically: do not harm, do not destroy, do not disturb the peace without good cause.”

GM crops should not be harmed – they should be left to flourish and cross-pollinate. Is that what the magoo is saying?

It would be wrong to disable a Tornado jet that was likely to drop bombs on civilians, wouldn’t it magoo.

Magoo does appear to be broadening his definition of violence to include property destruction as well.

“Disturb the peace” – in this context appears to be the brutal, violently enforced norms of capitalism. Where is this peace of which magoo speaks?

“Bush & Blair are WORSE than thugs.”

correct

“Does that mean I have free license to act like a twat? Shall I come round and smash your place up on that pretext? I don't think so.”

I think the magoo has made an enormous leap in logic there – however, if “my place” was Labour Party Headquarters, then why not destroy it?

“So, what if you are frustrated: go SELF harm and leave the rest of us alone.”

Self –harm is traumatic too btw – and its hard to see how people pissed off at capitalism can make the world a better place by harming themselves.

Didn’t the magoo speak of “adult debate”? How adult is that suggestion?

“We don't live in a dictatorship, get your head out yer backside and do some research and a reasonable point of reference. We live in a society with an unhealthy influence of private wealth and demagogary. We have NO mass graves; We have NO concentration camps; we have NO Gulag; No Sachsenhausen; No Stasi/Gestapo.”

I think the magoo is showing its ignorance here. Our society is built on mass graves. If Abu Ghraib isn’t a concentration camp, then I am a policeman. Magoo seems to suggest that we should wait until we have a Stasi/Gestapo and Gulag before we are entitled to protest. Some might think it would be too late by then.

“Bigging up your cause makes you look like a misinformed arrogant eejit! Sure, there are lots of valid things to get angry about, but you just alienate people every time you reach for unreasonable comparisons.”

I presume that s a response to:

“People like Bush and Blair (and the organisations that back them) are responsible for untold environmental destruction across the planet. They are responsible for the violent hideous deaths of many many thousands of people. And they are responsible for the proliferation of all kinds of really nasty weapons included depleted uranium, mines, torture devices etc etc.”

which the magoo completely fails to refute – rather it seeks to restrict the discussion to “this society” as if it has no bearing on what Britain does in other places. Whatever happened to joined up thinking?

“Is there a cop stopping you from seeing your local MP? No. You want to change things then start with the things you CAN do and work maybe you'll get somewhere. Fixating on how disempowered you are is about attractive as scabies to the outsider.”

Heh – and some comic relief – your MP can fix it – just make an appointment.

“And in case you haven't noticed, the police have more public support than anarchists (rightly or wrongly). So who is the voice of democracy and "the people"?”

And the Sun has the widest distribution of any newspaper. It must be the Sun then! The Sun after all is prone to printing well balanced accounts of the police, and anarchists, and the role of Britain and capitalism in the immiseration of billions.

Is this the “adult debate” that we were promised? Is this the adult debate that magoo believes needs to be brought to this site by him and his bunch of naysayers?

“There's plenty mindless in turning up on someone else's doorstep and shitting on it. Or did I miss the "non-hierarchical, directly demotratic municipal forum" that empowered the thugs to go ruck with the old bill and raise the locals' council tax? I guess the d-notice comittee did a better job on that one than the Ricin Factory.”

The magoo misses the point – again – who decided that the G8 was to be held at Gleneagles? Were the locals consulted? Did they agree to have a meeting that has historically attracted massive protests on their doorstep?

“"Bigging up your cause"= adding grandeur to yourself by citing wholly inappropriate analogies; I'm not the idiot who can't understand plain English.”

Perhaps the magoo will now show which parts of the original claims are false:

““People like Bush and Blair (and the organisations that back them) are responsible for untold environmental destruction across the planet. They are responsible for the violent hideous deaths of many many thousands of people. And they are responsible for the proliferation of all kinds of really nasty weapons included depleted uranium, mines, torture devices etc etc.”

cos that’d make its case stronger, wouldn’t it?

The magoos whole case is built on persistence, belligerence, a holier than thou attitude, a complete misunderstanding of the basic tenets of anarchism and ultimately on a confusion about the fact that the anti-G8 protests were against the G8 and not the people of Scotland. It was the heavy handed policing that dictated where confrontation happened – and the breaking of a few multinationals windows is nothing compared to the vast destruction that is visited on this planet by the G8 and the system it represents.

why should I even bother???

Magoo wrote: “We don't live in a dictatorship, get your head out yer backside and do some research and a reasonable point of reference. We live in a society with an unhealthy influence of private wealth and demagogary. We have NO mass graves; We have NO concentration camps; we have NO Gulag; No Sachsenhausen; No Stasi/Gestapo.”

Magoo watch wrote: "I think the magoo is showing its ignorance here. Our society is built on mass graves. If Abu Ghraib isn’t a concentration camp, then I am a policeman. Magoo seems to suggest that we should wait until we have a Stasi/Gestapo and Gulag before we are entitled to protest. Some might think it would be too late by then."

I ask: Who is actually in Abu Ghraib and where is it located? It is perfectly fair for Magoo to point out that in the scheme of things, we who live in the UK are not suffering like people in the rest of the world. Nobody is going to kill you if you vote for the party that loses the next election.

I am someone who comes from a place that is literaly built on indiginous genocide, mass graves, slavery and racism and created those responsible for Abu Ghraib. I comprehend the fact that, although I am deeply affected by the fucked up system, I can't claim to be as big a victim as those whose ancesters are in those mass graves, were on the slave ships or are the victims of torture in Iraq.

It's totally legitimate to be angry about the suffering our governments inflict on the rest of the world and to be conscious of the historical suffering our society has caused, but it's disingenuous to suggest that we suffer in the same way and are stuck with the same limited options for resistence that exist elsewhere. Having an IMC nearby where you can pop in to borrow a videocamera to document a local demo is a hell of a lot better than having questioning journalists silenced, tortured or killed by a government that cheated its way into office. Unfortunately, I can't even say the very last thing about my own country anymore.

To imply that we live in a dictatorship is insulting to the people who have to live under real dictatorships.

"why should I even bother???"

Don't! Its tedious, boring and a distraction from more important issues.

"I ask: Who is actually in Abu Ghraib and where is it located?"

Abu Ghraib is run by the "Coalition of the Killing", is it not? That includes Britain.

" I comprehend the fact that, although I am deeply affected by the fucked up system, I can't claim to be as big a victim as those whose ancesters are in those mass graves, were on the slave ships or are the victims of torture in Iraq."

And, who, on here, is claiming that they are ?

"It's totally legitimate to be angry about the suffering our governments inflict on the rest of the world and to be conscious of the historical suffering our society has caused, but it's disingenuous to suggest that we suffer in the same way and are stuck with the same limited options for resistence that exist elsewhere.."

And this was suggested where exactly?

Was it not you 'nother Yank who talked of your "work" with "young people of colour"? Clearly you learnt nothing worthwhile from that somewhat patronising exercise.

Many of us work from the basis that all human beings are inter-connected - and that in order to have a better world, we have no choice but to challenge the authority structures around us. The G8, IMF and the World Bank are OUR problem, and it is vital that we do our utmost to take them on and to challege the needless suffering that they inflict.

It is a nonsense to say that we cannot protest the injustices in our own countries until they are comparable to the injustices of the countries whose necks are under our jackboots.

A thread which was simply imformation about activist trauma has been turned into an a pointless dicussion ripe with uneducated stereotypes and disinformation, designed to disempower and belittle..

To quote 'nessie'

"Are IMCistas not willing to rise up and take Indymedia back from the racists, the homophobes, the misogynists, the warmongers, the profiteers and the apologists for exploitation and ecocide? If not, then how dare you, with a straight face, call yourself activists for Global Justice? If you are not willing to fight for the honor and integrity of the Indymedia network, you are no Global Justice activists. You are frauds and shams. Get over it. Clean up your acts and make IMC a threat again."

Fuck magoo and his puerile, worthless "dult debate" Fuck his coterie of disciples.

There are more important issues to deal with right now.

I'm so flattered that you recognise me from my other posts.

You say: "Was it not you 'nother Yank who talked of your "work" with "young people of colour"? Clearly you learnt nothing worthwhile from that somewhat patronising exercise.

Many of us work from the basis that all human beings are inter-connected - and that in order to have a better world, we have no choice but to challenge the authority structures around us. The G8, IMF and the World Bank are OUR problem, and it is vital that we do our utmost to take them on and to challege the needless suffering that they inflict."

It's fine putting the word work in quotes but what about young people of colour. Do you not want to believe that they exist or something? Actually what I've learned from years (yup life happens outside of demos) of working (yup getting paid) with young people of colour is that too often self-righteous activists who are hung up on seeing the "inter-connectedness" of all people manage to see right past the people who are suffering on their doorsteps. While screaming about structural adjustment programs enforced by the IMF around the world, they fail to notice the welfare and housing cuts that their politicians are passing right under their noses. While fighting against sweatshops in Indonesia, they fail to recognise that they exist right in their own cities, preying on illegal immigrant labour.

Nobody is saying that you can't protest injustice if you aren't a victim. But if you are going to berate and try to discredit anyone else who has a slightly different take on things than you, I wouldn't count on being very effective. If working with the young people of colour who live in your neighbourhood is patronising, why isn't fighting against the institutions that oppress people of colour who you've never and are never likely to come face to face with? It seems as if your entire modus operandi is to spout vitriol and belittle everyone else's experiences. Way to win allies.

But don't worry, you're fighting the good fight. You don't have to listen to anyone else.

sean wrote: "I do not get to vote on free trade agreements; I did not get to vote whether we went to war or not; Most people did not want war and did not believe in war... We want our say in how this world is run else we must realise we live in a dictatorship...."

This is what Magoo was responding to because it implies that we suffer the same lack of freedom in Britain as anyone else in the world living in any dictatorship. This is also what I was responding to when I said it was insulting to people who actually live under dictatorships.

Try reading everything in the thread dude, not just those who disagree with you so you can pick apart their posts.

READ the bloody thread and you may be able to post something that upsets me rather than just making me snigger.

So far you have said nothing of relevance to what I was saying... keep up grandad and lay off the sherry!

" it's disingenuous to suggest that we suffer in the same way and are stuck with the same limited options for resistence that exist elsewhere."

Hmm, wish I knew how you managed to infer that from this:

"I do not get to vote on free trade agreements; I did not get to vote whether we went to war or not; Most people did not want war and did not believe in war... We want our say in how this world is run else we must realise we live in a dictatorship...."

Its your own insistence that the word only means one thing isn't it. And it would help if you read what he ACTUALLY wrote. The else is there for a reason.

You're quite right though, Sean isn't as oppressed as those in the countries whose necks are under our jackboots, he just lives in a "democracy" where things get dictated to him.

You will of course remember that "democracy" - its the one where magoo toild us we should stay at home and make an appointment to see our MP if we don't like the way things are going. Heh, we could even sign a petition if we're feeling particularly fired up.

Do I want to convert you? Nope. You're part of the problem - along with the magoo.

But read what I wrote properly before quoting me out of context. I asked people hellbent on acting like football hooligans to stay at home.

And for the fucking nth time: I have no time for anyone who thinks that violence is the FIRST port of call in getting things done... the rest of what you inferred is pish. Read up if you want my counterarguments it's all already there.

Magoowatch: I think that sort of sums up your contribution to this thread. Grinding your personal axe.

Oh wait, is that part of the solution?

Hi all,

Glad to know you're all getting an in-depth study out of my words! In fact, I think so much of this conflict has been about words.

Let me illustrate - Magoo once said "I do not agree with anyone that uses acts of violence in any capacity other than self defence. " which a bunch of us other readers have misinterpreted... Later on this is clarified as "I asked people hellbent on acting like football hooligans to stay at home. "

See how he probably meant the same thing both times, but the wording has been really significant in this debate. I'm sure s/he can find an example of me doing the same thing.

In a forum like indymedia we have to choose our words a bit carefully if we really want to convey meaning in our discussions. With this in mind, I agree - people who want to act like football hooligans should stay at home. But I disagree that self-defence is the only valid form of political violence.

More on words -

"Dictatorship" is one of those loaded words that convey more sentiment than real meaning. [Other words to watch out for are "terrorist", "anarchist", "freedom"] The sentiment in the use of "dictatorship" is that I have absolutely no say in what the government here is doing and it is clearly not a democracy. With being arrested for hugging a fairy (in scotland), for the right to eat shrooms just taken away and now the right to wear a "save the whales" t-shirt outside parliament house, i feel that we are approaching dictatorship. But I understand I have infinitely more freedoms than many other people on the planet, so apologies if my use of that loaded word stirred something in you all.

sean

...and you've managed to make your argument without pouring more fuel on the fire, which is more than I can say for myself.

It's true, some words are very loaded and we (I) should take a breath after reading them and before jumping to conclusions in our responses.

But I think the same responsibility lies on the shoulders of those who use purposely loaded terminology in their writing for the sake of hyperbole. It is that very misuse that has led to devaluing of terms like "dictatorship" and "totalitarianism" that should still have very real, straightforward meaning for the people around the world who live and die under extremely oppressive regimes. I stand by the belief that overuse of the language of oppression by people who aren't it's real victims only serves to negate the experiences of those who are. Example: Right-wing Christianity has dangerously high levels of influence on American domestic and foreign policy right now, but explaining it as a theocracy kind of trivalises the experiences of women under the Taliban. If it takes a few more words to clarify what I mean rather than using a loaded term, what's the harm in that?

I don't think this is necessarily intentional, but when people are well informed about the world they shouldn't need to resort to the tactics of Bush (i.e. spouting out terrorist and freedom in every sentence) to make a powerful point. To continue to do so despite knowing better is frankly irresponsible.

See:

 http://sf.indymedia.org/news/2005/07/1717734_comment.php#1717740