I can understand that it is necessary for a movement or campaign to constantly reassess it's self but asking the question 'Is breaking the law to prevent war crimes justified? ' seems like a step backward for the SmashEDO campaign not to mention insulting to those that have faced charges in the past. In the past SmashEDO has always encouraged diversity of tactics.

This talk could equally be accompanied with a critique of law and government. The liberal manner in which the question is presented justifies the governments that go to war and allow arms trading in the first place.

@non, you are correct, the Nuremberg Principles make it a duty to oppose immoral laws, it shouldn't be a matter for debate. And yet it is. I am sure from their previous posts Smashy also knows that and this article is just to make that point better known. You don't want to live in a bubble for obvious reasons.

Erm, I think it is what they call 'engaging the public' and 'seeking consensus'.

It's pretty obvious that Smash EDO and many other groups have no little doubt about direct action and decommissioning... and give the "liberal" shit a rest eh.

of this myself. The way to engage people and argue for what we're doing and against the war machine is by flyers, posters, websites, writing to local papers and every other means of communication and publicity we can think of. Above all, we debate by what we DO and by talking to people and discussing the issues in pubs, shops or wherever we are. A meeting on a summer evening in a gloomy hall on the sweltering Euston Road isn't going to attract anyone but a handful of activists opposed by a few ultra liberal, pointy-head idealogues. This isn't where, how or with whom to have the debate that matters.

"The way to engage people and argue for what we're doing and against the war machine is by flyers, posters, websites, writing to local papers and every other means of communication and publicity we can think of.Above all, we debate by what we DO and by talking to people and discussing the issues in pubs, shops or wherever we are."

All of this has been done, including the making of movies.
 http://www.smashedo.org.uk/resources.htm#2

" A meeting on a summer evening in a gloomy hall on the sweltering Euston Road isn't going to attract anyone but a handful of activists opposed by a few ultra liberal, pointy-head idealogues. This isn't where, how or with whom to have the debate that matters."

There isn't going to be a debate on the Euston Road - thats why it says Ship Street, cos its a local debate in Brighton and I'm sure that its designed to counter the police claims spread by the Argus, as well as to encourage those who support the campaign, but have misgivings about the methods to get more information on the thinking behind the actions.

@ Ray Milandmine
I wasn't trying to be quite a scathing as I think you are making out. I was just noticing that it seemed to be a shift.

The idea of a talk like this being about consensus is absurd. There is no possible way to have consensus on an issue like this that is why we have diversity of tactics and autonomous action.

I can understand the need to engage the public but it's the way the question is phrased not the meeting its self that I take issue with.

Apology accepted, and in the spirit, I'll admit my bit about consensus was a bit daft. There would be no chance of getting consensus in a public consultation... well next to none.

So, yeah something of a PR exercise. It is indeed debatable whether it will achieve anything an any results will be immeasurable, but it certainly won't help publicly decrying the attempt to engender some dialogue with the fellow Brightonians and get themselves across without the shitstirring shitrag the Argus getting in the way, or the police scaremongering, or ITT/EDO sneaking around talking crap posing as ordinary punters.

So, I'd ask if if your cynicism is really worth the succour to those who may wish to derail Smash EDO? In other words, some people may not see the point or like the format, but unless you have positive input perhaps it is best to gracefully stay out the debate.

Engaging the public/locals has a chequered past, but it can often work- look at the recent Heathrow stuff and many road building campaigns.

Doing nothing of course has a gloriously consistent past, unfortunately the reliable results are purely negative and gives shitstirring shitrags like the Argus all the vacuum they need.

Again I was in no way suggesting you 'do nothing'. I encourage debate if the question is worth asking.

Its not a case of 'if you have nothing nice to say, say nothing at all'. The reason I felt the need to say anything at all was because I wish to see the campaign win!

To elaborate on my original point.

What if the majority of people at the debate where against breaking the law? Would the SmashEDO campaign continue with diversity of tactics or indulge local opinion (or to be more honest, the opinion of those who care to turn up which which I would suggest in its self probably doesn't represent a key demographic though I may be wrong)

So trying to be constructive maybe the question I would pose would be 'How do we fight the War Machine?'. In this case if the mood on the night allows debate to develop then it would be very easy to move past questions like 'Is breaking the law to prevent war crimes justified?' which are likely to end in arguments based on ideological divides (predictably between liberals and anti-authoritarian types) and onto taking effective action.

Okay, I get you now.

Yeah, given the general level of apathy there is a real danger the event could be hijacked by people with an agenda, or just dominated reactionaries. Again, this will always be a danger, and again there is no real way of avoiding this other than not holding an event... which again plays into the hands of the local shitstirrers.

How much of this will be a meet & greet and how much will be a 'consultation' with an agenda is unknown to me- having nothing to do with them- but again the only other option is silence and the manipulation of the local press.

It's quite obvious that there is no public mandate for or against Smash EDO or EDO itself. It's the nature of activism: logically only the issues that don't get addressed, become activist issues. The reasons for the lack of public engagement in such issues is broad and varied, but two factors are at play here:1.) the usual fact that most people are too busy holding down a shit job and bringing up a family to have time to notice issues 2.) Most of the media exposure to activism is routinely negative (as the agenda of the media is at odds with people who value human life & dignity over profit or careerism).

So, again, there is more to lose not engaging the public. But there is no real local opinion to follow- as with most activist issues.

You could also be overlooking- at the risk of sounding like Tony Blair- a potential third way. That the divergent camps of anti-authoritarian & other camps could actually agree to work in tandem... I can but dream hahaha!

Personally, I see nothing wrong if people want to be active but not want to be arrested and yes I think your framing of the issue is possibly more constructive/progressive.

If I were local I'd definitely see more sense in going along and contributing, and I think your reservations/suggestions would make you a good addition to the debate yourself.

And of course Smash EDO isn't hierarchical and you can always independently take whatever action.

this has been a debate about whether or not having a debate is worth having when its debatable whether or not debating is a waste of time or not.

I propose we now have a further meta-debate about whether or not this comment is valid in the overall debate about the debate or is just some flippant remark that adds nothing

if you consent please put your fingers in the air and make theatrical consensus hand signals and remember to smile nicely.

Thankyou