Skip to content or view screen version

Photos and audio from Chelsea Manning's Family Fundraiser in Liverpool

Chris | 10.11.2013 21:42 | Anti-militarism | Terror War | Liverpool | Sheffield

Attached are some photos and a Sheffield Indymedia audio mix of interviews from the fundraiser for Chelsea Manning's family at The Casa in Liverpool on Saturday 2nd November 2013.

Audio A Night at The Casa - mp3 16M














Interviews feature Paul, one of the muscians, Genny on the first attack on the event, Seamus, Judith, Alex and Ciaron.

Music from The RoJ LiGht, Black Sabbath, Joe Black and David Rovics.

See also the feature article, Attack on The Casa.

Chris

Additions

No platform, Intersectional Violence and Cults

11.11.2013 11:47

I decided to attend the solidarity gig at The Casa following the attack on Ciaron at the London Anarchist bookfair, because I believe in the right to free speech.

"the defense of the right of free expression is not restricted to ideas one approves of, and that it is precisely in the case of ideas found most offensive that these rights must be most vigorously defended" — Noam Chomsky

I was expecting, at most, a peaceful picket at the entrance and was quite prepared to have a discussion and debate with those opposing the event. But this was not on the agenda, those opposing the event had no interest in debate or discussion, they just wanted to use violence in an attempt to enforce a policy of "no platform" for supporters of Julian Assange and Wikileaks, see Drunk Attack on Chelsea Manning's Family Fundraiser in Liverpool.

When talking to people about the events at the bookfair and The Casa the usual response is along the lines of, "why can't you debate these issues?", but this isn't an option when one side, who describe themselves as "intersectionalists" or "full communists", are opposed to debate:

I love @redlightvoices so much. Here she is being blisteringly brilliant about the notion of "debate"
http://www.redlightpolitics.info/post/65432741342/why-i-dont-debate
— @stavvers

It really is a pity that those who need to read this post are the ones who won't, because they benefit from the "debate" structure.
— @stavvers

This approach, opposition to debate and the use of violence to "no platform" those you disagree with, don't appear to fit with the background of some of it's most active proponents, for example, Adam Ford, a supporter of The Commune, wrote a balanced article about WikiLeaks in 2011. The Commune claims that "We champion anti-racist and anti-fascist struggles, while opposing all limits to the freedom of speech." Yet Adam Ford was one of the cheerleaders of the violence at The Casa and he is not the only one who tweets support for this approach.

There appears to be more than a grain of truth in this analysis of the cult-like proponents of violence:

On the Millbank generation of twitter full communists (who really aren't communists), I never understand why after they swarm on someone who breaks orthodoxy, calling them a cunt or telling them to kill themselves in a total group frenzy, their twitter exchanges between themselves read like this;

"I just wanted to say that you're amazing & right."

"thank you <3 & all solidarity appreciated so much xxx"

It all looks like a weird cult from the outside, people in their mid twenties and early thirties treating politics basically like Myspace drama.

Chris

Comments

Hide 4 hidden comments or hide all comments

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Please don't make matters worse Chris

12.11.2013 08:53

Your posts and comments are doing nothing to help this situation.

You have been asked on more than one occasion to avoid commenting on this and inflaming the situation and I would ask you do that now.

This challenge will be solved by face to face meetings by those of us who know the full facts and are directly involved not by one sided 'reports' on the pages of indymedia.

Someone involved

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

This is a mistake

12.11.2013 12:41

The situation that occurred/ is occuring in Liverpool is not as black & white as is being portrayed. I'm astounded and disgusted that Indymedia moderators seem to have decided themselves judge, jury & executioner. The cry of, well everyone else is doing it do why shan't we, is childish & frankly not helpful.

I am asking again, as a Liverpool activist who, although not involved in Saturday's altercation, is attempting to sort out the fallout.

I feel very strongly that, by leaving people's personal information up, by blatantly taking a partisan position based on limited awareness of the wider context, indymedia is making a mockery out of itself.

Maria
mail e-mail: feistyfish@riseup.net

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Wrong, it's that simple

12.11.2013 12:55

As part of the fallout from the altercations at the Chelsea Manning
benefit gig in Liverpool:
 http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2013/11/513484.html
...someone has posted photos and names of several local activists they accuse of being "those behind the attacks".

I didn't witness what happened, and I am not involved in this controversy from either side, but I believe this is unhelpful.

The context is that (IIRC) there have been attacks by the far right on activists in Liverpool. More broadly, I'm sure we all understand the value of anonymity in activism.

Another piece of context: even one of the people who says he was himself attacked makes a conscious choice not to name anyone in his video statement:
 https://youtu.be/Z9131H9pYj0

The assumption seems to be that anyone who took a political position opposing the gig, Assange, or C's previous behaviour was responsible for physical attacks on people at the gig.

For instance, one person (involved in News from Nowhere) is named and accused of "part responsibility" simply for putting a notice up next to a poster advertising the gig, mentioning that it was controversial!

I struggle to see how someone who has informed people that the event was controversial, while leaving the original poster intact so that people could make their own minds up, deserves to be publicly named simply because some other people apparently physically attacked people at the gig.

That's one of the most extreme examples, but it illustrates the general approach by some commenters, which is to assume bad faith and tar large numbers of people with the same brush, regardless of whether they actually perpetrated physical violence themselves or not.

To summarise:
-I don't know whether those accused of physical violence should be publicly named, if there are conflicting versions of events.
-But certainly, anyone who isn't accused of personally using violence who has been named without their consent should have their personal details redacted.

I'm aware that this suggestion might be controversial, and would ask that the personal details be hidden while the debate takes place, for obvious reasons (that if it takes a week to decide that they should be hidden,
they might as well not have been hidden by the time redwatch or suchlike have made copies).

What do people think?

Owen the respected bus stop

Hidden Comment

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Free speech

12.11.2013 14:26

I have the right to say what I think about this issue and do not intend to be silenced by you or anybody else.

I do not respond to intimidation (the EDL tried that a few years ago)

Chris

Hide 4 hidden comments or hide all comments