"How non-violence protects the state" - Tour starts Jan 23rd 'til Feb 2nd

Edinburgh is: Sunday 27th of January, 7.00 - 9.30pm, Quaker
Meeting House, Victoria Terrace, Edinburgh.

There will be book stalls, free info stalls etc.

At a meeting, where surprisingly, the number of anarchists seemed to out weigh any other political view point I was informed of what it means to be a ‘grass’.

If you wish to stop a fellow anarchist or other political ally from committing a violent act and you feel that your only option left is to report to a state authority, then not only are you morally wrong but you have been deeply indoctrinated by the state. It would seem that, according to the anarchists present, that there is a line that you can draw when it comes saving a human life, be it a child or fully rounded adult. This seems to suggest to me that there is a belief that human life is expendable for a political cause if by the way of saving it means going to a state authority. This is an incredible notion. Does this not make you as bad as the oppressive state, who believe human life to be expendable an a day to day basis?

If saving a human life meant that I was going to grass up my friends, family or political allies by informing a sate authority because I deemed it my only option, then I would gladly take on the label with pride.

It seemed the meeting’s ramblings and hypothetical debates did not address the topic or answer any of my questions. How would the state react to a violent resistance? What would be the implications for our civil liberties? Perhaps more importantly what would happen to the movement behind the cause?

The sate would inevitably come down hard on any violent resistance and possibly use it as a further push for ID cards, more heavily armed police and harsher tactics. With that in mind our civil liberties would greatly suffer and the movements would become even more divided and fragmented then they are today.

The over simplified view of peaceful protesters was quite infuriating, we are not all pacifists and I would hope that people where intelligent enough to see the difference between having the privilege to protest peacefully here in the UK etc, and the need for others, in more violent situations, to use a more violent resistance.

I would suggest that the way forward would be to utilise the non-violent forms of protest that we have now, organisation it the key and the lack of it is where our movements have failed, mass civil disobedience is excellent if executed flawlessly. There is also a need to draw attention to our non-violent protest and highlight the states blatant, accepted, violence from state authorities.

To me, non-violent protest is a form of protest that has many other values than sending a message to the state. Surely empowering, educating and reaffirming people about your briefs, views or cause is fundamental to any movement and this is hard to do in a violent manner.

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/390219.html?c=on#c188448

 http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2008/01/390219.html?c=on#c188457

The talk (not the discussion) was recorded to be distributed on the net.

I liked the argument that State violence can be used to win some types of campaign.
A reform can be won where a change of law is implimented by the System.
There are some reforms which the police would never implement.
Some of those who would loose out from such radical reforms argue that only "non-violence" is legitimate.