AUT: Trafalgar Square

[fabian@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

As regards unconditional support for defendants I agrre with Myk's response
that this helped focus the non-payment movement resisting the Poll Tax.
However the anti-WTO coalition does not have such a clear focus

Paul Bowman:
>>As far as I can see the situation post-Seattle is pretty similar.
>>Political support must be demanded for all those arrested on an
>>unconditional basis on the grounds that it is not for the movement to
>>raise itself as judge, jury and executioner seeking to impose division
>>and excommunication on the basis of hearsay without evidence.

Bill Bartlett:
>You prefer to leave such decisions in the hands of the state then? Or do
>you insist on including *anyone* in "the movement", no matter how
>outrageous and counter-productive their behaviour is?

The decision was so made in London principally by people on the
demonstration who collectively new what happened that day. The Trafalgar
Square Defendants Campaign ended up with a very accurate understanding of
what happened that day as we collated hundreds of accounts from defendants
and witnesses, studied countled videos and were able to show police
officers were lying in court. Thus the decision was in no way left in the
hands of the state! The TDSC did not find any behaviour which caused
problems. This is not to say it might not occur on other occasions.

Paul Bowman:
>> Further that in the context of the threat to life, limb and liberty that the
>>WTO's corporate agenda represents to the working class and peasant
>>peoples of the world, all activity is merely defensive.

Bill Bartlett:
>"All" activity? You've got to be joking, the line has to be drawn
>somewhere, how about if someone turns up with a machine gun and starts
>firing at the cops from the middle of the crowd? Is that "merely defensive"
>as well?

I think it is unfair to interpret Paul's comments as being 'a priori'. No
one did turn up with a machine gun, and whilst I have seen video of people
smashing shop windows, I have not heard of anything I would wish to
condemn. During the 1985 Brixton uprising, there were two rapes. I feel
there was not sufficient time spent discussing how we could ensure that
such anti-social behaviour does not happen during a rebellion. In the U.K.
Bloody Sunday is still commemorated. This was a demo in Derry where 13
people were murdered by paratoopers. Eventually their claim that they were
being shot at has been dismissed by a forensic analysis of the event. I
have no doubt that the Bogside community was anxious to find out if there
had been any such gunfire and that if there had those responsible would not
have lived very long.

If the sort of solidarity developed by the TSDC is to be acheived, then it
can only happen if those using violence do so in a responsible way,
ensuring that they don't endanger other demonstrators or indeed other
members of the public. (I'm not quite happy with this term - what I mean is
attacks on people not directly involved with exploitation and
oppression/repression.) Further, it is important to be responsive to the
needs of people caught up in the melee. E.g. during J18 a mother driving a
baby in her car was becoming quite distraught when she was surrounded by
the demonstrators. They did not express any bad intentions to her, but it
was important to see that she was scared because of the misinformation fed
to her by the media. She was worried because she wanted to get home and fed
her baby who was crying. We had to help make a route for her to get away
from the crowd . . . i.e. there is a positive need to express this sort of
solidarity if a riot is to turn into an uprising. (Another example is how
during the Toxteth uprising a 'ceasefire' was negotiated with the police so
that an old people's home could be evacuated when it was endangered by
fire.)




Leutha Blissett





     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---