Upcoming Events

National | Summit Mobilisations

no events match your query!

User Preferences

  • Language - en | ga
  • text size >>
  • make this your indymedia front page make this your indymedia front page

Blog Feeds

Irish Left Review
Joined up thinking for the Irish Left

offsite link New Books Worth Reading Mon Sep 19, 2016 23:25 | Seán Sheehan

offsite link 13 Billion ? Lucky for some? Mon Sep 05, 2016 13:04 | Tony Phillips

offsite link Rebuilding Ireland: Long on Promise, Short on Detail Mon Aug 29, 2016 22:20 | Eoin O'Mahony

offsite link Brexit and Other Issues: Comments on the Current Situation Mon Aug 29, 2016 21:52 | Brendan Young

offsite link Bin Charges: From Private Circus to Public Service Tue Jun 21, 2016 12:38 | Michael Taft

Irish Left Review >>

Spirit of Contradiction

offsite link Review: Do Religions Evolve? Mon Aug 14, 2017 19:54 | Dara McHugh

offsite link Fake News: The Epistemology of Media Wed Jun 07, 2017 11:52 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

offsite link Officials and Provisionals Sat Apr 01, 2017 22:54 | James O'Brien

offsite link Interview with Cathal Goulding Mon Dec 26, 2016 17:11 | Cathal Goulding

offsite link Trump, Russia and the CIA Sat Dec 10, 2016 18:23 | Gavin Mendel-Gleason

Spirit of Contradiction >>

Dublin Opinion
Life should be full of strangeness, like a rich painting

offsite link Notes for a Book on Money and the Irish State - The Marshall Aid Program 15:10 Sat Apr 02, 2016

offsite link The Financial Crisis:What Have We Learnt? 19:58 Sat Aug 29, 2015

offsite link Money in 35,000 Words or Less 21:34 Sat Aug 22, 2015

offsite link THE WRATH OF KANE: BANKING CRISES AND POLITICAL POWER 09:32 Fri Jan 30, 2015

offsite link ALWAYS THE ARTISTS: WEEK THREE OF THE BANK INQUIRY 23:11 Thu Jan 22, 2015

Dublin Opinion >>

NAMA Wine Lake

offsite link Farewell from NWL Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Happy 70th Birthday, Michael Sun May 19, 2013 14:00 | namawinelake

offsite link Of the Week? Sat May 18, 2013 00:02 | namawinelake

offsite link Noonan denies IBRC legal fees loan approval to Paddy McKillen was in breach of E... Fri May 17, 2013 14:23 | namawinelake

offsite link Gayle Killilea Dunne asks to be added as notice party in Sean Dunne?s bankruptcy Fri May 17, 2013 12:30 | namawinelake

NAMA Wine Lake >>

Excellent Grassroots appearance on tonight's Late Late Show

category national | summit mobilisations | news report author Saturday April 24, 2004 00:04author by Fintan Lane Report this post to the editors

There was an excellent performance on tonight's Late Late Show by Dublin global justice activists countering the government and media spin on the forthcoming May Day events in Dublin. The notion (much promoted in recent weeks) that 'violence' is planned by those protesting was completely discredited.

Aileen O'Carroll (Dublin Grassroots and WSM) was the main guest on Pat Kenny's panel and she was very, very good. She made the journalist from the Star look utterly ridiculous, which is precisely what he was. As Aileen pointed out, he was jabbering on about 'infilitrating' so-called 'secret meetings' of the wombles in England that were in fact open public meetings. The man is clearly a sensationalist.

There were some excellent points also made from the audience. One speaker rightly criticised the media's focus on 'violence' while it doggedly ignored the political and social issues at stake. There has been almost no coverage of the concerns that motivate such protests. Rory Hearne made a very good contribution and drew a link between the government's attitude to this protest and its behaviour towards the anti-war movement.

The only problem with the interview and discussion is that, yet again, the focus tended to be on the possibility of violence from protesters, when the truth is that it is the Gardai (and not the protesters) that will have to be watched and kept on a tight leash. This focus, however, was clearly decided by Pat Kenny, and Aileen and co. put in an extremely credible performance.

Well done! Great stuff. Hopefully it will undermine some of the nonsense that the government and media have uttered in recent weeks.

author by Brianpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 00:16Report this post to the editors

a great performance. pitty pat kenny decided to jump on the "violence" band wagon almost immediately. At least the reasons for the protests managed to sneak in there.

bravo

author by Patpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 00:27Report this post to the editors

Yes well done all of the speakers did well and made good points and undermined the hysteria of the media about violence. But....there's always a but. I thought the woman on the panel, sorry can't remember her name made some bad points on the EU like she said she supported the expansion of the EU. Bit surprised that the Grassroots Network supports the expansion of the EU and supports the idea of the EU. I hope I am not being unfair and if I am I apoligise in advance maybe someone from the Grassroots could explain what they think of the EU.

author by Swpwatchpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 00:37Report this post to the editors

I'd bet money - if I had any - that the last comment is by a resentful SWPer. What Ailleen said was that there should be 'no borders' and she welcomed all comers to 'Europe'.

author by ABCDpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 00:42Report this post to the editors

Worth noting, also, that there was strong audience reaction to the pro-protest points. Applause, laughing at the other side, general response all cool.

author by Patpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 00:45Report this post to the editors

You couldn't be more wrong I have nothing to do with the SWP. She said in reply to Pat Kenny question about the 10 new states that she welcomed them to join the EU. I have asked a genuine question I am not having a go at anyone so take your nonsense elsewhere I will now wait for someone from the Grassroots Network to come on and clarify things cause I accept that the comrade from the Grassroots may have been nervous and may have not have explained herself properly I am not having a go at anyone so just grow up and stop trying to cause an arguement when there isn't one. I think you are what they call here a troll.

author by j26publication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 01:36Report this post to the editors

She also stated clearly that she was an anarchist. I loved that - poor Pat nearly fell off his seat when he heard that - I think he expected her to start throwing bottles or something.

Poor Pat was (surprise, surprise) out of his depth again - he kept going back to the violence thing again and again, even trying to get one guy (I think he's a freelance journalist - I seem to remember seeing his face in the Irish Times recently) in the audience to say that he wanted violence to get headlines, never realising the irony that he was making himself look like the one up for a scrap. He ried to raise people on several occasions, but nobody took the bait.

The Europe thing is pretty much what has been said on the website, so I can't see the reason for concern over it. I don't see opposition to Europe per se, but opposition to what Europe is becoming.

Well done.


It was a very significant occasion, it presented anarchism as something positive, and went a long way towards dispelling the "Anarchist Bogeyman" that the state has spent so long building. Even the security consultant guy had to temper his comments so he would not look like a beligerent spoiling for a fight.

P.S. I have to love her for cutting down that Star hack so well. I t is a long time since I saw someone castrated out of a conversation so effectively.

author by Swpwatchpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 01:48Report this post to the editors

I believe Pat when he says he's not a resentful SWPer :) I have a new theory - it's Pat Kenny himself trying to make a comeback against Ailleen cos of the way she sorted him out.

author by NeoRepublicanpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 03:42Report this post to the editors

The reason there was good responce was because the crowd was full of UCD reds.

Any foreigner, such as the Biritish wombles who act to do damage to Irish property should, and hopefully will, be given a lesson to take back home with them.

And for the SWP and their elk I would like you to note that their base of opperations is actually Britain, and that the May Day riots of before were caused by British members of Various groups I was there to hear the calls of "In london it was was far bettter" on their megaphones.

So wake up, anarchism will enver work aslong as their is scarcity, and as Marx actually said Capitalism is the best form of Democracy to have before the reveloution in the society. And as there can be no reveloution as long as their is scarcity .... DEAL WITH IT.

Just note I am defintely not pro-gov, used to be a swp`er myself :-), consider this the fanaticism of the converted

also......vote no!-That McDowell, what a stinka

author by Peig Mahonepublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 04:24Report this post to the editors

>"And for the SWP and their elk..."

elk.jpg

author by Áine Ní Fhearraighpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 04:28Report this post to the editors

I saw the show and I have to saw I thik Aileen made a complete fool of herself. It was cringingly embarassing watching her disport herself like that. Pat did the decent thing and wasn't too hard on her but it really was a sad thing to watch.

It'll be a long time again b4 any of these people get on TV again.

author by TTpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 04:34Report this post to the editors

"NeoRepublican", I do not believe you are an Irish Republican, maybe you are a member of the republican party in the USA?. You do not speak for the Irish people when you advocate that the Wombles be "given a lesson to take back home with them". A genuine Irish Republican would know that the broad left in the uk always opposed the continuing ocupation of the Six Counties. In fact anyone who was politically conscious would recognise that the Wombles are more 'Irish' than the propertied class you seem anxious to protect.
I also do not believe that you are ex-swp. If you were, you would know the difference between the swp and the anarchists.

author by Davidpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 11:59Report this post to the editors

But i'm glad i did. It was really fanastic. Aileen did a wonderful job in a very intimidating arena. It was a task that I personally did not envy in the slightest. She made all the media representatives come across as ill informed and lacking in integrity and the audience was clearly on her side.

Because of that show there are probably hundreds of thousands of people out there with a different view of anarchists to what they had before.

That guy from the star was a joke. But if Aileed had not been there he could have been free to paint a totqally distorted picture of what the wombles were planning to do. She made a total mockery of the "Investigative journalism" tradition in the Irish tabloid market.

I also would like to congratulate the audience participants (dont want to use their names for the first time)

Overall i think its clear who won that confrontation. A comprehensive victory Political activists, 4, tools of the state 0

author by Eoin Dubskypublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 13:03Report this post to the editors

It was brilliant. I was in stitches with laughter! Just before watching the Late Late I saw a parody sketch of a CNN journalist trying to tease out a scare story of rioting and violence from a bobby at a anti-war demo in London (see Undercurrents.org). Pat behaved exactly like the (joke!) CNN reporter: "But, but, what if there _were_ a small violent element in the protest?" (p-p-please someone take the bait!!)

Congratulations to everyone involved. Including the guy from the Star and Pat Kenny, for making those strawman arguments and discrediting themselves so well (like when the Star reporter tried to link road deaths to Mayday - *lol*).

author by hooded idiotpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 13:04Report this post to the editors

fair play aileen and others in the audience

one question- did mark, lawrence etc. have to stick around for the rest of the show?

Sitting through interviews with ex-boyzone members.... now that's commitment!

author by Sellout??publication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 13:06Report this post to the editors

It was interesting to hear that when Pat asked Aileen whether she would condemn protesters that engage in violence she stated "Yes, Of course".

So is that the official WSM and Grassroots position? Will they condemn protesters that engage in defensive violence against the cops?

author by Timpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 13:10Report this post to the editors

I have been watching the media hype.
I agree that it will probably be along time before they let Aileen back on the Late Late.
Why? Because she did a good job of dragging the discussion out of the gutter an towards reality.
The 'reporter' was shown up as a 'Walter Mitty' character.
The plank was his usual self.

Pity there was no sign of PJ Stone from the GRA. Perhaps he didn't want to face any reminders about the garda riot 2 years ago.


Today's front page on the Oirish Sun is that anarchists plan to GAS BERTIE.

Will Deirdre Tynan have a piece in Ireland on Sunday about Anarachist's Sinister Plot to use NUKES IN THE PHOENIX PARK?

It all smacks a bit of the G.W. Bush school of intelligence gathering.

author by PJ Stonepublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 13:14Report this post to the editors

The lamentations of the defense 'expert' who said unfortunately we don't have the power for preventative arrests.

Well, don't worry, I'm sure there will be plenty of bogus arrests under Sect 6 of the POA.

No wonder there was no Garda Spokesperson on the show.

author by Davidpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 13:27Report this post to the editors

Its part of the Grassroots principles that we won't condenm the actions of other groups who share our aim. I think when aileen answered that question it really meant that we would condenm acts of violence from the police because we really didnt expect any violent acts from any of the protestsers.

I think its really funny that Pat kenny, the guy from the star and the "security expert" had a long chat about the likelyhood that there will be "agent provocateurs" at the protests and then blaming this on protestors when the very definition of an agent provocateur is somebody planted by the state or media to insight violence from a peaceful crowd. If there will be agent provocateurs it will be a violent act of the state, not the protestors.

these "experts" haven't got a clue

author by Davidpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 13:58Report this post to the editors

Dear Pat.

I watched with great interest your show this Friday and was very surprised when i discovered that neither you, nor your security expert Guest, appeared to be aware what the description, Agent Provocateur, actually means, this is despite your lengthy discussion on this subject. Contrary to your discussion, Agent Provocateurs are universally agents of the state who are there with the specific purpose of insighting criminal activity from those who would otherwise remain peaceful.

It was worrying that your security expert (I regret that i can not remember his name) seemed convinced of the strong likelihood that this tactic would be used. This is a very worrying development as it greatly increases the risk of violence by the state against unarmed and peaceful demonstrators.

For your convenience i have included an encyclopedia definition of the offending term so that you might be aware of its context for future discussions. I would also be pleased if you could clarify this point on your radio show as it would be a tragedy should any of your loyal viewers be misled as to the consequences of this tactic of the state.

Yours sincerely,
David ******,

"Agent provocateur

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

An agent provocateur is a person, often a police officer, whose duty is to make sure suspected individual(s) carry out a crime to guarantee their punishment; or who suggests the commission of a crime to another, in hopes they will go along with the suggestion, so they may be convicted of the crime the provocateur suggested. The phrase comes from the French language, where it means, roughly, "inciting agent"; the plural is agents provocateurs.

The activities of agents provocateurs are typically called sting operations. Agents provocateurs are typically used to investigate consensual or "victimless" crimes; since each participant in such a crime is a willing participant, only a police spy posing as a fellow participant in criminal activity is likely to be able to uncover such a crime.

Agents provocateurs are also used in the investigation of political crimes. Here, it has been claimed that the provocateurs deliberately seek to incite ineffective radical acts, in order to foster public disdain for the political group being investigated; and to worsen the punishments its members are liable for. Within the United States the COINTELPRO program of the Federal Bureau of Investigation had FBI agents posing as political radicals in order to disrupt the activities of political groups the U.S. government found unacceptably radical. The activities of agents provocateurs against political dissidents in Imperial Russia was one of the grievances that led to the Russian Revolution.

The activities of agents provocateurs pose a number of ethical and legal issues. Within common law jurisdictions, the law of entrapment seeks to discern whether the provocateur's target intended to commit the crime he participated in with the provocateur, or whether the suggestion to commit the crime began with the provocateur. It is also debatable whether the institutionalized deception that resort to agents provocateurs entails by definition does more harm to the social order than the various consensual offenses typically investigated by provocateurs."

author by Sellout??publication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 14:04Report this post to the editors

David, Pat Kenny made it quite clear that he was talking about other protesters. Have a look back over the video.

Is this the WSM and/or Grassroots position? If it is not what will be done to correct Aileen? Is she not accountable in anyway to Grassroots? If not why not? Is this democratic?

author by Slartipublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 14:45Report this post to the editors

I thought it was a great performance from Aileen (and the lads in the audience). My personal favourite moment (apart from the "I'm an anarchist") was right at the end when the guy from the star tried to blame a group of anti-car activists for the number of road deaths recently!

As for the troll above, it's been answered. The DGN position is that we don't criticise other protesters and it remains the position.

author by pcpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 16:27Report this post to the editors

the guy from the star was hopeless, he spoke but never said anything? i was disappointed in him,

it think the thing about condeming was just a mix-up as with all interviewers they ask three questions in one and aileen was responding to a different part of the question whne she said yes of corse ,and pat kenny never gave her the chance to clarify the point....


i don't know why they showed the genoa pics thats was an un-comparable bad start

author by paddyboy-xpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 18:06Report this post to the editors

Great performance, but one blooper was the bit the bit where she said wombles as close to violence and FF to terrorism!
Unintentiopnally funny, but funny nonetheless!! Har har.

author by Davidpublication date Sat Apr 24, 2004 21:34Report this post to the editors

Because after she said it, pat had to almost gag himself to stop from calling F.F. a bunch of terrorists.

author by NeoRepublicanpublication date Sun Apr 25, 2004 00:33Report this post to the editors

Yes the class I seek to protect.....
For your information I actually live in the "6" conties,which only you Free State traiters refer to it as,and I am an irish Republican. Perhaps you need to reasearch more into the history of republicanism, as it was never socialist until James Connoly came about, before there was Davitt and he was never taken serisouly, you should research the fenians, and their process of elitist voting etc.

TT just because I prefer Irish people to look after our own problems first, and would rather not have foreigners wreck our streets does`nt make me any less loyal to the Republic, it is those who are members of groups considered to be in the Internationale who betray our Fatherland and care nothing for those who went before us.

Also what make you think i`m not a socialist, i`m jsut a watered down socialist, i`ll admit, just cause it is`nt "cool". And those wombles have nothing to do with past irishmen!(who would have thought to use padding?).Also take note that men like Parnell, who were part of the new Departure and must be considered republicn never fired a shot, nor damaged things in his life.

Mabye I should some other sft drink banned!

So TT mabye you get to your locla photocopy outlet and produce some crappy pamphlet to show how bad the rest of the world without looking at our own problems, such as homeessness,drugs,crime,and the continual lack of a civil backbone. But that just is`nt as satisfying as helping the third world for the D4 socialists of UCD and TCD .

hmmm so either your really insecure about criticism or your as bad as anyone who likes to point diffrences and how he/she is wrong and how your really there to hep them. See you and the FF have lots in common!


ALSO-your right I did say elk!sorry

mooooooo

author by Deirdre Clancypublication date Sun Apr 25, 2004 02:34Report this post to the editors

The inward-looking thoughts espoused above do not hold water anymore and are not taken seriously by most right-thinking Irish people. It amazes me that people can still come out with this kind of regressive bilge about the fatherland (or whatever regressive metaphors you espouse for what is after all only lines on a map). I think most people on the island would agree that we've had enough of these dysfunctional blood sacrifice narratives relating to mother Ireland.

To be concerned about matters outside our own country is a healthy thing and a sign that Ireland is maturing as a State; it doesn't mean that activists aren't concerned with domestic matters also. You can do both, in case you didn't notice.

The myth of redemptive violence has done enough damage to innocent civilians in this country. It rings hollow because it actually is hollow.

author by Chekovpublication date Sun Apr 25, 2004 03:57Report this post to the editors

First of all fair play to Aileen, William, Mark and Rory. They played a blinder and made fools of the security people. This was in difficult circumstances. In the run up to the show Aileen was told the questions that she was going to be asked 3 times, the last of which was in the dressing room immediately before going on stage. She was then asked completely different questions which were designed to catch her out. The other people who participated from the audience reported similar deceptions. You can bet that Brian McFadden was asked the questions he expected.

In addition, the researchers from the Late Late appear to have attempted to manufacture a public split between the groups. Rory Hearne was informed that the Grassroots were claiming to be the sole organisers of the Mayday protests and were trying to keep them off the show (whereas in fact the grassroots press people argued that Rory should be allowed on), while Aileen was informed that Rory had claimed that they were the real organisers and that the grassroots was only a 'fringe group'. On each occasion there was communication between the spokespeople to clarify the matter and there were no public split.

So, considering these circumstances, they did damned well. Aileen in particular came across as the most plausible person on the show - and she's the one that we're supposed to be terrified of!

author by seriously?publication date Sun Apr 25, 2004 10:52Report this post to the editors

State broadcaster true to form then.

Burlusconi would be proud

author by J'accusepublication date Sun Apr 25, 2004 12:11Report this post to the editors

This anarchist love-in is really too much. Aileen did well on the Late, Late, but her answers were not always impeccable. It’s tempting when interviewed on mainstream media to tone it down a bit, but Aileen really should have stood her ground on EU enlargement (who on the left wants to see this imperialist bloc grow?) and condemnation of violence (if someone throws bricks at the cops, fair play to them; petrol bombs? I’d prefer if they didn’t; dirty bombs? Obviously not).

Come off it anarchists - maintain your critical faculties.

author by TTpublication date Sun Apr 25, 2004 19:17Report this post to the editors

Over several decades of political activism I have never once heard an Irish Republican refer to this country as the "Fatherland".

"Also what make you think i`m not a socialist, i`m jsut a watered down socialist, i`ll admit"

Yes, indeed, NeoRepublican is very likely to be a 'National Socialist'. He is no more an 'Irish Republican' than Fianna Fail is a 'Republican Party'. Considering the spelling mistakes, I think it is likely he is our long-standing troll known as 'Lone gunman', under another of his identities.

author by Ois - WSMpublication date Mon Apr 26, 2004 01:28Report this post to the editors

First of all you're posts are incoherent so maybe I'm mis-interpreting you.

But, what are you saying about Socialism - republicanism wasn't socialist until Connolly? Nobody took Davitt seriously? Wha-Wha-What?

You seem to like Parnell, well, as Parnell said "No man has any right to set a limit to the march of his nation, no man can say thus far shall you go and no further". I think yuo should think about that and then come back and tell us that we 'can't' build socialism.

author by Joepublication date Mon Apr 26, 2004 11:39Report this post to the editors

People might try and be a little less picky with people doing high pressure live interviews but in response to the questions raised.

1. Grassroots position on expansion.

This is in the 50,000 leadlets distributed and on the web. It reads as follows
"Fortress Europe

In advance of joining the EU, the 10 accession countries have had to open their borders to the flow of money, but the movement of the peoples of these countries is to be limited for up to seven years. We welcome the admission of the people of these countries, but the governments of the EU want to keep them out as long as possible, all the while using them as cheap labour. - profit before people.

Beyond Europe, many countries have been forced to open their markets to European capital and to low-wage, European-owned factories. European corporations want to use the EU as a common front to force these harsh neo-liberal policies on the third world. Yet the people of these countries face fences and walls if they try to enter Europe. Many are forced to make desperate boat journeys around these barriers.

The EU's repressive anti-immigrant policies claimed the lives of at least 3,000 people between 1993 and June 2003, people drowned in the Mediterranean, electrocuted at the Channel Tunnel or suffocated in Wexford. This is 10 times as many as were killed at the Berlin Wall during its 30-year history. These policies are designed to make immigrants illegal and force them to survive in a precarious, hunted position, or live on short-term visas, dependent on work permits held by their employers. In both cases they are vulnerable and open to extreme exploitation as cheap labour. They have little access to heath and safety enforcement, as shown by the tragic deaths of 19 Chinese people at Morecambe Bay this year."

From http://struggle.ws/eufortress/whyprotest.html

2. Condemning protesters

The DGN decided at the start that we will not make criticisms of other (progressive) groups organising for the summit or their actions of others on the day. I think she was referring to the threat of violence from the one group that has been making such threats. The Gardai. Any comment on actual rather than imagined events by DGN spokespeople would follow the guidelines above. The need for this distinction should be clear when you consider how much the tabloids would love to be able to run the headling 'Protesters refuse to condemn planned gas attack that wil kill 10,000'

3. WSM on violence
Aileen was speaking for the DGN and not the WSM so this is really not relevant here. When WSM members are asked to speak for other organisations then they speak for that organisation and not us. For the curious though the WSM position is at http://struggle.ws/ppapers/terror.html

Related Link: http://struggle.ws/eufortress
author by Reluctant anarchistpublication date Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:10Report this post to the editors

Boyd-Barrett was criticised by anarchist for comments he made during high pressure live interviews, so Aileen’s comments also deserve criticism.

1. Grassroots may be against expansion but Aileen fudged it.
2. Joe ‘thinks’ Aileen was referring to the guards when she condemned potential violence but she was clearly pandering to Pat Kenny by saying what he wanted to hear. The correct answer would have been “I’m against garda violence but if protestors choose to attack the gardai that’s their business and I won’t be condemning it. If someone drops a bomb on Dublin I will be condemning it.”
3. Joe tells us “Aileen was speaking for the DGN and not the WSM … When WSM members are asked to speak for other organisations then they speak for that organisation and not us.” Joe then offers us the WSM position, but Aileen wasn’t speaking for the WSM so its irrelevant! Except it isn’t. Who does Boyd Barrett speak for? The IAWM and the SWP. Who does Aileen speak for? Grassroots and the WSM. If not she should give up membership of one or other organisation.

Are anarchists capable of owning up to their mistakes?

author by Joepublication date Mon Apr 26, 2004 12:46Report this post to the editors

On 1. go and re-read the DGN position as you clearly don't understand it. We are not against expansion, we WELCOME the people of the new countries. See also the DGN reply to Royston Brady when he made the same mistake.

On 2. You offer a certain interpretation of what you think was meant and I offer another. (The ambiguity here is perhaps the point.) On top of this is the question of how best to deal with the media imagined events which now include gas attacks that kill 10,000. DGN has a press group that has developed the answers to these that is accountable to DGN as a whole and works within a clear DGN mandate.

On 3. You obviously don't understood what is being said. I'll try again

a. The situation where someone is a member of two organisations at once is not that unusual

b. If asked to speak for one of these organisations then they should speak for that organisation alone. This means they say what that organisation (in this case DGN through the DGN press group) determines they should say. This is what happened here (In other words the WSM didn't have any input into what she said).

To be honest your lack of imagination on this point makes me think that you may not be an anarchist at all but rather someone using that label to try and sow dissension. (There is a long history of this on indymedia). This is because you seem to imagine the only solution to such a dilemma is where the person puts the interests of their political organisation above all else.

This would be highly unusual in anarchist circles and certainly would not be assumed to be the norm. It would be quite normal in Leninist circles as most versions of Democratic Centralism insist you represent the views of the party first. In other words the difference between RBB/IAWM and Aileen/DGN is a question of politics not personalities and in particular the very different answers anarchism and leninism provide to this organisation question.

For anarchists the concept of a mandated delegate (which is what Aileen was on the Late, Late) would be assumed to be the norm. And carrying through your mandate is the ABC of anarchism. So the duel membership dilemma you point to simply does not exist for anarchism.

author by Reluctant anarchistpublication date Mon Apr 26, 2004 13:54Report this post to the editors

So anarchists are infallible. I see. Sounds uncomfortably like some other political current we're all familiar with.

author by Joepublication date Mon Apr 26, 2004 14:21Report this post to the editors

I think both individuals and the movement have made and continue to make mistakes. That is part of the process of putting your head above the parapet and trying to do something so I don't see that as a problem. Not learning from mistakes would be a problem and the first step in learning is to recognise a mistake has been made

However I don't agree that any of your 3 points are examples of mistakes.
On 1. you are simply wrong as I show above,

On 2. there is a disagreement over how best to express something (BTW met Aileen over lunch and she confirms that it was the cops she was referring to anyway. She tried to make this clear in the following sentence pointing out her only experience of violence on demos were occasions where the cops caused trouble). I'm far from convinced that the way she handled this was a mistake

On 3 you are not even arguing that a mistake was made, you just don't seem to understand how delegation works which was what made me wonder if you were not really an anarchist. Your understanding seems to be limited to the leninist model and not to be even aware of anarchist systems of delegation. Apologies if this conclusion was a mistake but you should read up a bit on anarchist decision making

There is a good explanation of delegation at http://struggle.ws/once/pd_chap9.html

author by Reluctant (and now abashed) anarchistpublication date Mon Apr 26, 2004 15:55Report this post to the editors

Sorry, Joe - my mistake. Apologies for not reading up on anarchism. Won’t do it again. Mea culpa.

author by bakuninpublication date Mon Apr 26, 2004 23:59Report this post to the editors

well done aileen! great fun watching it out at the indymedia centre.

author by UCD Lefty Typepublication date Tue Apr 27, 2004 19:40Report this post to the editors

did anyone else notice the blatantly untrue description by pat kenny of carlo giuliani's murder at genoa??? in pat's words as i recall carlo "threw a gas cylinder" at the italian police. this is an absolutely outrageous slander on the truth and i must say i was incensed when i heard it. all credit to rory hearne for keeping his cool when many wouldnt.

check out http://www.nauseamanifesto.com/genoa/index.html for the real story in pic format

Number of comments per page
  
 
© 2001-2017 Independent Media Centre Ireland. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not necessarily endorsed by Independent Media Centre Ireland. Disclaimer | Privacy