Resistance to Injustice is Good -- not "Authoritarianism"!

national | rights, freedoms and repression | opinion/analysis Sunday August 09, 2009 02:12 by Diarmuid Breatnach - Dublin Basque Solidarity Committee

Dublin basque Solidarity Committee reply to a Seomra Spraoi supporter

The Seomra Spraoi collective refused DIBC permission to use their space citing two political reasons for the refusal. The DIBC wrote to Seomra protesting the refusal and, a month later without reply, posted the letter on Indymedia, where it generated some comment, including one from Mark in which he attacked the publicising of the issue and made a number of allegations against the DIBC.

Mark, of Seomra Spraoi but writing in a personal capacity, commented on the Dublin basque Solidarity Committee’s letter to Seomra Spraoi, in which we responded to the letter laying out Seomra’s reasons for denying us the use of their space for a basque Festival. A month after Seomra’s receipt of that letter, DIBC had posted it on Indymedia; Mark’s comments appeared on July 16. Due to pressure of business and personal commitments, we have not been able to get a response back until now.

What characterised Mark’s reply above all, despite its length, was a refusal to address the two political reasons given by Seomra for their denial to the DIBC. Also at issue was the manner in which Seomra made their final decision without giving DIBC an opportunity to reply to objections, despite a previous undertaking to allow that. In the absence of addressing those issues, Mark’s reply employs unsubstantiated allegations and even an attempt at personalising the issues.

Mark accuses us of “myth-making on public fora”and later of “muck-raking”, “half-baked allegations” and “innuendo” but does not tell us what “myths”, “half-baked allegations” or “innuendo” he thinks we have been making. He refers to a “smear of not being ‘working class enough’” but it was not the DIBC that made any reference whatsoever to that but one or two other commentators on Indymedia.

Mark states that “several groups ... have not been given the go-ahead to use the space” but that “none have been as vitriolic in response” as have we and also accuses us of “having a rant”. If by “having a vitriolic rant”, Mark means stoutly combatting the reasons given for our refusal and the lack of opportunity to answer our accusers, protesting our exclusion and pointing out the incongruence of the decision and the dangers for the future direction of Seomra, then fine, but we would deem all that well within legitimate action in the face of injustice and everything said by us as having been within the limits of legitimate political criticism.

For example, accusing Seomra of “allying itself with repression” was justified, in our view, by reason of its objective actions and the reasons it gave for them. The Spanish and French states are repressing the basque people because of their wish for self-determination, also denying them space, also alleging that progressive movements are allied to ETA and using that to justify repression. Saying that “a cancer is now eating away at Seomra, the cancer of injustice,” is also entirely justified. Or can people believe that Seomra can act unjustly against one individual or groups without that injustice gradually corrupting one’s organisation?

To have this out in public discussion is no doubt uncomfortable for Seomra but that is the traditional recourse of those who have been dealt with unjustly by those who have more power. What would DIBSC be hoping for from going public? What do most people hope for in such situations? Either the rectification of the injustice or the dissemination of information about the lack of justice to all other people of goodwill – what else?

Mark accuses us of bieng “disingenuous” when replying to another “to ask Seomra Spraoi what the ‘fuss’ is about” when he says that clearly our intention was to create a fuss. But if one is going to attack an organisation about something said in correspondence, it would be wise to read the whole of the corresondence in question. Anyone who does so can see that it was an Indymedia commentator who first said he didn’t understand what all the fuss was about, given that all that DIBSC asked for was a space to put on their festival and to give information about basque culture and their struggle. Our comment suggested s/he take that up with Seomra.

Later again, Mark misrepresents what I had written months earlier in a personal capacity in an article for Red Banner (which I later posted to Indymedia with the permission of both publications) “Why Can’t the Irish Left See the Basques?” I didn’t say that I felt “that the DBSC is isolated and doesn’t receive the support from the radical left it deserves”. What I said, in summary, was that the basque struggle (not the DIBSC) doesn’t receive the support it deserves from the Irish revolutionary (non-Republican) socialist movement (including the anarchists). The article noted that support comes mainly from the Republican movement and also looked at the history of solidarity from revolutionary socialists to movements for self-determination elsewhere in the world in the context of the struggle in the basque Country.

Mark then seeks to create some kind of disunity in the DBSC Committee by pointing out that I am “one person doing all the talking on their behalf”. There were three Basques and myself at our first meeting with the Seomra Entertainments Committee and at least one of them spoke eloquently, despite English being his third language, of their experience of such “liberated spaces”as Seomra, and of how they wished to use the space and contribute to it in future. The ploy of trying to discredit or at least “wedge” the representation of a group, so often used by those in power, is transparent perhaps but no less distasteful for all that. However, it is nevertheless ironic that Mark should invite other members of the DIBSC to comment on how they feel about their exclusion, when to date Seomra has not replied to our letter (in their posession for over a month before we went public) nor indeed have any Seomra supporters publicly justified our exclusion since.

Mark makes the point that Seomra does not wish to be seen as a service and looks for participation. That never figured among the reasons given for the exclusion of DIBSC from Seomra but, as it happens, some of the Basques did offer to become involved in Seomra and to help out and I myself have put in hours of physical work on a number of occasions with the new building (and had volunteered for more).

Mark also asks DIBSC to “approach (Seomra Spraoi) in an attitude of solidarity”, accuses us of not being open to “dialogue and conversation” or “open honest communication and mutual respect” and of engaging in a “dialogue of the deaf”. The DIBSC did approach Seomra in an attitude of solidarity, open honest communication and mutual respect. We complied with all the various forms of application required of us and were in contact with Seomra on this matter for about two months before the refusal and nearly three months before we learned of the refusal. It is not us who practiced the deaf ear.

The salient facts are worth re-examination, since much energy is being spent in avoiding them, which were because of
(a) DIBSC support of self-determination for the basque Country and
(b) some of the collective decided (without any justification whatsoever) that there was some kind of connection between DIBSC and the armed group ETA).
The matter of the “less than professional manner of communications, in terms of times of responses, etc.” to which Mark is “willing to put (his) hands up” is of course of much less importance and, in any case, was never about being “professional” but about treating people decently.

Of course “no group can demand to use the space as a right” but surely all groups that are progressive and non-authoritarian have the right to expect that they will be treated equitably and that they will not be refused on spurious grounds? From a legal standpoint, of course Seomra are “under no obligation to do anything for anyone” but where then do principles such as supporting social action, protest, solidarity and opposing censorship come in?

Although we thank Mark for his “sincerely wish(ing) DBSC all the best”, he has accused our Committee (or possibly just me) has of authoritarianism and of loud opinion. No evidence of “authoritarianism” has been produced, only that we did not quietly accept our exclusion and slink away – an interesting interpretation of “authoritarianism” from a Seomra Spraoi active supporter. We in the DIBSC come from a number of traditions of proud struggle for rights and many of our supporters are aware of a long human history of resistance to injustice in the world. Therefore we make no apology for being “loud” in our opinion and in our opposition to this injustice too, although regretfully it has been perpetrated by an organisation from which we would have hoped for something much better.

Please note that we are busy and that we reserve the right not to continue this correspondence with anyone who does not address the central issues or who engages in unprincipled tactics.

Diarmuid Breatnach, Coordinator,
Dublin basque Solidarity Committee.