activism

charlie veitch: pre-emptive arrest

Submitted by antarchi on May 1, 2011 - 14:03

Can we search your knickers please...

disobedience is man's original virtue

Submitted by antarchi on March 19, 2011 - 02:32

We are often told that the poor are grateful for charity. Some of them are, no doubt, but the best amongst the poor are never grateful. They are ungrateful, discontented, disobedient, and rebellious. They are quite right to be so. Charity they feel to be a ridiculously inadequate mode of partial restitution, or a sentimental dole, usually accompanied by some impertinent attempt on the part of the sentimentalist to tyrannise over their private lives. Why should they be grateful for the crumbs that fall from the rich man's table? They should be seated at the board, and are beginning to know it. As for being discontented, a man who would not be discontented with such surroundings and such a low mode of life would be a perfect brute. Disobedience, in the eyes of any one who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Sometimes the poor are praised for being thrifty. But to recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less. For a town or country labourer to practise thrift would be absolutely immoral. Man should not be ready to show that he can live like a badly-fed animal. He should decline to live like that, and should either steal or go on the rates, which is considered by many to be a form of stealing. As for begging, it is safer to beg than to take, but it is finer to take than to beg. No; a poor man who is ungrateful, unthrifty, discontented, and rebellious is probably a real personality, and has much in him. He is at any rate a healthy protest.

— Oscar Wilde

The soul of man under socialism

the right to protest

Submitted by antarchi on December 12, 2010 - 13:50

One of the 11 strategic objectives of the G20 operation was to “facilitate lawful protest” and that “any form of protest or demonstration that is not lawful will be dealt with robustly according to the law.” This is an incorrect starting point when the police are considering their obligations under ECHR Article 11. The correct starting point is the presumption in favour of facilitating peaceful assembly. This is not an absolute presumption. The police must consider the legality of the conduct and actions of individual protesters – rather than consider the protest as a whole – and respond to specific criminal offences committed and police powers to deal with those offences...

In addition to its positive duty, the state is required not to restrict protests unless it is justified as being both necessary and proportionate to do so in pursuance of a legitimate aim: this is a high threshold. Whilst protests may be disruptive or inconvenient, the presumption should be in favour of protests taking place without state interference, unless compelling evidence can be provided of legitimate reasons for any restrictions and those restrictions go no further than is strictly necessary to achieve their aim.”

— Joint Human Rights Committee

A human rights approach to peaceful protest

violence is completely unacceptable

Submitted by antarchi on December 12, 2010 - 03:46

"I saw pictures of people who were bent on violence and on destruction and on destroying property and that is completely unacceptable,"
David Cameron

the bullingdon twatsthe bullingdon twats

A spokeswoman for London Mayor Boris Johnson said: "The Mayor is appalled by the scenes of violence this evening. There is no excuse, whatever one's view of the vote in Parliament, for the destruction and aggression seen today. It is an insult to democracy."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/violence-flares-as-mps-deb...

No excuse for violence. Completely unacceptable. Put your tail coats on.

Cameron, Osborne and the Bullingdon set

'...At a typical evening in 2005, the Buller partially destroyed an Oxford gastro pub called the White Hart. "All the food and plates had been thrown everywhere and they were jumping on top of each other on the table like kids in a playground," said the pub's landlord, Ian Rogers. "But they apologised profusely afterwards." And paid for it too, of course. That's how the Buller works: it buys its way out of trouble...'

James Delingpole,



So when does violence insult democracy? When you can't pay for the damage, of course. If those students had had any foresight they would have left their debts in wads of notes at the scene of the crime. And 20 years from now, they would all be running the country.

the bullingdon twats grow upthe bullingdon twats grow up

"Chin-chin. Let's repaint the mercedes at taxpayer's expense."

drain the banks

Submitted by antarchi on November 21, 2010 - 14:17

BANKRUN 2010

What would happen if we tried to withdraw all that fictional money that the banks have created?

Only trouble is - it's the people with no money who will have most interest in collapsing the system. George Osborne is not likely to remove his millions.

Incidentally - interesting that the Guardian thinks it important to outline in detail Cantona's football misdemeanours from 15 - 20 years ago. Nothing more recent to report? Scarred for life then. Don't take seriously this mad, erratic, violent former footballer.

ERIC'S DIRECT ACTION

1987 Fined by Auxerre for punching his team's goalkeeper, Bruno Martini.

1989 Kicks ball into the crowd and hurls shirt at the referee on being substituted in a charity match, then throws his jersey at Marseille coach Gerard Gili. Playing for Montpellier, he hits team-mate Jean-Claude Lemoult with his boot.

1991 Now playing for Nîmes, he throws the ball at the referee and storms off. Later attacks an opponent.

1993 Spits at a Leeds fan in his first season for Manchester United.

1995 Kicks out at a Crystal Palace defender and is sent off. As Cantona leaves the pitch, Palace fan Matthew Simmons screams abuse at him and Cantona launches his now infamous kung-fu kick at Simmons.

From the Guardian article - Eric Cantona's call for bank protest sparks online campaign

scarcely important protest does not go on for ever

Submitted by antarchi on October 17, 2010 - 20:11



A few unanswered questions from the BBC's brief report on yesterday's blockade - the most notable feature of which is contained in its choice of title:

Campaigners blockading oil refinery in Essex disperse

!!!

Question: How long after the protesters arrived did they disperse?

The BBC doesn't say. Just that:

Murray Smith from Crude Awakening said the activists decided to leave as they felt they had achieved their objectives for the day.'

Question: What was the effect of the 7 hour long blockade?

The BBC doesn't say. Just that:

A spokeswoman for Petroplus, which owns Coryton refinery, had said during the protest that operations were running normally and the protest had been "a police matter" as it was on a public highway.

However, protesters claimed to have stopped about 50 tankers travelling on The Manorway.

Qu: Could the BBC have bothered to find out -

a) whether oil is normally transported out of the refinery along the Manorway (and how much, in 7 hours)

b) whether there are any other routes out of the refinery, and whether these were used yesterday (there are none)

c) what 'operations running normally' means, if tankers were unable to leave the refinery for 7 hours

Qu: Whose interests are the BBC serving?

(This is not a question)

Syndicate content