I also have no doubt that most of the young people participating in Black Bloc and advocating for “diversity of tactics” (translation: “don’t tell me not to throw rocks, you oppressive, ageist liberal carnivore!”) are well-meaning people doing a lot of good work in their communities when they’re not throwing rocks through windows. But whether or not they want to believe it, when they start throwing rocks during a march they are doing exactly the same work as the police provocateurs – I mean literally, not figuratively.

Black Bloc: doesn’t this make you wonder about what the fuck you’re doing?

The main critique is that 2010 Heart Attack was ineffective because its goal was social justice and it brought about a mass condemnation from the public in general. The premise of the argument is that for an action to be successful it is necessary to win over mass public opinion. Then it is assumed that social change will occur. If the premise is false then the conclusion, that 2010HA was ineffective, does not follow.

I am convinced that struggles for social justice are always struggles against common sense. Widespread public condemnation of the Black Bloc tactic at the Olympics was to be expected. In saying that the 2010 HA was ineffective, people have to concede that the other stuff was, and that there is a legitimate cause at stake. This is enough, nevermind that HA achieved the stated goal of shutting down traffic.

A good analogy can be seen in the ‘paradox technique’ of system’s theory psychotherapy. In psychotherapy the goal is always therapeutic change. In paradox technique at the termination of therapy the target problem is solved, but the client leaves hating, or not liking, the therapist. Our overall goal in the movement is social justice. I simply may not be necessary to gain public support at the moment in order for this to happen in the long run.

As a woman of colour and a person who is identifiably Muslim, I resent the repeated dismissal of Derrick’s concerns as being that of white middle class privilege. I chose not to attend that rally because I do not feel safe with such tactics. And even in the Friday rally, which I did attend, I purposely stayed well away from the Black Bloc.

The history of police action in this city has proven that the first targets of violence are Indigenous people, people of colour, the poor. In police attacks against protesters, it would not be Derrick who would be targeted first. It would be people like me.

I’m an out of town person, who wasn’t at the Olympics. My comments come from that position. I am really stressed out by how much dirty laundry is being aired online, and how much lack of trust is being presented here. I personally think folks might want to consider asking themselves why they are arguing. It seems to me like people are arguing for the sake of it and talking past each other. It’s really an unfortunate situation, it is also not well thought out. It’s really a bad idea to allow the cops to know who dislikes who and what organizations don’t get along, because they will exploit it. I’ve made this mistake before, and really regret it. It does not do us or our movements any good.

In these debates we need to value 3 thing:
Humility
Respect
Kindness

This is the basis of healthy debate. Secondly, we need to focus on building unity rather than exacerbating rifts that are developing. It takes people being more mature and caring about people they really don’t like at the moment. It really takes dropping ego. I have a hard time doing this, but I know it is what fixes things. Real healthy debate will take people stopping to lay accusations and starting to acknowledge what they have done that was unhelpful, hurtful or dangerous.

If people cannot discuss in things in a good way, what is the point. I guess to make folks sit at their computer shaking their head with stress, or to do the cops work for them and split our movements?

Solidarity,

Alex.
Winnipeg.

Wish I had more time to read it. Thanks Harsha via NOII email for putting me onto this.

regards

…the denouncements overall from many people, seems to be trying to frame the participants in the Black Bloc action as people who lack ‘real’ community connections, and that they are antagonistic to having or making those connections, and further, that the methods of organizing and actions they take are inherently incompatible with community networks.

These presumptions are groundless and false. Anarchist/anti-authoritarian direct actions are dependent on support and acceptance from a wider community base. And that while there is room for a lot of improvement here, in Vancouver, one of the distinct advantages of direct action, is that people who do it are part of and supported by a wider community. They are not a bunch of hoodlum vigilantes on a rampage. In general, resistance and activist groups in Vancouver organize in a fairly organic network with a lot of over lap between individual groups and communities. There are real life relationships involved where face to face conversation can and does happen.

The denouncements both distort and invisiblize this entire area of organizing, making it more difficult to actually address the real challenges and problems that do occur in this process.

The denouncements made by Eby et al. [including Derrick O'Keefe] attack the participants in the Black Bloc, but on a more insidious level attack the primary defense they have: community support.

Anarchists and anti-authoritarians in Vancouver are aware to a certain degree that direct action must be anchored in a strong base of community support. If it is not, the participants in these actions are basically, ‘hung out to dry.’ (While this awareness needs to be vastly expanded on, there is a strong foundation of it that anarchists and anti-authoritarians have been developing for years in this region).

Given the unlimited supply of ammunition the state has to use against resistance movements, in particular militant ones, the reason they don’t crush us with a single blow isn’t because they physically can’t. They don’t do it because cracking down harshly on would create a flurry of dissent from the communities militants are attached to. The State, and it’s policing agencies, go to great lengths to target, attack and dismantle these community networks. It is clearly a high priority for the State to delegitimize direct action oriented movements by characterizing them as socially aberrant. While O’Keefe actually promotes catering to it to this dynamic, proponents of direct action are saying, “No, confront it and challenge it.”

This is why this matter is so important. It is why people are so angry and upset. It’s not just that someone dissed someone else on the 6 o’clock news. Or that someone made an insulting or critical statement on their blog. It is that these denouncements threaten the fabric of defense that anarchist/anti-authoritarian movements need to exist and have built over long periods of time. And to add insult to injury, they do this from an entirely fallacious and ignorant platform.

With respect, and in the interest of genuine debate, I was wondering if you might answer a few questions:

1. Why, if there appeared to have been public discussion meetings leading up to the debate, do you repeatedly state that debate has been silenced and that there is no room for dissent?

-For those who could not make the meetings, there were several anti-Olympic lists which could have been a forum for discussion.
-By making the debate about you, you’re taking away much needed attention from the real issue at hand: how could outreach have been better? for people who cannot attend meetings, what are other avenues of communication?

-I don’t think anybody is stating that you cannot criticize the 13th because you were not at meetings, only that you cannot authoritatively claim that there has not been any internal discussion, or that all debate has been silenced.

2. Since when is the oft used political prank of pieing a “violent” act? While the pieing is a debatable tactic, by repeatedly mentioning it as a “violent” act, you are detracting from the issue at hand: why was Eby pied? What are his legal obligations to the movement and potential clients?

3. Why, if you are positing yourself as a mouthpiece of the movement, did you not speak to the organizers first, during, or after the Feb.13th event directly? I am not saying you need to pull out your activist CV, I am genuinely curious as to why you did not speak to folks directly?

4. Why have your articles, since the debate, focused solely on how you are being “attacked” and not on Diversity of Tactics itself? I think this is a necessary discussion to *continue* to be had and it is unfortunate that the attention is now focused on *you* rather than on the debate itself.

5. Do you feel that you are partly responsible for creating a polarized, hostile environment within the movement?

6. Are you willing to discuss the effectiveness of publicly denouncing fellow organizers by name?

7, and most importantly: Are you going to respond to any of the questions I listed above? Also, there are several other questions within the comment section that I feel you have neglected in your most recent response as well.

I do not think that it is fair to state that just because *you* feel that you are being attacked, that anybody who disagrees with those who support black bloc tactics will also be “attacked”.

If people are interested, I think that it is entirely plausible that another community meeting can be planned (in addition to the hundreds of fruitful discussions that have already happened-in person-since) in which we all respectfully discuss DoT.

it also seems to me that a major point is getting lost. The fear that ‘there isn’t room for dialogue’ is just that – a fear. Before the Feb 13th took place, the right thing to do was to come out to a meeting if you can and try voicing your opinion on property damage. people may disagree with you, but they’ll still work with you and won’t – contrary to the fear – isolate you or tell you to shut up. in an internal meeting, where there aren’t cameras rolling, you can debate and be respected. if you skip that conversation, and then say no conversation took place, that is your own responsibility.

This is not a critique of Derrick as a human being or an organizer. I’d like to ask people (Frank for instance…) to remember that Derrick has been organizing in Vancouver for many years, and that we’re all in the same community, and that it’s not going to be productive to engage in ad hominem attacks that bring up defensiveness and aren’t helpful. It is, however, a request for Derrick to take some proactive responsibility for the when and where of his words. rather than skipping the conversation and then trying to have it take place where you’re comfortable – i.e. on rabble, and in public – you need to be part of the conversations when they are scheduled and when you’re invited to come to them. You can’t ethically skip the spokescouncil and then say ‘dialogue wasn’t welcome’. So there are major crossed wires going on here – you’re hearing people tell you to shut up, when actually as it sounds to me, people are telling you to come join the conversation, respectfully, in the time and place and way that the organizers of the event request – since they’re in this case the ones who have their eye on the big picture and know the needs of the event.

There’s been a lot of unneccessary defensiveness going around, and I’m hoping that we can get through this. I know organizing communities have come through worse before.

with love to you all,
n

“was the ORN truly inclusive of all points of view and all manner of tactics? If so, then great and maybe people like Derrick missed out on an opportunity to take part and can’t turn around and be Monday Morning Quarterbacks”