Rumours about the Black Bloc 2

Very well said, Sean. Thank you.

harmony, please leave physical and unfounded political descriptions of me out of any discussions you participate in or initiate on public forums, especially a liberal septic tank like fucking rabble. it's irresponsible and out of fucking order. i've never called myself a marxist, let alone any kind of leninist. do me a favour and either delete or edit that shit so it contains no reference to me. it's bad enough that you fucking emailed that to someone. what were you thinking? anyway what's done is done, at least just get it the fuck off rabble without further comment.

Dear Harm-on-e.

I would like to address what you've brought up here because what has been brought up is still charges and speculation that has not been confirmed from the people involved. I know what the Vancouver Media Coop blog said and to be very honest, the accusations troubled me. But they are only still accusations since the accused have said nothing against or for the charges. Maybe they will choose not to. Maybe they will. Not sure. I am deeply troubled by accusations that put harm towards rabble.ca and its reputation since that's like stabbing me in the heart as well. But I have to caution that they are just accusations at this point.

I would like to add -- as a rabble.ca blogger myself -- that I do have a fair bit of automony over what I post. Perhaps only because I was with rabble.ca back in 2001 I am afforded such privilege. Shrug. I know I have been called nasty names because of the politics I believe in. I remember in 2003 being called a "race traitor to the white race" because of my support for indigenous solidarity.

People dislike my blog on rabble.ca because I am controversial. I come from a very different politic than some people. I'm a big girl and I can stand up for what I believe in. Now, I'm also in Toronto so this whole West coast , Vancouver Media Coop controversy, is a little aways from me. But I have always stated in my blogs that I don't support police collaboration. I even wrote a blog about Hunting the Black Bloc down like rabbits (since that was what the communists promised to do to the anarchists after the Kronstadt rebellion).

I cannot speak for other bloggers or defend them when ...like I said, I have my own autonomy in my blog and they have their own autonomy in their blog.

The Vancouver Media Coop blog does reference bloggers Murray Dobbins and Derrick O'Keefe. And I really think this controversy can be cleared up -- since right now, neither one of them has spoken out one way or another so nothing is confirmed -- through them. Especially if it is true what the Vancouver Media Coop blog charges. I just don't know one way or another but I do know how I feel speaking from my blog and my heart and that is I don't support police collaboration. I can only speak for myself. I know both Derrick and Murray are both outspoken so I'm sure they have their own opinions on this subject. I am concerned when unconfirmed rumours hurt rabble.ca as a whole, though, since I care deeply about rabble.ca and its reputation.

I guess what I'm trying to ask for is patience and transparency until we figure this whole thing out. I know it's being talked about in Toronto since it was brought to my attention by someone unaffiliated from rabble.ca. But I know from my heart and what I believe rabble.ca to me, that is not the political stance I would take. Again, all I can speak for is myself.

sincerely,

Krystalline

rabble.ca's resident anarchist

In fact you should look at what unions do for yourself-- I think you will be very surprised at how often they deal with things that are aimed to help people who are not unionized-- the public pension push from the CLC for example is likely more benficial for nonunionized workers since most unionized workers have pension plans-- the same thing with minimum wage.

If there is somethign you care about you can contact unions as well and may find that you have an ally where you did not expect it.

I've been following this and related threads with some interest, but not felt like I've had much to say so far.  Generally, I'd say my feelings about the black block tactics are in the same ballpark as Michael, Sean and Unionist.  By way of disclosure, I am an aging boomer with privlige up the wazoo, and only occassionally attend rallies and demonstrations, mainly because I have a big problem with very crowded spaces.

However, in regards to turning in someone to the cops or co operating with them because of demonstration related activities which I may have seen, or if I happened to recognize someones face in pictures I saw later, that would go against absolutely every ethic I possess.  Doesn't matter what I feel about their tactics.  Ever since I was a kid I've known better than to rat people out.

I don't mind your throwing a tantrum against me. I have never attacked you and will not, because I respect your activism (especially on U.S. refugees, and other issues) and your determination.

But your lengthy discourse just prior to this post - the one addressed to the "harm-on-e" - is way over the line. By taking these slanderous lies seriously (the ones against Murray Dobbin, Derrick O'Keefe, and rabbe generally) - and, by extension, the filth spewed against Judy Rebick, Naomi Klein, and others, by these creepy characters - you do a huge disservice to the left. By calling them "unconfirmed rumours" - rather than "toxic reactionary shit" - you lend them crediblity and suggest that there is a serious issue to be investigated here.

Our movement doesn't need anyone to "mediate" between the overwhelming majority and the few saboteurs, who, having totally discredited themselves during G20, are now desperately clutching at straws by trying to accuse progressives as being "liberals" and "police collaborators". These tactics, and their practitioners, have no place in the movement or within our mobilizations. If you can convince them (the confused ones, not the police agents) to change their ways, more power to you - but in my opinion it's an irrelevant and diversionary exercise. There are millions of us, and we will win.

ETA:

You should retract that statement (the part in boldface), or back it up. If you're speaking hypothetically, then you're just feeding the toxic diversion created by the "stimulators" and "harm-on-e's" of this world.

As for calling people "assholes", try and stop me. I started with the SUV assholes who torched the RBC bank (though some here said we should be kind and not "split" the movement!!), and I intend to carry on - unless, of course, the moderators here order me to be courteous and respectful to saboteurs of our movement.

My apologies, Unionist, for my "late" post on the topic. I was too busy yesterday covering the Civil Liberties rally and this morning doing Court Solidarity work. I guess I am just too involved with day to day activism and trying to make the world better that I can't jump on babble at any moment to comment on a thread.

And like I mentioned in my post, these "whatever we can call them" rumours are from people in British Columbia and not Toronto where I am from. If it started in BC it should be solved in BC.  I also understand that every blogger has their own autonomy to their blog. As for the turning over to the police comments, do I really need to remind you of the threads on here where babblers advocated turning activists over to the police or the blog that promoted the same?

Hey, if you want your asshole-world to include petty insults and street brawls between activist groups, then I can't stop you. I would prefer civil debate and solidarity. But again, what do I know, I'm too busy working for the movement to work against it.

It's not petty insults. I'm trying to delegitimize the saboteurs, and encouraging everyone else to do so. They are not part of any movement that I am part of. Nor will there be any "street brawls". Once the mass movement makes a clear decision that is we - not the cops - that must "police" our struggles, then the cowards will melt away.

And please don't feed this lie about babble threads suggesting we turn people in to the police. One or two doubtful characters have made those comments and enjoyed no support here.

If you're interested in my views, I expressed them here, in the stupidly-named "Expose the Vandals" thread. The issue is not to "expose the vandals". The issue is to neutralize and expel them from our mass mobilizations.

Sure. In the context of a discrete action organized at the behest of a single entity or coalition that has a clear mandate to act in a specific way that has been previously negotiated, suppression of certain kinds of objectionable activities would be permissable. However, that wasn't the situation at the G20.

Indeed all of the labour sponsored events went off without a hitch. Indeed, as far as I can tell, and according to police documents captured at the scene, the BB (SOAR) activities happened far away from any other peaceful activities, far beyond the scope of the labour union activities and this was an agreed upon policy of all participants. Therefore the union had no responsibiity for those activities, nor did the SOAR infringe upon the rights of the peaceful protestors.

Indeed mediation between the main demonstrations and the BB is absolutely essential to making this distinction clear, without it the result would be total chaos, likely with disputes about tactics appearing in the heat of the moment, without clear parameters for engagement on the scene. That could be truly disasterous. Indeed the reason the labour demonstrations went off without a hitch, is largely because of clearly negotiated principles of engagement, aimed at serparating different tactics.

It was the police who decided to pin the BB activities upon the rest of the movement, when in fact these activities were basically independent, except for liason work between the two, aimed precisely at making the distinction between the differing protest tactics totally clear.

What is happening here is that the police and the authorities have successfully managed to get some people on this board to dillgently and agressively present the authorities justifications for what what the police did as the "truth".

Laying the guilt for the police crack down at the foot of the BB is precisely the public relations strategy being pursued by the authorities in order to distract from their guilt and responsibility for their own actions.

This was achieved without the need to eject anyone, since, the seperation of the SOAR demonstration and the other activities planned by the unions and other NGO's was agreed to prior to the demonstrations between the parties. No BB activities happened at Queens Park, or in any of the labour sponsored demonstrations.

It was the police who decided that the negotiations that took place to clearly seperate different types of activists amounted to complicity between all. As far as I can tell the SOAR did everything it could to keep its side of the bargain.

I'll check later. Just got back in.

Southern Ontario Anarchist Resistance.

If you feel that way about it, its hard to comprehend why you have spent the last few days ranting about these "thugs" and "vandals". Inconsistent? Well yes, Confused? Yes again. Who is it? Cruisin_turtle.

As for your previous errouneous assertion. No one at all "crashed" any labour events. Indeed, there were clear statements indicating that persons engaging in BB activities were NOT to disrupt the peaceful events, as you can see. Where are the reports of vandalism occurring at labour sponsored events? There are none.

The only disruptions were caused by the police.

Now why don't you stop making stuff up, and do your own research. Hint: Google is your friend.

Try reading the whole post. I left a hint for you there.

I don't think you are a sensible person who cares about social justice. How could anyone who refused to even research the issues he prattles on about know anything about social justice or be sensible? Insensible would be a better word. Here, you demand I research anarchist web sites, I suggest you do that research yourself, and you retort with a completely unrelated repetition of the exact same thing you have said over and over again.

By the by, the reason I don't have a ready list of "anarchist" web sites is because I never visit them.

My favourite episode so far has been you repeatedly defending the board's decision to ban the word pig from thread titles without even reading the statements made by moderators as to why they made the decision, as you admitted. Could anyone who defends a position without even knowing the stated reason behind doing it actually have "sense", common or otherwise?

Did you bother to "google" "anarchist" like I suggested? Doubtful. Therefore, I can only consider that most of your posts are not much more that bad faith trolling, or so it seems to me.