Lady Jemima Puddlefuck III de Monte Crisco ([info]foibey) wrote,
@ 2008-03-01 22:18:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Rah. Spent day out with [info]twiggy_j mostly in Bolton, including a quick trip to the museum and a stop in at the utterly disreputable Bolton Yates's (their superfluous 's', not mine) and then headed off to Manchester to hang out at the Retro Bar before wandering to the be in the Trans/Queer bloc of the Reclaim The Night march, which was cool.

I can feel really crap at demos where you have some wanker in a white bib shouting at me to chant louder with a megaphone (as happened on this demo, the stewards cajoling people into joining in with their various uninspiring and occasionally vaguely offensive pre-set chants). It made it a lot better being in a bunch of anarchos shouting "No Cops*, No Stewards, Gender is Fluid" instead, and various queer and trans anti-fear slogans ("we're here, we're queer, we're not going to fear") edging towards anticap/poverty slogans as we headed into the gay village ("We're here, we're queer, we can't afford the beer!") and various other fun stuff. It's nice being in a group of people where people propose chants and they either get taken up popularly or dropped by the crowd, instead of having a bunch of shit inflicted on you by a bunch of unelected stewards. It makes you feel somehow involved rather than just there being told what to do say and think.

Various irritating stuff included large numbers of placards stating "proud to be non-violent" (presumably intended for men on the march to carry, to prove how nice and feminist they are), when it seems pretty clear to me that short of the occasional Gandhist martyr in the crowd (and when shit hits the fan amongst the student left they're pretty thin on the ground) practically everyone marching in the mainstream section would be at least in favour of state-sanctioned violence (say the locking up of rapists and wife-beaters for instance), and anyone with the slightest modicum of sense is morally in favour of the use of force for self-defence. By comparison the queer/trans/anarcho section that we seemed to form had a couple of people with a banner saying "Fight Patriarchy By Any Means Available", which goes 100% the other way, and I don't necessarily fully agree with all of it's potential ramifications, but it cheered me up in so much as there's nothing I dislike so much as "non-violent" people who support the existence of a police-force. It's just passing the dirty work onto a bunch of paid muscle, violence wise.

And then I wobbled a bit, and was knackered and dropped [info]twiggy_j quite rudely at the train station because I wasn't making a lot of sense at the time, and went home, and now my legs and hips hurt something chronic.

* Cops? On a Reclaim The Night march? Which if you're going to buy into the whole idea of it being about women getting together and being out by themselves at night seems to defeat the object. Police escort. Including many male officers. Courtesy of HM Patriarchal State. It just doesn't make any sense.


(Post a new comment)


[info]haggis
2008-03-02 11:42 am UTC (link)
If you don't support the existence of some form of police force (I'm not saying the one we've got works perfectly or even well in many cases, but some form), surely you are simply supporting the right of the stronger/more ruthless to control the weaker/less willing to fight? It seems equally Gandhist to assume that won't happen.

The existence of a police force isn't just delegation of 'the dirty work', it should involve accountability for the consequences of that 'dirty work' and how and why it was done. I agree that accountability often fails but I can't see that getting rid of the police altogether gains any more accountability/prevents illegal violence (by the police or anyone else).

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]foibey
2008-03-02 01:34 pm UTC (link)
I'm not against the existance of some sort of organised and accountable means of dealing with anti-social, abusive, fraudulent etc. behaviour (although I'm concerned by the way that the police force as it exists here and pretty much everywhere else to some degree ties into politics, the state and the repression of democracy).

My point was more that professing non-violence (in a really simplistic and blanket way) whilst supporting an organisation predicated on the use and threat of violence is hypocritical. In this sense, being the sense that "non-violent" is used in the majority of the activist community I've seen, it really is passing on the dirty work to hired muscle (or simply ignoring the fact that the police are a violent organisation).

Or rather, what they're doing is watering down solid pacifist ethics to make themselves look good, and becoming philosophically and politically incoherent in the process. Either there are some situations where force can be justified or there aren't. The main importance of this is when "non-violent" activists go on to denounce "violent" activists for defending themselves in various situations (and I'd include a few well known riots in my personal idea of "self-defence" when it's been a matter of kicking out violent, abusive and oppressive cops from areas where they've been persistently harrassing people).

Edited at 2008-03-02 01:46 pm UTC

(Reply to this)(Parent)


[info]shiva_dan
2008-03-03 03:11 am UTC (link)
Thanks for the report, glad it went well :)

I'll really have to try to make it up for the next one - Manchester really seems to be where it's at for awesome queer/trans/crip/anarcho-feminist networkage and stuff... and there were probably about 4 people i know in that bloc, all of whom i really want to catch up with...

I used to be a sort-of-Gandhian anarcho-pacifist, but i grew out of it along with Christianity. I still have a lot of respect for the Gandhian/Quaker-type non-violent position, tho - i think it's probably the most ethically "pure" position possible, but its flaw is that it's basically too optimistic for reality. (It was also difficult for me to reconcile with a pro-abortion position.) I think my views on the subject are pretty much the same as yours now... tho i really don't like debates between anarchists on the acceptability of violence, because they tend to result in really nasty pathologisation (often in the form of psychiatry-invoking ad hominems) from both sides...

(Reply to this)(Thread)


[info]foibey
2008-03-03 07:52 am UTC (link)
I have a sort of bemused respect for Gandhian/Quaker pacifists, in terms of it seeming an incredibly tough philosophy to take at all seriously, and full of self-sacrifice in the name of the greater good.

I just don't think anyone should ever be expected to stand still and accept violence and abuse on a moral level myself. In the cases where people trying to protect themselves from oppression get criticised for doing so by subsections of self-identified pacifists I start smelling victim-blaming but I'm impressed by people with strong enough spiritual or moral convictions to stand and turn the other cheek in terms of the refusal to engage in the use of force.

:)

(Reply to this)(Parent)


Create an Account
Forgot your login?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…