PNW anarchist high jinks

[Ele'ill]

http://www.anarchistnews.org/content/evergreen-anarchist-workshop-halted-after-bloggers-camera-thrown-balcony


An anarchist workshop held at The Evergreen State College was halted Saturday after a Mason County blogger’s camera equipment was stolen and thrown off a third-story balcony, according to campus officials.
Blogger John Smith, known online as “Amicus Curia,” had planned on photographing the events during the Olympia Anarchist Convergence, a two-day workshop scheduled on campus.
“It was a public event as we understood,” said Todd Sprague, college spokesperson.
Smith, 67, was blocked from entering the classroom where the workshop was being held, on the third floor of the Seminar Two building.
“They blocked me and said you aren’t welcome here,” Smith said. “I said it’s a public facility, a public event, but they blocked me, then kind of pushed me out the door.”
Smith said he was stepping out to contact campus police when one participant of the workshop grabbed his digital camera. Another grabbed his video camera gear and threw it off third-story balcony.
Smith estimated that the equipment was $10,000.
Campus police and administrators tried to get the names of the people involved, but the student group running the event would not cooperate, Sprague said.
“We went over and talked with the student group sponsoring the event and said we wanted to get the names of the people involved,” Sprague said. “We were unable to get the names and told them if we don’t, we will be disbanding the event.”
Campus police were preparing to end the event when they discovered those involved had already left.
“It was a two-day workshop as planned, and they were about halfway through their first day and they have now left the campus,” Sprague said. “It’s not our intention to allow it to reconvene on campus.”
Smith was able to recover some of the equipment that was thrown from the balcony. The digital camera is still missing.
“I’m pretty sold on the idea of its a public venue and public spaces belong to all of us,” Smith said. “The campus said I have every right to be here. It’s a public event – a public institution.”

[The Douche]

Background on the blogger?

[bricolage]

what's PNW?

[The Douche]

what's PNW?

Pacific North West.

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What are the politics of the "Amicus Curia" person? I am not familiar with his blog. Was this anarchist worksop an open event? Either way, and especially if the event was a workshop type event it is very understandable not wanting someone to film it, esp if he was (obviously) uninvited by anyone.

It seems that the people who ran the workshop could have handled security better in the first place.

[Ele'ill]

I have been unable to find anything about the blogger or find their actual blog

[Popular Front of Judea]

How is this dispute between a local crank and participants in a regional anarchist gathering news?

Oh and Monty Python references are always welcome as far as I am concerned.

[Popular Front of Judea]

If you go to the comments of the original article you can get a good sense of 'Amicus Curia':

disqus.com/google-3d25dfb4fff9836ddc111424dad85c79/


I have been unable to find anything about the blogger or find their actual blog

[bcbm]

I have been unable to find anything about the blogger or find their actual blog

http://amicuscuria.com/wordpres

and if you goto the puget sound anarchist site and search the name a bunch of stupid comments come up

[Ele'ill]

How is this dispute between a local crank and participants in a regional anarchist gathering news?



a lot of @news stuff ends up being posted here in non-political because it's funny entertaining news that isn't all that important

[Leftsolidarity]

Anarchy, fuck yeah!


I would ask you the same thing. It seems you're just jealous of my banter.



Verbal Warning for Trolling

[Susurrus]

I think that was rather stupid of them. If he had been inside the workshop trying to start shit or shouting over everything or some such circumstance, then it would be justified, but the story as told there sounds like they were just being asses. Admittedly, being asses to a really dumb blogger, but still being asses.

[bcbm]

I think that was rather stupid of them. If he had been inside the workshop trying to start shit or shouting over everything or some such circumstance, then it would be justified, but the story as told there sounds like they were just being asses. Admittedly, being asses to a really dumb blogger, but still being asses.

he went with the intent of photographing it

[o well this is ok I guess]

He's got comments up on pugetsoundanarchists
http://pugetsoundanarchists.org/search/node/amicus

Standard libertarian shit, nothing particularly noteworthy.

[Susurrus]

he went with the intent of photographing it

Yes, and?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Couldn't find anything, but the right-wing of the tea-party sort has been doing this as a pretty regular tactic at least since that one guy got famous for trolling ACORN. (not that cameras haven't been used for intimidation for various reasons from discouraging police abuse on the street to trying to shame women seeking abortion).

It's digital McCarthyism.


How is this dispute between a local crank and participants in a regional anarchist gathering news?If it is, it's because it fits into the media's narrative about anarchists and leftists in general: we're violent and actually hate dissent... therefore violence and clampdowns on our speech is OK.

[Ele'ill]

Yes, and?


There becomes a time at these events and similar ones when it becomes obvious what certain people's intentions are for being there. Bloggers and journalists are often known from previous situations. In case it wasn't clear some 'journalists' are politically motivated, disruptive, violent and unsafe for anybody on the left to be around because of their right wing ties and because they talk with cops quite often in exchange for what's basically a top of the list press pass to breaking news (or simply because they really like america and cops)

[Jimmie Higgins]

Yes, and?And it's difficult to have open political discussion if people in the room feel like they are being briebarted, filmed so that fascists can put some faces and names together, or just going to have what they say taken out of context or mocked.

To a certain extent it is unavoidable - if someone is determined enough - especially today when a cell phone camera can record things. But there are ways to minimize it and people organizing a meeting should be able to set terms for participation and attendance.

If striking workers are meeting, we can't allow some unknown person come in a film because they might intimidate people who don't want to be on camera and they might be working for the boss to single out people for firing. The same goes for immigrants, the same goes for meetings about police brutality where I can pretty much say from experience will have some guy in there trying to send notes to the cops.

The ass in this situation is the blogger. If the blogger was sincere, then he obviously wouldn't have minded being asked to put the camera away, but I don't think he was interested in "an exchange of ideas" or seeing what others think about things for the hell of it.

Even with the mainstream media we have to be smart and know that no matter what they tell us, no matter how much they say they are on our side or will be sympathetic, they need their "ins" with the cops and city hall much more than they need to keep the trust of some random radical.

All that being said there are good and bad ways to try and deal with this sort of thing, and keeping him out as the organizers did was fine - he would have complained about being "virtually pushed" (i.e. people probably blocked him from entering and told him to leave) and no one would really give a shit. Unfortunately, someone throwing the camera allowed this blogger to do what he wanted anyway. Rather than whining that "violent thug-culture hip-hop leftists welfare queens" wouldn't let him photograph people at their event to a handful of right-wing ditto-heads on his blog, he gets to play victim and get exposure in the local press where they can sell their narratives of our violent thug-culture hip-hop entitlement-grabbing leftist ways. It still doesn't matter that much, but it mostly just sucks that the event ended up being shut down and the campus admin. was able to use this as a pretext to keep them from organizing there.

[Ele'ill]

Something I don't exactly understand is the hesitation towards or flat out resentment towards the people in this situation throwing out the journalist with the complaint basically parroting what the cops, press, campus police, campus admins, would be saying that 'this is a public/private space u can't do that' given the laws and policies attached to such locations and as if any of those locations are actually 'public' and I'd really be curious to know how these leftists criticizing this respond to things like rent strikes, squats, student occupations, private property in general. It kind of just comes across as typical anti-anarchist in-fighting from what I guess could be called a 'left' current.

[Ele'ill]

Unfortunately, someone throwing the camera allowed this blogger to do what he wanted anyway. Rather than whining that "violent thug-culture hip-hop leftists welfare queens" wouldn't let him photograph people at their event to a handful of right-wing ditto-heads on his blog, he gets to play victim and get exposure in the local press where they can sell their narratives of our violent thug-culture hip-hop entitlement-grabbing leftist ways. It still doesn't matter that much, but it mostly just sucks that the event ended up being shut down and the campus admin. was able to use this as a pretext to keep them from organizing there.

I disagree with this last bit entirely. The probable reason he didn't get to photograph is because after refusing to leave and continuing to maintain his course some folks realized that the meeting wouldn't function with him there, perhaps realizing that it was going to be a lost cause entirely with him there making people feel too uncomfortable to participate, and that he wasn't leaving after being asked, then the only chance and option left was to do what they did which was- taking his shit and throwing it over third story balcony. There was no alternative and had there been it would have been submitting to him getting what he wants which is probable snitching photographs, audio, video over to cops especially ahead of this May in light of last May and that would have been really stupid lax security culture.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I disagree with this last bit entirely. The probable reason he didn't get to photograph is because after refusing to leave and continuing to maintain his course some folks realized that the meeting wouldn't function with him there, perhaps realizing that it was going to be a lost cause entirely with him there making people feel too uncomfortable to participate, and that he wasn't leaving after being asked, then the only chance and option left was to do what they did which was- taking his shit and throwing it over third story balcony. There was no alternative and had there been it would have been submitting to him getting what he wants which is probable snitching photographs, audio, video over to cops especially ahead of this May in light of last May and that would have been really stupid lax security culture.

I don't know what the conditions were there, so I'm just having to make some assumptions. It seemed like from the article that they were able to prevent him from entering. Still even if he was hanging around and intimidating people, I think there could have been a more organized and neutralizing strategy used. Someone could have been sent to troll him (I have a comrade who when this sort of thing happens likes to take it upon himself to basically waste their time by improvising a strange religious theological discussion about the vital importance of accepting Jesus as our savior - he's an atheist, he just likes to troll the right*). Someone could have gotten their own video camera and followed him around while trolling him with inane questions. People could have surrounded him to keep him from getting pictures, people could have just chanted him down.

As far as him getting what he wants... well the camera being thrown allowed him to cry to the campus and the cops and the event was shut down. If he wanted to pass pictures to the police, well now he has a "criminal" charge he can make. It just seems like to me that he probably got more than he was hoping for in terms of sabotaging us. But like I said, I'm mostly speculating because I don't know what the situation looked like. But if there was any possibly effective alternative, then I think it would probably have been better than someone taking it apon themselves to throw his camera off the thing. Fuck I mean even selling the camera would have been better because folks could have used the couple thousand that the camera was supposedly worth (yeah supposedly) and rented a really awesome space off campus. I'm kidding, that's what Stalin would have done in his bank-robbing days.

Anyway, in Occupy Oakland this was always a big deal because we were having committes in the plaza often and assholes with cameras would just walk in. Most of the time we could say, "we don't want to be filmed, the GA voted to not film people without their permission" and they'd be some random hipster with an expensive camera who likes to live life through documenting things and they were just naive and curious about us. Sometimes they'd be press and they'd get all indignant and entitled. Probably no cops though - they had cameras enough on us from the surrounding buildings. Sometimes we were more rude than we needed to be, sometimes too lax. We should try and learn how to be savvy about this kind of thing - attacking cameramen or breaking cameras doesn't work for celebrities let alone us. I think when possible neutralizing someone like this is better than doing something that will feed his persecution complex, not to mention, more importantly, get our events shut down and prevent us from being able to operate. But like I said, I don't know what the realistic options could have been for them, so it's all speculation and heinseight.

Sorry about this post going off the rails there at the end (the stalin thing, the general rambling), I'm about to go to sleep.

*Because what kind of muckraking could a right wing blogger do with that: "Commies exposed: Marxists meet to discuss salvation through Jesus".

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't think you know what trolling is. Flaming maybe, baiting maybe (and those are big maybes), certainly not trolling.

Verbal warning for semantics :rolleyes:

[Ele'ill]

I don't know what the conditions were there, so I'm just having to make some assumptions. It seemed like from the article that they were able to prevent him from entering. Still even if he was hanging around and intimidating people, I think there could have been a more organized and neutralizing strategy used. Someone could have been sent to troll him (I have a comrade who when this sort of thing happens likes to take it upon himself to basically waste their time by improvising a strange religious theological discussion about the vital importance of accepting Jesus as our savior - he's an atheist, he just likes to troll the right*). Someone could have gotten their own video camera and followed him around while trolling him with inane questions. People could have surrounded him to keep him from getting pictures, people could have just chanted him down.

But these suggestions here wouldn't have stopped him from getting photographs, audio, video, all while 'being trolled' adds to the disruption of the workshop space and he would have (I've seen this done before btw) had the same 'anti left' ammunition in fact arguably more so. Currently in the last year or so in the PNW the narrative has been if you are press and are unwanted and you get aggressive you will get hit and your shit will get smashed. It is because of these journalists snitching to the state for special favors from the police departments. I think theoretically the desirable option would be that if you are unwanted press 10k worth of your stuff goes missing or gets smashed and if you continue to get physical people will defend themselves rather than if you are unwanted press you will be allowed to enter get photographs, audio, video, have people there contribute to the disruption of their own meeting by 'trolling' (I know what this looks like it's loud and obnoxious).




As far as him getting what he wants... well the camera being thrown allowed him to cry to the campus and the cops and the event was shut down. If he wanted to pass pictures to the police, well now he has a "criminal" charge he can make. It just seems like to me that he probably got more than he was hoping for in terms of sabotaging us.This isn't the first time journalists have had their shit stolen or broken and very rarely do the people get caught because they are smart about it. I recognize a lot of these cop loving journalists and tea party bloggers at marches here and they all had a history of being brave and violet until people stood up to them. Now, regardless of 'bad press' against anarchists or whoever from years ago these idiots steer clear of marches and gathering spaces. It isn't an end all solution as there will always be people that are new journalists or who want to continue to push when they can but that doesn't mean we should relinquish resistance to them or defense of our space.


But like I said, I'm mostly speculating because I don't know what the situation looked like. But if there was any possibly effective alternative, then I think it would probably have been better than someone taking it apon themselves to throw his camera off the thing. Fuck I mean even selling the camera would have been better because folks could have used the couple thousand that the camera was supposedly worth (yeah supposedly) and rented a really awesome space off campus. I'm kidding, that's what Stalin would have done in his bank-robbing days.Well I'd imagine the gear that got smashed was probably not actively in use yet where the gear that went missing might have had photographs since I think the article said it was his digital camera that went missing. Who knows.


Anyway, in Occupy Oakland this was always a big deal because we were having committes in the plaza often and assholes with cameras would just walk in. Most of the time we could say, "we don't want to be filmed, the GA voted to not film people without their permission" and they'd be some random hipster with an expensive camera who likes to live life through documenting things and they were just naive and curious about us. Sometimes they'd be press and they'd get all indignant and entitled. Probably no cops though - they had cameras enough on us from the surrounding buildings. Sometimes we were more rude than we needed to be, sometimes too lax. We should try and learn how to be savvy about this kind of thing - attacking cameramen or breaking cameras doesn't work for celebrities let alone us. I think when possible neutralizing someone like this is better than doing something that will feed his persecution complex, not to mention, more importantly, get our events shut down and prevent us from being able to operate. But like I said, I don't know what the realistic options could have been for them, so it's all speculation and heinseight.

Sorry about this post going off the rails there at the end (the stalin thing, the general rambling), I'm about to go to sleep.

*Because what kind of muckraking could a right wing blogger do with that: "Commies exposed: Marxists meet to discuss salvation through Jesus".I think having a meeting in a plaza especially regarding occupy is different then having specifically anarchist workshops in a building in a room.


also just to give perspective on my position here I don't like most anarchist spaces I find them alienating and weird in a cult kind of way, this includes meetings and stuff but it isn't across the board and I dont' think this matters much in this situation because it didn't matter from my previous experience elsewhere.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Aww crap, now I hafta mod.

Verbal warning to Everyone, calm down. Please keep it on track, everyone take a breath, no trolling/flaming or counter-trolling/flaming please.

Tim, most likly if you left just the one comment, it people would have let it slide. But then if you do mutliple one-liners like that, (specifically "anarchy, fuck yeah") how do you expect there to be any decent discussion comeing from it? Of course people are going to respond rudely to flippant comments, that's why we try and remind people not to do this!

Believe it or not, but I think most of the mods here would rather just discuss things and have interesting exchanges, not have to remind people to be civil.

[The Douche]

Fuck the media, fuck this dude, fuck his camera equipment, fuck his story, fuck his crybaby bullshit.

Fuck Tim Cornelis for being the wettest blanket on revleft.

[Ele'ill]

endless carnage


http://www.anarchistnews.org/content/mayor-laughs-anarchist-book-fair-assault




Mayor laughs off anarchist book fair assault


George Ferguson has laughed off an incident at a book fair in which he was pushed to the floor and had coffee poured over him.
The Bristol mayor was at the Anarchist Book fair at the Trinity Centre in Old Market on Saturday when he said on Twitter he was “roughed up”.
He said he had warm coffee poured over him when he entered the venue. The man who poured the coffee over him refused to leave, or accept the offer from Mr Ferguson to shake his hand. It was then that the mayor was pushed to the floor.
Despite the incident, Mr Ferguson refused to involve police and backed the organisers of the fair, saying: “I’ll defend your right to hold it. Lots of people enjoyed it & generally good spirit – no accounting for idiots.”
Organisers of the fair said they were not made aware of what happened to the mayor until after the event. “Organisers didn’t get the wind of what happened with the mayor until after he had left,” they said.
Venue managers at the Trinity Centre added: “Good to see George Fergusonx supporting Bristol Bookfair – despite a one unpleasant character, the event was a real success.”
Meanwhile, at the event, Mr Ferguson ‘endorsed’ the new Bristolian magazine. Describing itself as the ‘smiter of the high and mighty’, its latest issue reports on “Junket George” and his trips to Europe.

[The Douche]

endless carnage


http://www.anarchistnews.org/content/mayor-laughs-anarchist-book-fair-assault

Who the fuck would associate with any "anarchists" (so-called) who allowed the mayor into their spaces?

[Ele'ill]

Who the fuck would associate with any "anarchists" (so-called) who allowed the mayor into their spaces?

I know. There was a silly ftp march here recently where the mayor came out and met the march and everyone stopped and gave him time and space and acknowledged him and questions bounced back and forth and it turned into the most ridiculous Q&A sessions ever basically the mayor trolling. Apparently that's what mayors do now to anarchists, at least in that case coffee was wasted and he was pushed to the floor.

[Ravachol]

I know. There was a silly ftp march here recently where the mayor came out and met the march and everyone stopped and gave him time and space and acknowledged him and questions bounced back and forth and it turned into the most ridiculous Q&A sessions ever basically the mayor trolling. Apparently that's what mayors do now to anarchists, at least in that case coffee was wasted and he was pushed to the floor.

I guess that's what "speaking truth to power!" looks like in practice.

[Leftsolidarity]

Who the fuck would associate with any "anarchists" (so-called) who allowed the mayor into their spaces?

That's what I was wondering. I'm assuming the guy who pushed him was probably just an asshole showing off how anarchy he is. But why was the mayor even there? The organizers should have kept him out.

[Ele'ill]

http://pugetsoundanarchists.org/content/short-reflection-what-led-olympia-anarchist-convergence-%E2%80%9Cnot-happening%E2%80%9D


A Short Reflection On What Led Up to The Olympia Anarchist Convergence, “Not Happening.”

Tue, 04/23/2013 - 5:32pm
I arrived on Olympia’s Evergreen State College campus at 9:30am eagerly awaiting the events scheduled to take place at the Olympia Anarchist Convergence that was expected to begin at 10:00am in Seminar II of Building C on the third floor (which was a chore to find.) Doors opened; distros, publishers and other anarchist projects were funneling into the tabling area to set-up their commerce. The first workshop, “Why Insurrection? An Introduction to Contemporary Ideas in Anarchism,” started a little late, but from my perspective, this was due to a ‘not wanting the presentation to interrupt the delicious free breakfast’ that rolled out shortly beforehand(greens, grits, scrambled eggs, etc., I even heard word of there having been coffee and donuts earlier on!) The workshop sounded like poetry as it traversed the telling of a story of some anarchists break with the classical and the leftist; a legacy of transgression that led the practice of what is termed ‘anarchist insurrectionary praxis’. During this workshop a “situation” presented itself outside, at the front door of the building. A “media-blogger”, known as “Santa Claus” to some, attempted to roll into the anarchist convergence with, what Santa reported as being, $10,000 worth of camera equipment, presumably to continue his tendency to snap photos of attendees as subversive events without consideration of ‘the photographed’ possible concerns. Santa Claus blogs under the name “Amicus Curia”, which translates over as ‘lover of the court’ (you can assume this person is not referring to the basketball or tennis courts.) I will not express myself in this reflection as a witness to this happening, but in Santa Claus’ refusal to non-violently leave the Olympia Anarchist Convergence their camera equipment found its way off of the 3rd floor balcony outside the entrance to building C on the evergreen state college campus’ small bush garden enclosed by cement. You need not attempt justification for this having happened, although some people offer the violent, threatening, nature of Santa Claus’ intent, as justification for what followed. But outside the dichotomy of ‘right and wrong’, the only thing that can be reported is, this happened and was a response of some(one) to the violent, antagonizing presence of another, who came only to disrupt, and refused to listen after being asked time and time again to leave. Some anarchists have a sordid history that involved ‘de-escalation training's’ and sometimes tact informs us to employ that education, but time and time again we encounter the experience that reminds us of de-escalations failure, and react by employing tactics of escalation(but note, use of the words ‘ escalation’ is only in regard to the anarchist response to the situation, the violent nature of the media pigs camera[along with their intentions for using the photos] far exceeded violence preceding the smashed state their camera equipment phenomenologically experienced in its end.) What will follow is probably some poor sole being scapegoated by the state and prosecuted on some level with responsibility of the “injustice”; for as we know justice, especially the justice of the state, will prosecute whomever (even the uninvolved and ‘innocent’ of the “injustice”) as long as they can relay to the public that “justice was served” (fuck a lot of ‘quote, un-quote’s’ were needed for that sentence, sometime i don't even know what i'm quoting, lmao.) Directly following the incident, the campus pigs were tailed and their conversations overheard which tipped off the participants of the convergence that evergreen’s administration and cops made a decision to escalate the situation by directly calling in Thurston County’s swine to forcefully remove us from campus. No one had much passion for holding onto the space (…the cement walls and stale “green” box architecture of evergreens seminar II, building C.) So, what happened next? Everyone moved to a new location and continued on to the next joyful situation (which was two days of hanging out, eating great food, meeting new people, participating in workshops and group discussions that were originally planned to be held on the campus, and then plenty of other awesome and exciting things!)
In conclusion, and in the style of Jay-Z(barf), “I got a million ways to get it…on to the next one”.
-some anarchists

[Ele'ill]

I don't usually read the comments but I have a large coffee in my blood


Comments

benzene
Wed, 04/24/2013 - 8:39am Wow, great job people. I was at this around 10:30AM right before this guy showed up and even helped him find the place. Don't you think that being exclusive is maybe counter-productive? Doing stupid juvenile shit like this is detrimental for everyone else. Let people take pictures, let people report things on their blogs. I had my camera with me and I'm pretty happy it didn't get tossed off the balcony as well.
By tossing his camera equipment off the balcony and refusing to let him attend you are no better than the 'pigs' which you so vehemently write about. Any real anarchist movement will be an inclusive movement which recognizes that the only way to make change is to have people which support you, and like it or not some of those people are going to probably be police, media or even people who work in the court system.


There is a bowl of oatmeal actually typing at someone's computer somewhere in the world. I find that alarming.

[Quail]

Okay, I'm going to trash the off-topic stuff now. Jimmie Higgins already issued a general verbal warning, so if you don't have anything relevant to say, don't post.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Who the fuck would associate with any "anarchists" (so-called) who allowed the mayor into their spaces?

Presumably he let himself in. I assume these kind of events are open to the general public?


That's what I was wondering. I'm assuming the guy who pushed him was probably just an asshole showing off how anarchy he is. But why was the mayor even there? The organizers should have kept him out.

Why? I can totally understand not making any special arrangements, not wanting to enable some insincere photo opportunity or not going out of one's way to make any other kind of fuss, but what exactly is gained by pushing out some minor official?

If the mayor wants to attend, I think a better approach would be to insist that they do so just like everyone else - completely without handlers, paid sycophants, hangers-on and similar personnel. Isn't that the kind of thing that anarchy is about? If they refuse to do that, then I think it would be reasonable to turn them away.

[Ele'ill]

Most of the time at least here those types of officials come with an entourage of cops and press which is disruptive. From what it sounds like the bigger issue is that someone pushed and dumped the coffee and there was little support to begin with which is what would/could have pushed the Mayor out otherwise it can just appear as though it was macho bs. In an anarchist space that allows government officials, press, and cops I wouldn't have felt comfortable doing/saying anything I would have just left.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Most of the time at least here those types of officials come with an entourage of cops and press which is disruptive.

Indeed, which is why I suggested that entry should be conditional on losing the entourage. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be allowed in.


From what it sounds like the bigger issue is that someone pushed and dumped the coffee and there was little support to begin with which is what would/could have pushed the Mayor out otherwise it can just appear as though it was macho bs.

I think a better way of dealing with this sort of thing is to have someone on hand to deal with "officialdom" at the point of entry. If they're looking for a photo op or something then they can be formally told to piss off. If they're visiting as a private individual then the doorkeeper can make sure of that as well as alerting the organisers of the situation, so that eyes can be constantly kept on them during their visit.

I'd consider the temporary role reversal to be fair play in this instance. Who knows, it may even prove enlightening.


In an anarchist space that allows government officials, press, and cops I wouldn't have felt comfortable doing/saying anything I would have just left.

This doesn't make sense. Anarchist spaces are usually in my experience open to the general public, so it's not like some state, corporate or other organisation wanting intelligence can't just send in someone (or indeed, multiple someones) to these kind of events incognito. If there are things you are uncomfortable discussing publicly, then it strikes me as counter-productive to do so... in public.

[Ele'ill]

Indeed, which is why I suggested that entry should be conditional on losing the entourage. If they can't do that, they shouldn't be allowed in.

I think this conversation is getting a little muddled and drifting into the framework established by the state. There is no 'not letting in' legally at least because it is a 'public' space and in the event of cops well we know what can happen there. In regards specifically to the PNW workshop situation I'd stress that these events should not simply be about 'theory, isn't it great' and more about 'praxis, let's do it'. I think most of the workshop was about insurrectionary stuff anyways. Kudos to the people who actualized their beliefs instead of throwing up their hands and saying welp we legally gotta.




I think a better way of dealing with this sort of thing is to have someone on hand to deal with "officialdom" at the point of entry. If they're looking for a photo op or something then they can be formally told to piss off. If they're visiting as a private individual then the doorkeeper can make sure of that as well as alerting the organisers of the situation, so that eyes can be constantly kept on them during their visit.

I'd consider the temporary role reversal to be fair play in this instance. Who knows, it may even prove enlightening.


For the reasons listed below I'd be opposed to any space that allows cops or mayors or other politicians to walk about in and I don't think one person at a door and being 'official' is going to change any of the events in fact it probably makes it easier for press and cops to get in. Regarding movement building and 'attracting people' I think it would be more important to attract people to what radical politics, in this case anarchism, actually is which is militant opposition to cops, politicians, the state etc.. instead of playing pretend nice as possible so folks don't get scared away.






This doesn't make sense. Anarchist spaces are usually in my experience open to the general public, so it's not like some state, corporate or other organisation wanting intelligence can't just send in someone (or indeed, multiple someones) to these kind of events incognito. If there are things you are uncomfortable discussing publicly, then it strikes me as counter-productive to do so... in public.

You misunderstood. In this case I'm not concerned with infiltrators that are incognito (I mean I am but not talking about it here) I'm concerned with the public space becoming uncomfortable and unapproachable for a lot of folks because there are politicians and cops present. Their presence is not benign.

[Ele'ill]

By the way I don't find this topic and event to be terribly important or anything I feel like I am getting sucked into microanalyzing stuff when I don't care about bookfairs or workshops that much to begin

[The Douche]

Presumably he let himself in. I assume these kind of events are open to the general public?



Why? I can totally understand not making any special arrangements, not wanting to enable some insincere photo opportunity or not going out of one's way to make any other kind of fuss, but what exactly is gained by pushing out some minor official?

If the mayor wants to attend, I think a better approach would be to insist that they do so just like everyone else - completely without handlers, paid sycophants, hangers-on and similar personnel. Isn't that the kind of thing that anarchy is about? If they refuse to do that, then I think it would be reasonable to turn them away.

An anarchist space cannot coexist with state and capital, it must be in opposition to those forces, so if the mayor can walts through your anarchist space, then your space is not anarchist.

I have been at meetings where people were stopped at the door and told they could not come in. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

[Ravachol]

Just invite the mayor to some daft talk on 'the way forward for building the movement: a strategy for the 21st century' and he'll waltz right the fuck out by himself....

[human strike]

People brought up the Bristol Anarchist Bookfair and the incident with the mayor - I was at that event and though I didn't see George Ferguson there myself, I know some of the details around what happened.

He was sort of invited via a tweet by one of the organisers. Now, this "invite" was very tongue-in-cheek and no doubt they didn't actually expect him to turn up. Thing is, that's exactly the kind of thing this man does so it was very ill thought out to even jokingly invite him. I'm sure he was only all too keen to appropriate some of the city's famed "radical culture".

The man who threw tea at the mayor (and possibly pushed him, I dunno) was in fact a socialist and not an anarchist - not that it makes all that much difference. The bookfair is obviously an open space, but should people who are millionaires and actively cutting services in the city be safe in these spaces? I think I'd be disappointed if less had happened to be honest.

Interestingly, he didn't involve the police in any way (there's a police station directly opposite the building where the bookfair took place).

It's worth pointing out that the people at the entrance may not have recognised George Ferguson. Few cities in the UK have elected mayors and not many people are interested in city politics. Mayors aren't especially famous. I doubt I'd recognise him, though he does always wear very distinctive red trousers.