Comment by Ron Guignard
ADELAIDE — On May 9 about 40 people came to the Governor Hindmarsh Hotel for a lively discussion on tactics in recent peace protests.
A panel of five gave widely differing viewpoints. All were very clear and to the point. Each was persuasive. We then discussed what the panel had said. Mary Heath's very able facilitation kept hostility at bay, but gave us each our say.
Panel member Barbara Baird clearly analysed the multiple roles each of us has. She said that we can empower any person in terms of one or more of these roles. Thus, each should get the chance to propose or join in acts that satisfy one or more of their roles. What she said inspired much of what I write here.
One of the debates centred on guerilla tactics, which I had proposed in the context of mass actions such as Aidex. While panelist David Pope wrote this off as elitist, secretive and terrorist, I defined it as using a tactic up to the point just before harm might be done to us, then using that or another tactic elsewhere, or staying put and using a safer tactic.
A mass movement of the size we must create cannot happen if we put off most people by defining mass tactics to mean that every person must always do the same thing at the same time. People must not be needled and/or misled into doing the "one correct action". That would be militarism, not militancy.
Barbara Baird made one point particularly clearly: we need much, and detailed, work before a protest. Prior work should ensure at least that groups don't get in each other's way. Ideally, groups' actions should be coordinated by agreement.
Each group should have workshops on matters related to its intended actions. The workshops should ensure that all members fully share knowledge and understanding, and should enhance trust between members.
There should also be a workshop on how groups can work together. This should be designed to increase trust between groups and should include a topic on effective liaison with police. The workshop should choose one of its number for that task.
We must also know how violence and militancy differ. I define violence as action directed to harm any person's body, mind or sense of being human. That definition need not preclude ethical attempts to sap the morale of opposing forces. I define militancy as using non-orthodox, non-violent actions to achieve goals that cannot be reached by normal means.
In discussion, some people saw no point in non-violence. It would not cause the media were never on our side. This is what I call the hostile media excuse. It's too true, but there are degrees. What if someone had thrown a bomb at the Natex war fair building, or at Bush? How much worse would the media reaction have been? Or, how much less chance would we have given the media to beat up "demonstrators' violence" had we given the police no pretext for their real violence?
One person added that there are cases in which non-violence cannot work, such as East Timor: the can't get there from here excuse. What we must do with non-violence is succeed well and often with guerilla tactics. Then, any violence the state may throw at us will: be brief; harm few; and result in continuous increase in economic, political and social fairness, not in new tyrants.