The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Vandals or sanctions?

On Sun, 14 Mar 1999 23:11:24 +0000 (GMT), you wrote:

>>Many ordinary people are prepared to campaign within the limits of the
>>law and will even break the law in certain ways but will not support the
>>use of vandalism . 
>I'm not sure that real campaigns work like this. Lots of people
>participated in the anti-apartheid movement, CND, and the campaign against
>the poll tax, knowing full well that others were committing vandalism
>while not being prepared to take part in it themselves. 
I was involved in some of the protests and it was from there that I
realised that such acts were damaging what we were trying to do .
At one protest  the only coverage we got was pictures of the police
arresting one of the six  trouble makers . Not one picture of the
hundred or so peaceful marchers , I watched as families who had come
to protest got in their cars and went home rather than be associated
with it . These were sincere people who wanted to play a part in the
protest  driven away by a few who felt it would be more effective to
be seen at the front causing trouble.
>And vandalism
>isn't always a turn-off; what about all those respectable quaker ladies
>who would go back week after week to cut the wire at missile bases?
And how effective  was it ?  How long were the bombers here? 
> In
>the case we're discussing, the 'vandalism' was really quite token 
Quote ; ...............the pair through buckets of red paint at the FO
wall where they also wrote the messages "Stop the killing" and "Lift
the Sanctions". The FO is claiming 2178 worth of damages
end quote
>- almost
>like sticking a poster on a bus stop (which is also criminal damage, by
>the way). 
If that is the case ,was it worth it ? (No I am not suggesting do
anything more serious <S>)   However , the inference from the press is
that it was more and it is this that the public will read and on this
the incident ( and the campaign ) will be judged.
It is often the interpretation that the media spreads far and wide
that will be how the action is seen by the vast number of the public.
The media will blow  any small incident into a major event if it will
sell papers and it is their reporting that will win or lose
supporters. Give them any excuse to print stories that show people
breaking the law and in the minds of the general public  will be the
idea that supporters of this protest are all guilty of criminal acts
and many people will not want to be involved with it . 
And I go back to my original point that we __need __ all the support
we can get .

>The important point, I think, is this - even if you wouldn't have done
>something in quite the same way, or you have some disagreement with the
>methods, which side are you on when there is an arrest? Sometimes you
>decide to support an action PRECISELY BECAUSE you wouldn't have done it
Personally ,I would only support an action if I felt it was right and
achieved something.
But in some cases   yes I agree . However when the actions are likely
to be counter-productive to the cause that I am fighting for then I
must speak my mind and say so . Obviously the people involved felt
that their actions were justified ,and I do not doubt their sincerity
for one minute , but I feel that such actions detract from arguing the
case within the framework of the law .

>Out of solidarity with Iraqis, I'm backing the protesters. 
Out of solidarity  with Iraqis ,I'm backing the use of our right to
protest .
When the issue goes to court , if found guilty , the offenders may get
a fine/prison sentence . The media once again focuses on the  "
anti-Iraq  Vandals" and more people dissociate with the cause
(particularly if there is a demonstartion of support  outside the
courts) .  Who wins here?  Certainly not the Anti-Sanctions groups.
If anyone has gained it is the Government because they can build on
the press coverage by implying  that  ALL the protesters are criminals
like during the poll-tax campagns .
>As for scaring MPs; I fear that Iraq is never going to make the difference
>at an election.
Mrs. T thought that she could introduce the poll-tax but when her own
party realised that it was a vote-loser ..................  MPs want
to keep their jobs and if enough people pester them then they will
have to listen.
The anti-sanctions movement need the support of the ordinary public
and having the media on our side would help in getting the message

Do not doubt for one instance that I am completely opposed to the
US/UK actions but I disagree with any action that will bring the
Anti-sanctions campaigns into disrepute which I feel such actions
will .

Grayham Chayney
This is a discussion list run by Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To be removed/added, email, NOT the
whole list. Archived at

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]