A - I n f o s

a multi-lingual news service by, for, and about anarchists **
News in all languages
Last 30 posts (Homepage) Last two weeks' posts Our archives of old posts

The last 100 posts, according to language
Greek_ 中文 Chinese_ Castellano_ Catalan_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_ The.Supplement

The First Few Lines of The Last 10 posts in:
Castellano_ Deutsch_ Nederlands_ English_ Français_ Italiano_ Polski_ Português_ Russkyi_ Suomi_ Svenska_ Türkçe_
First few lines of all posts of last 24 hours

Links to indexes of first few lines of all posts of past 30 days | of 2002 | of 2003 | of 2004 | of 2005 | of 2006 | of 2007 | of 2008 | of 2009 | of 2010 | of 2011 | of 2012 | of 2013

Syndication Of A-Infos - including RDF - How to Syndicate A-Infos
Subscribe to the a-infos newsgroups

(en) France, Organisation Communiste Libertarie CA #226 - The antirÃpression in all its forms (fr) [machine translation]

Date Tue, 22 Jan 2013 17:41:38 +0200


During the meetings held by the OCL and OLS summer in Ariege, three evenings were devoted to a debate on antirÃpression. Those who attended are for the most collectives in France faced repression against activists and others being invested in the struggles of the prison in general through radio or written (1). We use here three themes of this discussion - rebuilt as questions were made early response - because it seems urgent to be more aggressive in the field of law enforcement, in order to build rapport forces for a wider solidarity and stronger. ---- Today there is an increase in France both prosecutions against the activists, the number of people confined in the prison (35 000 in the early 1980s to 65 000) and the number of sentences distributed by the judiciary.

Far from being a chance this is related to today's society: the repression is a tool for managing certain populations, so it must be analyzed from the company, and not the reverse. Repression is political and social, dozens of anti-terrorism laws passed by the left and right correspond to an increase of conflicts of class: for it is the power to criminalize political activity clapping activists, but this is especially for classes that the situation has worsened. Punishment is also more of preventive against militants in early social movements (with immediate appearance arrests, detention, judicial controls ...), where the State seeks above all to stop these movements.

Pitfalls and handicaps antirÃpression

Who and how do we support? It is argued in general, through collective people with whom there is a close political - by inability to expand our work to others, but also by refusing to play or social workers and Maoists cathos of yesteryear. This approach is the opposite of humanism, often based on the assistantship and victimization leads to defend all causes occurring, including asking people do not or will not support. It is a political will. Thus, at its inception, the Committee Poitevin against the repression of social movements said he did not support the people for which they are charged, thereby distinguishing between guilty and not guilty, but that the state "justice" makes them.

In France there are a number of committees antirÃpression or solidarity funds (2), and these small structures based on solidarity and sustainable grassroots party to maintain the relationship between them (3), but no overall structure of the pools are antirÃpression experiences, then it would help to look at in terms of political strategy the issue of punishment. In addition, positioning theory and practice of collective or different differ - if they do not oppose, for ideological reasons but also and perhaps especially the local history and situation. Environments antirÃpression not immune to competition between their chapels or tribes, many activists do not think much repression before conducting action collective defenses are very rare in the trial ... In such a context, the texts published on repression are generally individual, and they never present balance of practice.

However, if the court cases are all different, we run across the same logic coercive. So better prepare action antirÃpressive posing as a time of struggle, as well as the extent of solidarity is based on the dynamics of movement in which people are prosecuted. For example, if someone is caught in a Rennes antinuclear demonstration, it is important that the antinuclear outside the city are immediately informed and make the fuss about. On Notre-Dame-des-Landes, it is important that the expression of solidarity against repression is expressed elsewhere - we see that this is what is happening more and more.

The experience of the Legal Team, which was set up in Strasbourg on the occasion of cons-NATO summit is interesting because, knowing there would be the opportunity repression vis-Ã-vis the street people have drawn a year before the demonstrations in emphasizing the idea that the social movement was to provide the means to defend themselves. All legal work was done in advance, and research firm in which it was stated that they would not choose their clients, and they should remain available and present at the police station on days when it was necessary.

But what is meant by "solidarity"? Can be attached to people without knowing them, because they are in a movement where one might be led to the cross-e. In this expression of our solidarity, we say things against the company that produces and repression that we fight. However, the pitfalls to avoid when repression is directed against a movement is that the activity gradually invade antirÃpressive space and time devoted to the claim brought by the movement.

We must also always keep in mind that police practices in neighborhoods, particularly cities such as terrorism or security laws, quickly exceed their part to target other environments - see cops intervention methods in demonstrations. This is why it is essential to open up repression - understand issues such trials involving young cities and the importance of support. Unfortunately, we hear more and more: "We're undocumented - and activists - not criminals" ... and this disconnect between the political and the social is damaging to the understanding of what should be our political struggle. Because repression against activists for their work as that of young people who for economic reasons dealent show the same social reality.

How to be the policy at the time of trial to assert the legitimacy of an action? You have to put this action in its social and political context. For example, people who ransacked Montpellier in 1999 to a plot of transgenic rice had a good choice here since the anti-GMO movement is amplified after trial. They did a little prison, but the mobilization against the repression was offensive, the act collectively being claimed, no one to say "innocent" and support committees have emerged around (4).

Conversely, some militant actions are explained or claimed, which creates a total blur relative to the bases of support. In many trials of activists, it seems has lost the desire to win by making the policy around, as if you do not see the interest. Thus, some do-es not go to trial, or do not want to claim the political content of what they are accused or - not always on the basis innocentistes - confront justice, and the level of support, Such an attitude leaves distraught-e. It encourages both say we will not fight for them ... and if you do not it will impact much wider than their simple case, because repression has actually against all of us: the trials are not a personal matter, but affect everyone. That is why it is mobilizing against repression to strengthen a movement, a strike ... or at least not weaken us. In addition, defense is also important at the individual level: even if you do not necessarily win the trial, at least it has not remained passive-e-ve (5). Acceptance in a lot of activists of repression as a reality that must be made is in common with the young cities, convinced that it is "normal" when you go to trial is taking and just wait it out of jail in order to start because there is no other solution. In cities, the repression suffered daily by much of the population is seen as an individual matter of business, not as a social phenomenon, and the idea of ââ collective defense does not cross the minds of - except when it are riots. It is therefore the existence of a collective framework that makes the difference between some trials of activists and those involving young cities.

What position have in relation to persons charged with violent or well qualified by the police and "justice" (as "outrages rebellion" for people invested in a movement or charges after suburban riots)? In a movement, its participants are rarely're deciding the level of violence - and more cops (see es serious injuries resulting from police in charge of the weekend of resistance against EHV line Cotentin-Maine organized last June). Violence is not a criterion for supporting or not the choice of fart showcases during demonstrations, for example, must rather be analyzed in terms of power relations that may or may not create a movement to strengthen. The protest against airport Notre-Dame-des-Landes, on March 24 in Nantes, is a good example: given the importance it represented the radical elements of the opposition at the airport reached a consensus on how the procession was to take place in order to bounce the fight. One of the problems of our communities is that it almost always only reason in terms of face-to-face with the state, while a social movement to reduce conflict with it presents the risk of forgetting the objective of this mobilization. Anyway, if we assume the antirÃpression various levels of conflict, it is important to be clear entry-e on the limits of our support and the objectives we set as it makes it easier to resist any pressure then - otherwise there may be a "hostage", or at least the process of guilt on the part of those who are the most "radical" to those who are fearful of even " traitors. "

How to avoid falling into the fight antirÃpression "democratic"? While in a business, we can fight for better wages without printing defend the wages there, in terms of antirÃpression, es some feel that venturing in this field, they they will defend the idea of ââa possible "good" justice. However, prevent people go to jail and fight to preserve and expand our areas of struggle, this is not to defend the "rule of law" is to defend human rights by trying to reduce the ability of cops to act against us, creating a balance of forces in solidarity to confront repression.

For a collective antirÃpression not reduced over time to a social service or a specialist law requires that its members have a vested interest in their struggle against society, to be placed on that ground. So this group has autonomy in its efforts to support, to be able to say that more people prosecuted (an extension of their speech and with their consent), denouncing the repression against individual on the basis of a own political thinking. We can denounce the role of the BAC, the use of rubber bullets, the removal of DNA. Around the charges for broken panels Decaux, you can fight against advertising, or against urban renewal, its meaning and its social consequences. In theory, antirÃpression environments, there is no distinction between "political" prisoners and "social", that is it in reality? Found in environments antirÃpression this distinction commonly made in society - prisoners social support is a function of acts for which they are pursued. Thus, a revolutionary militant support more easily dealer shit a murderer, a thief, a pedophile. And other cleavages are ...

During the 1970s, the distinction between "political" and "common law" was challenged because a groundswell questioning the whole society and power structures. In the fight against high security (QHS), conducted mainly by "right co" in the 1980s, this separation was not made, the status of political prisoner had been discussed within the detention and people involved in solidarity were not mired in this issue. But struggles anticarcÃrales conducted in the 1990s when the benefits are-era prisoner-s who were invested gathered in solitary confinement (IQ) for very long periods, with beatings, etc.. And in today's society the separation between "political" and "right co" is no longer disputed.

It is now difficult to forge links between struggles or sectors of society. The failure of Interluttes which have been made here and there a few years ago shows: they quickly aborted while growing need to defend the young-are pursued for having participated in protests in successive education. And if, at the outset, in the battle of the "Conti" and their refusal DNA sample, there was something interesting on the political level, they unfortunately do not have defended a political class, and "left" took the opportunity to ask not only DNA-play union activists.

The balance of power with the law How to fight against the judiciary as an instrument to defend a social order? Many illusions exist in the population for "justice." Even in cities, despite slogans such as "Police everywhere, justice nowhere" often initiated, can be seen with the truth justice committees (CVJ). Many people still believe that the court is a place where one can escape the truth form if present witnesses and evidence - and even if the cop or the boss is always relaxed ... (The trial, however, are also only events which can be built around mobilizing _-and where to place a check equal, a highlighting of contradictions because it is only there that the confrontation with the government on these issues takes consistency. )

There is therefore a work of desecration of the judiciary to do. It should show what is repression, and the court is not a space for truth and justice, the regulator of social relations and the ideal tool for this goes as smoothly as possible in a "democracy ". "Justice" claims judge by facts, but it is a class justice, the laws are political, and the same types of people are affected everywhere. We must insist on this: according to the social position, the penalty will not be the same, and with monitoring devices and social control, security laws, it is a reality more marked (6). No need to have done something to be repressed EMail: dating, readings and a range of other elements which are, at any given time, allows the state to appoint a person as its enemy. Can be continued on e-intentions, "conspiracy", etc.. At some point, it will be the "ultra-left" to be targeted; others, Islamists ... according to the objectives of that time is fixed by the Government. The hunt for undocumented immigrants implies that all es undergo many more identity checks than others, regardless of their spontaneous attitude from the police and "justice" - however, as are certain social categories that are repressed and youth gangs are mixed in the cities, police checks are not limited to blacks and Arabs. The 1980s were a very difficult period for antirÃpression and have left traces: the Socialists were in power, the movement was weakened, it was very hard to move and we were pretty isolated es - more qu'aujourd 'Even today: there are now more collective and radio antirÃpression at the time. It is under the left that has spread the idea, against which we must fight, there is no cause for delinquency or social activism, only individual responsibility. And this idea is really rooted - there are more than individuals with the system, and they are responsible for themselves at all levels, emotional, personal, etc..

How to overcome the current weakness of the antirÃpression? In support, we do not generally afford to campaign with tractages markets, press conferences and other frequently turn our words and empty. Regarding arrests and detention, there is information work to do - the need to remain silent, not to be tempted to denounce-e-es other accused in the hope of s' learn best by example. People brought before the courts are often weak (lack of self-confidence due to age, social origin, inexperience, uncertainty about solidarity wait) over a court, c is oppressive: there are cops and cameras everywhere, and there is a big psychological pressure in custody as at the time of the hearings. It also faces the problem of people who refuse to speak in court ("I have nothing to prove, nothing to say") and who seek only to do less harm - to do this because they rely their counsel, which acts as he pleases. They ask him somewhere to get their hands dirty in their place while they maintain their "purity" ideological - even if sometimes they theorize this inability to express themselves by claiming on purpose, this is a contradiction in relation to certain their criticism of "democracy". Not conquered from e-ahead to trial is very important: some people say that if you have your head down, you will fare better, while trials generally show the opposite. This is not to deny that the political will necessarily lighter sentences. When protesters were arrested at the end of demonstration and acknowledgment of're throwing cocktails at the cops, if there is no supporting evidence, we must deny the facts, but not the why the demo, why were there - this is the political content, and what matters in this situation of repression. Deny both the facts and the reason for its presence in a protest returns to be criminalized without being able or willing to express themselves politically.

Others do not go losing es to a trial and his claim political issue. And then, at the folder level, there may be flaws, and sometimes seen relaxed or lesser sentences than expected for cases that seemed lost in advance ... The real question to ask about the attitude to the court is: do you use the opportunity to say something - not to try to convince the judge, but to express themselves politically? Can sometimes really "doing politics" from the trial (those for "terrorism" in particular) defending inside the courthouse and making the agitation outside - with demonstrations, and even against-trial (Movement immigration and suburbs [MIB] has organized at a time, often in response to racist crime and security). This is called the process of breaking or "official forum" (7). When trials come to the end of movement, they can be a way to continue the fight. This is the time to build an argument to denounce the conditions made to es-charged. But in this situation, it is feared the consequences that our actions can have on these people and this situation is not easy to manage.

Defense strategies

How to build a collective strategy of defense? This type of strategy involves joint reflection between e-accused, committee and lawyer to define the attitude of each party, and also a reflection on the relationship with the press and "democrats", which arises quickly when crackdown. It must set objectives for the courtroom but outside (claims, termination ...), and the relationship between the two. How to mobilize on these contents, expand the forces ... In Reims, the structure of solidarity with the undocumented and working smoothly past twenty-five years with the same lawyer, because it is motivated by these cases and always ready to discuss the defense to lead.

The word of the acknowledgment e is to be considered throughout the judicial time, but it is often problematic because it does not always exist, or it is diverse because there are several accused-es. If an e-e-accused refuses to speak, the trial is a foregone conclusion, and even when a lawyer is the opposite of what is expected of him. Relationships with lawyers are frequently difficult. When they have the personality of someone saying: "This is a good citizen, well integrated in society, not a thug, but a protester ..." rather than developing a defense policy, they necessarily have an impact on conduct of the trial. Most of the time, they are obviously there to ensure that "all is well". (Regarding the trial of the police tow in Paris, charged-es were afraid to say what was going to end their "defenders." In previous years, they claimed they had 25,000 euros each had contacted them back in their families to get money ... relations with them were constantly in conflict.) As a young lawyer may of course want to make a defense policy, but the relationship with him, as any human relations can change over time - it will no longer be interested in this type of business, some things have displeased him over the years, it has acquired a certain notoriety ...

Given this situation, some people put forward the idea of ââa charter with attorneys in the network such that all Resist against police violence and security. This charter could be a kind of roadmap for attorneys, highlighting the need for a collective work between them they, the charged-es and support committees, and that would be recorded various commitments and instructions (no defense of a client at the expense of co-accused, no extra fees without prior discussion, opportunity for the accused to have control over their defense and folder, etc..).

From what perspective builds a legal strategy? Defense can be either collusion or breaking. At Poitiers, there is little that trial league for years: the accused-es are often silent and beautiful flights are therefore potential lawyers. There was in this city a lot of trial for "outrages rebellion" and also actions against uncommercial panels Decaux, with leaflets explaining that the committee has distributed antirÃp assuming their content, while the lawyer- e always struggled to demonstrate that it could not be his or her client who did it, that the officer could not see the offense where he stood, etc.. So we had a side campaign support does not differentiating actions and their political content, for solidarity with, and the other Bears argument.

In contrast, a trial was held in break Nantes last spring, five farmers were accused of manure balanced against the front seat of Vinci. It was a small affair, and they had lawyers zero, but all that was asked these lawyers was that they are fighting to show some people - and they explained the gesture peasants, called it was normal swing manure that Vinci was a bastard ... Anyway, these peasants had chosen wisely their witnesses, people considered quite "honorable" and spoke well. Break, this is not to say: "It has nothing to do with justice," but an act situate in context to explain why, while the state isolates this act to make an individual case . This is to give a political process - and also to make an issue of solidarity, otherwise it remains the single dimension of a person with his family, and all based on individual responsibility. In the case of flash-ball last spring, instead of seeking to demonstrate individual responsibility of the officer who fired the goal could be to request the removal of flash-balls and address the LAC and the cops. In one of the tow truck police, defense could be focused on counterterrorism procedures to overcome the case of charged-es. And Villiers-le-Bel, in June, we could make the trial ... anonymous witnesses should be considered, depending on the balance of forces, which can be put forward so far heard. This involves seeing "justice" as a social institution that extends control and crystallizes the power relations existing outside the court. If you can not set a policy goal to say: "We do not defend people but is fighting against a system," we remain in fear, the emotional, legal, all things very difficult to collectivize. Often, we managed to defend a little and get out legally not too bad, but the political was lost because we did not leave the judicial framework.

1. Including the issuance of newspaper Fly Away, and Christophe Soulià with his book Freedom of speech - contribution to the history of the Action Committee of the prisoners, Analis, 1995.

2. Parents or friends-are young suburban killed by the police or prosecuted create more often, occasionally, support committees such as committees truth justice.

3. Thus, two years in a row, a antirÃpression Forum brought together in Poitiers ten group who subsequently organized a national day of action against police brutality.

4.When the legal risks involved are small, it is not always easy to find the right measure of the reaction, for example, in Toulouse, people arrested for a tag in a protest have been sticking to call charges riots and degradation. If we deny the suppression of tagging, is it necessary on this occasion to make leaflets calling for rallies ...?

5.On From the introduction to the legal strategy published in 1968 by Jacques VergÃs, it is said that justice must be understood as a world no less cruel than war or trade, such as a battlefield. This implies, before trial, to stop the attitude to be based on the elements that has the other part, of those on whom we can rely and especially the goal that binds.

6. Thanks to the law of July 2011 that modifies the internment, the state will also be used increasingly in psychiatry to suppress revolts individual who often have a social dimension

7. See in this regard CA No. 220, "Justice Strategy: the face of repression, it is not forbidden to defend themselves."
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe http://ainfos.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en
A-Infos Information Center