Community hubs

This is the global Anarchoblogs. It collects articles from many smaller community hubs within the Anarchoblogs network. For stories from particular places, groups, or other communities within our movement, check out some of these sites.

Share this fundraiser with friends online using ChipIn!

Support Anarchist Bloggers!

Anarchoblogs depends on contributions from readers like you to stay running. We're doing a fundraising drive for the months of October and November.

Donations provide for the costs of running anarchoblogs.org and provide direct financial support to active Anarchoblogs contributors. See the donation page for more details.


Support C4SS with Anselme Bellegarrigue “Anarchy is Order”

C4SS has teamed up with the Distro of the Libertarian Left. The Distro produces and distribute zines and booklets on anarchism, market anarchist theory, counter-economics, and other movements for liberation. For every copy of Anselme BellegarrigueAnarchy is Order” that you purchase through the Distro, C4SS will receive a percentage. Support C4SS with Anselme BellegarrigueAnarchy is Order“.

AisO

$1.50 for the first copy. $0.75 for every additional copy.

“WHOEVER SAYS ANARCHY SAYS DENIAL OF GOVERNMENT; whoever says denial of government says affirmation of the people; whoever says affirmation of the people says individual liberty; whoever says individual liberty says the sovereignty of each; whoever says the sovereignty of each says equality; whoever says equality says solidarity or fraternity; whoever says fraternity says social order. Therefore whoever says Anarchy says social order.

“ON THE CONTRARY: WHOEVER SAYS GOVERNMENT says denial of the people; whoever says denial of the people says affirmation of political authority; whoever says affirmation of political authority says individual subordination; whoever says individual subordination says class supremacy; whoever says class supremacy says inequality; whoever says inequality says antagonism; whoever says antagonism says civil war. Therefore whoever says government says civil war.

“YES, ANARCHY IS ORDER, FOR GOVERNMENT IS CIVIL WAR. The intestine wars which have decimated in all ages proceed from this single cause, — to wit, the overturn or preservation of the government. In order to establish peace, it suffices for citizens to cease, on the one hand, to be partisans, and, on the other, to be adversaries, of the government. . . .”

flattr this!

Militärfirma sucht Drohnenpiloten

erschienen am 30. Oktober 2014 bei Telepolis (www.telepolis.de) - Ein deutsches Unternehmen suchte vor kurzem Drohnen-Piloten: die Ausbildung solle in den USA und in der Ukraine stattfinden, der Einsatz im Irak und in anderen Krisenregionen - „Wir suchen dringend, ab sofort und schnellst möglich mindestens 3/5 Hubschrauberpiloten und 4/6 Fluggerätemechaniker, nach Möglichkeit mit militärischer Erfahrung“, hieß es [...]

Tagged with:

The Colombian Peace Negotiations: Prospects and Continuing Horrors

From TeleSUR English

It is now about four years since the unofficial initiation of the ongoing peace process between the FARC and the Colombian government (secret approaches were made starting in October 2010), and over two years since the official opening of talks based on a “General Agreement” signed on August 26, 2012. There have been thirty rounds of negotiations to date, which have brought negotiators from the government and the FARC to Havana.

The Washington Office on Latin America has created a website, colombiapeace.org, that collects documents and media reports in a single place, and has even arranged them on a remarkably complete, and ongoing, timeline (http://colombiapeace.org/timeline2014/), which we can use to begin to understand what is happening with the peace process.

The process is being supported by an unusually expansive set of actors. The Cuban government is hosting the talks. The United States government, the United Nations, most of the governments of Latin America, the Venezuelan government, are all supportive. Effusive statements have been made. Uruguay's President Pepe Mujica last year called the peace process “The most important thing happening in Latin America”. In July 2013, Argentina's President Cristina Fernandez suggested that the process could be opposed by “only idiots, those who do not love their country”. In November 2013, Ecuador's President Rafael Correa went further, suggesting that “only psychopaths” would boycott the process.

Speaking of which, despite the remarkably wide-ranging support for a negotiated solution to the conflict, Colombia's former president Alvaro Uribe Velez is staunchly opposed, as is his political party (which lost at the polls earlier this year, in an election which effectively became a referendum on the continuation of the peace negotiations). Whether the Argentinian and Ecuadorian presidents were thinking of Uribe when they mentioned “idiots” and “psychopaths” is, of course, unclear. Uribe's attempts to spoil the peace process go far beyond running against it in an election, however, a point to which I will return.

The talks have gone on for a long time, but considering that the beginning of the conflict is sometimes dated to 1964, and other times all the way back to 1948, it is perhaps reasonable to expect that a peace agreement would take a few years to achieve. So far, they have resulted in three draft accords, which were made public at the end of September and are published on the joint website, mesadeconversaciones.com. All of the accords are linked, as might be expected given the principle that “nothing is agreed until all is agreed”. The draft accords on solving the illicit drug problem, on rural development, and on political participation, include many proposals that were brought to the table by social movements, and if implemented, would represent social progress, including land reform and agrarian reform, the extension of campesino land reserves (which are already legal under Colombian law as of 1994) and guarantees for political dissent.

The occurrence of the talks, and the content of the talks and of the public discussions around the talks, have also brought some positive elements to public politics. In the years preceding the talks, Colombia saw the rise of an organized movement of the victims of the conflict. The Colombian government has focused on the FARC's victims, but the point for the negotiations is that delegations of victims have come to the talks, and that many of the victims have mobilized for peace. The talks have created an atmosphere in which the FARC has taken responsibility for crimes, committed to stop kidnapping civilians for ransom, and seen its leaders face some of the people it has committed crimes against. The government, which has been forced to send some of its politicians and military officers to jail in past years over scandals (to which I will return), has also shown a degree of seriousness in the talks. Last year, president Santos changed the military high command, and in the wake of the agrarian strike, he changed his entire cabinet as well. In his public statements about the talks, Santos has shown a degree of political maturity that US allies rarely have, admitting that it is only with enemies that peace can be made: “We’re trying to give our enemies, in this case the FARC, a bridge to a dignified way out–lay down their arms and enter the political arena.” This contrasts with statements by peace's most famous opponent, Uribe, who constantly invokes Al Qaeda (and probably will soon be comparing FARC to ISIS).

Uribe is a formidable threat to the peace process, because he is a powerful member of the Colombian establishment with important elite and, it must be admitted, significant right-wing popular support. Perhaps a few sentences should be spent on reminding readers who Uribe is. A document published by the National Security Archive, a 1991 report from U.S. DEA officials in Colombia, called Uribe “A Colombian politician and senator dedicated to collaboration with the Medellin Cartel”, “a close personal friend of Pablo Escobar”, “linked to a business involved in narcotics activities in the US.” When he was president of Colombia, Uribe survived a number of scandals, but the one that got closer and closer to him was called the “para-politica” scandal, or sometimes the “para-uribismo” scandal, which broke when military officers and paramilitaries spoke to the media about pacts they made with politicians to cleanse areas of leftists, unionists, indigenous people, and peasant movement leaders. The paramilitaries were also major narcotraffickers, operating the business on a much more massive scale than the FARC's involvement in illicit cultivation. Uribe was also president during the “false positives” scandal, in which the Colombian military killed helpless peasants, posed them with weapons, and claimed they had scored kills against FARC (the current president, Santos, was defense minister during the scandal).

Uribe has made his political career on being an opponent of peace, and had his biggest political successes doing so. The last time the Colombian government and FARC negotiated for peace from 1999-2002, they agreed on a demilitarized zone under de facto FARC control, centered on San Vicente del Caguan. In this same period, in 2000, the US approved Plan Colombia, a multibillion ($1.3 billion was US money, most was Colombian money) boost to the Colombian military ostensibly for counternarcotics. Plan Colombia, and all of the covert counterinsurgency programs that accompanied it, helped scuttle the peace initiative. When in 2002 the FARC kidnapped an important senator, the government went on the offensive, sensing a change in public opinion. Uribe capitalized on this change in his presidential run that year, ran as the anti-FARC candidate, and won.

On the other hand, Uribe is not opposed to peace agreements on principle – he initiated a peace process with the paramilitaries in 2002, which, given the state backing of the paramilitaries (and the specific backing by Uribe's political base and allies), was something of a peace process between two branches of the same organization. That 'peace process' was begun some 12 years ago, and featured some ceremonial handovers of old weapons by paramilitaries who then 'demobilized'. Paramilitary violence against the state's opponents has continued more or less unabated.

Uribe's stance towards the ongoing negotiations is one of outright sabotage, both overt and covert. The most recent scandal (in August 2014) was about a hacker, Andres Sepulveda, who worked with Uribe supporters to spy on negotiators in Havana. While Sepulveda spied on the FARC, he said, others from the military and police spied on the government negotiators. Last year, Uribe tweeted the location from which two FARC negotiators were going to be extracted – revealing his continuing connections with the military.

Another important threat to the peace process might end up being media polls. Over the years, the polls have shown a majority, sometimes a plurality, in favor of a peace agreement, but they have also shown majorities in favor of FARC leaders going to jail, and majorities against FARC leaders entering politics. A current principle of the negotiations is that those who were deeply involved in crimes against humanity will have to submit to justice and do jail time, while most would receive suspended sentences and be able to enter politics. The talks almost ran out the clock this time, and would have, had Uribe's party been elected. If polls, which aren't always reliable, start to show a shift away from support for peace and Colombian politicians follow them, the chance for peace might be lost.

If the negotiations succeed, they would be a positive step for Colombia. The outcome could include some positive agrarian reforms, guarantees for political opposition and dissent (badly needed in a country where thousands of people have been killed yearly for participating in unions, peasant organizations, indigenous movements, or opposition political parties), and an end to the FARC's kidnappings of civilians and indiscriminate attacks. It could create openings for further democratic struggle and reform.

But this peace process will not end violence in Colombia, because Colombia's establishment, and its North American patrons, have been pursuing two wars for all of these decades: the war against the FARC (and ELN), and a generalized war on the poor. It has been a long time since the poor were represented by the guerrillas and their armed struggle. Today, they have a huge variety of their own organizations, all of which have suffered tremendous violence at the hands of the state and paramilitaries. While the Colombian government acknowledged this, when the Basta Ya report was published last year as an “uncomfortable truth”, with Santos talking about “state agencies’ collusion with illegal armed groups, and the security forces’ acts of omission at some stages of the internal armed conflict”. Santos said at that time that “the state must investigate and punish this conduct in order to comply with the victims’ rights to truth and justice.” But the negotiations don't really cover this war, which continues. Colombia still has millions of internally displaced people, who have been displaced from their lands, lands which have been repurposed for various mega-plantations and other megaprojects. They were displaced through paramilitary massacre. Colombia also is still a very deadly place to be a union leader, human rights activist, indigenous person, Afro-Colombian, or peasant leader. In 2008, on the campaign trail, Obama opposed a free trade agreement with Colombia “because the violence against unions in Colombia would make a mockery of the very labor protections that we have insisted be included in these kinds of agreements.” There continue to be dozens of murders of unionists every year.

But the most devastating site for the war whose peace is not being negotiated is Buenaventura, a port city on the Pacific coast through which much of the country's cargo travels. Buenaventura is currently famous for its chop houses, where the paramilitaries chop people into pieces, alive, and which has led thousands to flee the city in terror. Human Rights Watch has a report on the chop houses from March 2014. These horrors have nothing to do with the conflict between FARC and the state. They are committed by the supposedly demobilized paramilitaries, and are over control of the important territory of the port city. A peace deal with FARC, if signed, will do nothing to address them. At best, it might give some more breathing room to those in Colombian society who struggle against violence.

Start Your Halloween at the Brooklyn Free Store!

IMG_8372

The Brooklyn Free Store is located at Lafayette & Marcy Aves in BedStuy, one block from the Bedford-Nostrand G train stop. All are welcome to come and share what they have, or just take what they’d like. We will have crates of books (some bar review and law text books!), household goods,  as well as bags and bags of used and new clothing. Share Halloween treats and maybe even a costume!

IMG_8277 IMG_8278 IMG_8279 IMG_8280 IMG_8281 IMG_8282

 

 

Tagged with:

Song of the Variable Time-Unit #5

In honour of both Hallowe’en (today) and Election Day (next week), a little ditty from Norah Jones, in two versions:

TPL · History of Quaker War Tax Resistance: The Great Forgetting

At the upcoming national gathering of NWTRCC at Earlham College in Richmond, Indiana, I’m going to be presenting a summary of the history of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends (Quakers).

Today I’m going to try to coalesce some of the notes I’ve assembled about how the “Great Forgetting” period in which the Quaker practice of war tax resistance seemed to all but disappear.


The Great Forgetting ()

In mentions of Quaker war tax resistance nearly vanish from the record.

When, during the Spanish-American & Philippine-American wars at , the U.S. government attached war taxes to rail tickets, to official documents like checks, and to inheritances, some Quakers were troubled by this and made some efforts to avoid the new taxes, but I only find occasional mention of these taxes, and nothing resembling official warnings from meetings or prominent publications that Quakers should not pay them. A report in the Friends Intelligencer about the (Hicksite) Philadelphia Yearly Meeting noted that “[t]he ninth query called forth regret that Friends had not maintained a stronger and more consistent testimony against war, but had paid the war taxes without protest.”

Things were slightly better, but heading in the same direction, in England. An newspaper article on how the Society of Friends was changing to conform more and more to the society around it, included the detail that “its dislike to war taxes is [now] so slight that one for the Egyptian war has not been refused by a dozen of its members!” In 1901, Charles H. Fox had his property seized and sold at auction for his refusal to pay income taxes that had been boosted to pay for war expenses in South Africa and China. This was considered unusal enough to prompt a number of newspaper articles. Some of his friends bought the auctioned property and returned it to him, so even in this case, adherence to traditional Quaker practices with regard to war tax resistance was slack.

The London Yearly Meeting during issued a number of formal statements amplifying and reasserting its peace testimony, but none of these mentioned war taxes, and it would take a lot of work to read any encouragement for tax resistance between the lines of any of the statements.

That meeting’s “query” concerning the peace testimony in asked Quakers if they were “faithful in our testimony against bearing arms, and being in any manner concerned in the militia, in privateers, or armed vessels, or dealing in prize goods?” A century later this language would have seemed archaic, and the advice no longer representative of how modern wars were fought and how citizens would be called on to support them. But when the meeting revisited and reworded this query, instead of moderninzing the language and adding more relevant specifics, they instead replaced the query with a vague generality:

Are Friends faithful in maintaining our Christian testimony against all war, as inconsistent with the precepts and spirit of the Gospel?

To which it was easy to answer “sure!” because it didn’t seem to ask anything specific.

In an “American Friends’ Peace Conference” was held in Philadelphia at which presentations were made over three days on the subject of peace, anti-war activism, international arbitration, and related topics. The papers presented at the gathering were later published. I looked through them to see how the subject of war tax resistance was treated at this gathering and found exactly one mention of war taxes in the entire book, from Haverford College’s president Isaac Sharpless, speaking on the question “To What Extent Are Peace Principles Practicable?”:

It is impossible to avoid giving aid and comfort to wars and warlike tendencies unless one goes to a desert isle and lives by himself. Even if we do not join the army we pay taxes for its support. I do not know that any peace man omitted to write checks after the opening of the Spanish War because stamps were necessary to make them legal, and these stamps were expressly a war tax.

That’s why I call this period the Great Forgetting. It isn’t that war tax resistance was formally rejected, or that it had become too onerous and had to be abandoned, it’s more as though it was lost in a sort of collective amnesia. (This is especially perplexing in Isaac Sharpless’s case, as he had written a history of the Quaker governance of the Pennsylvania colony, and certainly knew plenty about Quakers who had refused to pay war taxes without retreating to a desert isle to do so.)

By the beginning of the 20th Century, in a variety of debates in about resistance to “church rates” and the Education Act by nonconformist Christians in the U.K., I begin to see references to Quakers that take for granted that they do not resist war taxes. Arguments along the lines of: “Just because you are conscientiously opposed to funding the state religion doesn’t mean you can just stop paying a tax. I mean, look at the Quakers. Everybody knows how conscientiously opposed to war they are, and they never refuse to pay their war taxes.”

(The forgetting came even earlier to Australia. An anti-war writer there in advocated war tax resistance this way: “The English Quakers refuse to pay Church rates for conscience sake, and it is time for tax-payers who disapprove of such wars as the Affghan, the Kaffir, the Chinese, and the New Zealand war to make a stand for conscience, and refuse to pay income-tax.” In other words: Quakers were not an example of war tax resisters, but an example of tithe resisters that war tax resisters could be inspired by when developing their own variety of tax resistance.)

But although Quaker war tax resistance had mostly gone dormant in England and the United States (and evidently, Australia, if indeed it had ever gotten a foothold there), I see occasional signs that it had not entirely died out. Some Quakers in the far outposts of the Quaker world were keeping the flame lit and reminding Friends elsewhere that there was an alternative to sorrowful resignation in the face of war taxes.

A edition of The Friend noted that the harsh enforcement of military conscription on the European mainland had reduced the ranks of Quakers there, but also said that “One Friend in Norway has been imprisoned five times for refusing to pay the ‘blood-tax.’”

In Switzerland, in , pacifist Pierre Cérésole began to refuse to pay his military tax. He was not yet a Quaker, but would later convert, and would help to reintroduce war tax resistance to the Society of Friends through his influence on Dutch Quakers Beatrice Cadbury and Kees Boeke.

The Boekes began resisting taxes in . They made waves with their radical and uncompromising testimony against war and against violent coercion of any sort. In the United States, The Friend of Philadelphia quoted a report from its London namesake on the Boekes, but astonishingly headlined the article “Testimony-Bearing of the Seventeenth Century Type” — seemingly ignorant of all of the Quaker war tax resistance that had happened in the 18th and 19th centuries! More evidence that an uncanny Forgetting had taken hold.

An English Quaker wrote in that he believed “no Friend, so far as is known, has declined to pay his war taxes, so called. Even the Friends who during the South African war [probably the Second Boer War, ] permitted the authorities to distrain upon their goods rather than pay the (then) war tax, and the still larger number who refused for years to pay education rates [a conflict about tax money going to sectarian education that peaked around ], have seen their ways to pay the much larger war taxes of today without demur.”

This is the case even though draft boards in the U.K., in order to test the sincerity of people applying for conscientious objector status, would sometimes ask them if they were using any luxury products like tea, coffee, cocoa, matches, tobacco, or movies, all of which had a war tax applied to them. Quakers who attended these hearings in the support of their own applications for conscientious objector status were thereby getting a long-overdue sermon on the connection between conscientious objection and war taxes, but it seems to have fallen on deaf ears.

When the United States entered World War Ⅰ, it adopted a new war funding method: rather than relying entirely on taxes, it encouraged citizens to invest their money in “Liberty Bonds” — that is, to loan the government the war money at interest. Pressure to invest in these bonds was enormous — how many bonds you were willing to purchase was seen as a quantitative proxy for the quality of your patriotism — and refusal to purchase bonds was seen as being tantamount to treason. Although the bond purchases were ostensibly voluntary, vigilante mobs were not above using violent coercion to force sales, or even, at times, to steal property directly from recalcitrant citizens.

I have found dozens of examples of reprisals of various sorts being taken against people who refused to buy Liberty Bonds. Most of them involve Mennonites, whose Quaker-like pacifism would not permit them to buy war bonds. (Many American Mennonites were also of German ancestry and had Germanic names, which probably didn’t help them avoid trouble.) Others involve socialists and other political radicals who saw World War Ⅰ as being an example of workers fighting workers for the sake of capitalists.

Notably absent are Quakers, with one important exception: Mary Stone McDowell. McDowell was fired from her teaching job in part for her refusal to promote war bonds to her students. (The New York Times used the occasion to editorialize that Quaker teachers should all resign their positions since their pacifist views clashed with the proper patriotism that ought to be taught in school). McDowell would resurface as a war tax resister in the years after World War Ⅱ as part of the new “Peacemakers” movement and so would help begin the thaw in the Great Forgetting that would eventually lead to a renaissance of war tax resistance in the Society of Friends.

Here I should note that there’s a discontinuity in the material I’ve been drawing on for my research. The ease of search and the ready availability of on-line books and magazines and newspapers and other archival materials through Google Books, Internet Archive, and many other such platforms, has made research like this much easier than in times not long past. But much material published is not as available due to copyright issues. For many such documents, it is difficult to even determine who the copyright holder is, and so the creators of the on-line archives have not made this material as available. So it’s possible that the seeming absence of evidence of Quaker war tax resistance in the period should not be interpreted as evidence of absence.

All Wars are Unjust on Feed 44

C4SS Feed 44 presents Jason Lee Byas‘ “All Wars are Unjust” from the Students for a Stateless Society‘s Volume 1, Issue 3 of THE NEW LEVELLER read by Christopher King and edited by Nick Ford.

There are no good wars. World War II did crush Hitler and Tojo, but it also propped up Stalin and involved the deliberate targeting of civilians in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Dresden, and elsewhere. The American Civil War did crush the Confederate slave empire, but it also involved unspeakable acts of total war in Sherman’s March to the Sea, and the caging (without Habeas Corpus) of northern war resisters. The American Revolution did overthrow British imperialism, but it also involved the brutal tarring and feathering of perfectly peaceful British loyalists.

Defenders of these wars almost always acknowledge that these atrocities happened, and sometimes even agree that they were unacceptable. When pressed, they typically just respond “well, that’s war.”

They’re right.

Feed 44:

Bitcoin tips welcome:

  • 1N1pF6fLKAGg4nH7XuqYQbKYXNxCnHBWLB

flattr this!

Tagged with: , , ,

If You Vote — or Don’t Vote — Complain

So here we go again. Another biennial US election season draws to a close and here come the solemn multi-partisan invocations of civic duty: Exercise that franchise. Pull that lever, push that button, mark that box. The future of western civilization depends on you. And if you don’t vote, don’t complain.

Question: If I don’t drive around my neighborhood at 3am blasting Metallica out my car window at 140 decibels, am I boorish or hypocritical to complain about those who do?

If anything, those who DO vote are the ones giving up their rightful prerogative of complaint. They agreed to the process, filled out the paperwork, cast their ballots. They own the outcomes. Non-voters didn’t ask for the process, didn’t participate in the process, and probably either actively dislike — or at most don’t care much about — the outcomes.

I’m personally on and off about voting. After 20 years of religiously schlepping down to the polling place every other November (and at odd times in between) I stopped for four years. I fell off the wagon this year (to vote the Libertarian slate and support medical marijuana in Florida), but looking back I see that had I voted in 2010 or 2012, my vote wouldn’t have shifted the result in so much as a single race. Nor, if it had, would the different  follow-on outcomes have likely been substantially different.

Unlike some anarchists and voluntaryists, I don’t morally condemn voting. I’m with Murray Rothbard on “defensive voting.” The system exists, its overseers are elected, and there’s nothing wrong with the individual slaves choosing, since they’re allowed to, masters less enamored of the whip.

On the other hand, the average elected official receives the active consent of fewer than one in four of the constituents he or she purports to “represent.” There’s something to be said for the possibility of organizing non-voters against the whole charade of “consent.”

So I’m still on the fence. One reason I’m comfortable with voting this year is that it’s likely the least consequential election since the turn of the century and probably for some time before. I know the pundits keep telling you otherwise, but think about it:

The big question this year is whether or not the Republican Party will get to 51 seats in the US Senate.

The Republicans have controlled the US House of Representatives since January of 2011. Since then, not a single bill has become law, nor has a single dime been spent by the US government, without Republican approval.

Politically, the last four years were a cooperative Republican/Democrat enterprise. And unless the Republicans win their way to 67 seats in the US Senate and 291 in the US House — neither of which will happen — so that they can override presidential vetoes, that’s the next two years as well.

So go vote. Or stay home and watch reruns of “How I Met Your Mother.” Either way, feel free to complain all you like. I know I will.

flattr this!

Support C4SS with Emile Armand’s “Competition or Stagnation”

C4SS has teamed up with the Distro of the Libertarian Left. The Distro produces and distribute zines and booklets on anarchism, market anarchist theory, counter-economics, and other movements for liberation. For every copy of Emile Armand‘s “Competition or Stagnation” that you purchase through the Distro, C4SS will receive a percentage. Support C4SS with Emile Armand‘s “Competition or Stagnation“.

compstag

$1.00 for the first copy. $0.60 for every additional copy.

“From the individualist point of view, competition is synonymous with emulation, or stimulation. . . For individualists, then, the expression ‘freedom of competition’ means the complete possibility for individual affirmation in all fields. In other words, full opportunity for every individual, in association or alone, to present, diffuse, and put into practice all conceptions and methods with similar or differing aims, without any fear of restrictive interference by a State, governmental administration, or any human being whatsoever. In the field of economic action freedom of competition means full opportunity for the producer – in association or alone – to develop his individual effort according to his taste. That is to say, to put into action his ingenuity, to call on his creativity and personal initiative, without the fear of clashing with a regulation which limits the conditions of his production. . . .

“Any hindrance of this opportunity, or liberty, has as a result the increase of uniformity. Who says ‘uniformity’ says fossilization, regression, retrogression. In an environment in which there is no competition degradation results: the producer, instead of evolving towards the artist, devolves towards the labourer; the latter recedes into the automaton; and the consumer loses himself in fatuity and vulgarity. . . . The concentration of manufacture into the hands of a few, mass-production in immense industrial barracks, conscription and permanent armies – all these push the human personality towards the beast of the herd, making it into flesh for shepherds and dictators. . . .”

flattr this!

Culpable Homicide.


      Culpable homicide  is a specific offence in various jurisdictions within the Commonwealth of Nations which involves the illegal killing of a person either with or without an intention to kill depending upon how a particular jurisdiction has defined the offence. Unusually for those legal systems which have originated or been influenced during rule by the United Kingdom, the name of the offence associates with Scots law rather than English law.

    Involuntary manslaughter: Involuntary manslaughter is the unlawful killing of a human being without malice aforethought, either express or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories; constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter, both of which involve criminal liability.

      By their actions people have died, which of the categories applies to our government?

From the Mirror:

      A grandad who had just found out his benefits were being stopped shot himself dead – after telling friends he was “unable to cope”.
Shaun Pilkington, 58, was sent a letter saying he was to lose his ­Employment and Support ­Allowance, which he got after a long-term illness.
He was told he would have to be reassessed and needed to prove he was eligible. But as the hearing approached, friends said Shaun, a licensed gamekeeper, became discouraged.
Days later he called police and said he was about to kill himself. They found him dead at his flat.-----
      -------Shaun’s estranged family was too upset to talk. He joins a growing list of people who have taken their lives since the Tory-led Coalition employed private firm Atos to reassess thousands of people on long-term benefits.
Blind Tim Salter, 53, of Kinver, Staffordshire, died after being deemed fit to work. A coroner ruled the move to axe his benefit had contributed to his suicide.
Edward Jacques, 47, of Sneinton, Nottingham, took a fatal overdose after his benefit payments were stopped.
Jobless Richard ­Sanderson, 44, of ­Southfields, south-west London, stabbed himself in the heart. Unemployed electrician Lee Robinson, 39, of Crawley, Sussex, also took his own life.
  
      It is a fact that thousands people have died after being assessed and told they are fit for work, some put the figure at 32 a week. I consider it reasonable to say that in a very high proportion of these deaths, pressure from the government was the prime cause of death. When do we hold them accountable, when will those responsible be brought to justice? Rich pampered parasites sitting at there desks, making decisions that will at best cause distress, at worst death, and continue this over a long period of time, well aware of what is happening to thousands of vulnerable people. They don't belong in our world, but they make the decisions that shatter the lives of our friends and neighbours. Cocooned in their marble halls, they feed and grow fat on the blood of the people. The cesspool of unfeeling parasites has to be destroyed.


Visit ann arky's home at www.radicalglasgow.me.uk