NVDA workshop(Launch report)

Launch report, 27th March 2004: workshops | indymedia lab | film room | ideas | feedback | media | finance | summing up

The direct action workshop was hosted by Rhiannon from Seeds for Change. The first question was “What is Direct Action?”

Examples of direct action:

Nine Ladies, Mansfield Woodhouse, Menwith Hill, Protestors climbing Big Ben, Office/Building occupations, Blockading of roads, Animal rights, Caterpillar plant, Fluent, Hacktavism, Kick start café (squatting), Critical Mass, Reclaim the Streets, Sheffield Samba band, Flyposting/Stencilling, Subvertising, Leafleting (when targeted at something/one)

What was clear from this was that direct-action can cover a huge range of events. We then thought about definitions of direct-action. The three subgroups came up with different interpretations of what...

Direct action is:

An action intended to achieve political change by direct confrontation. It is always symbolic with direct effect/forcing change.

Any protest outside the usual political forum, often using the body as a tool of resistance in constructive confrontation.

Forms of participatory democratic actions that draw attention to an issue but avoid representative channels

The definition of non-violence.

One of the main questions people wanted to explore was the definition of what is “non-violent”. Rhiannon asked the group to place themselves along a line, with one end extremely violent and the other non-violent, in regard to different protest methods.

The first was leafleting (as in passively handing out leaflets), and the group moved decisively to the non-violent end of the line. Then we were asked the question “What if the leaflet advocates violence?”, there was now a shift and discussion. Many were uncomfortable with the idea. It was clear that even an apparently clear non-violent action can have violent consequences. The discussion moved to how prejudice (e.g. BNP leaflets, the Daily Mail) could invoke violence. So what is on a leaflet determines if it is a non-violent action.

The second was blowing up an army depot. The group split more widely with some thinking this was a clearly violent action, others more concerned with whether people were in or around the depot. Some felt any destruction of property was violent, others that the risk to life was the most important thing and if the depot was definitely empty it would not be a (as much a) violent action. We were told that we didn’t know if there was anyone in the depot, and most of the group then thought it would be a clearly violent action.

Thirdly an example of a road protest, destroying machinery, pouring petrol over diggers and burning it, putting rock polishing powders into petrol tanks. The core question here was “Is the destruction of property violent”. Again the reaction was mixed. The example was given of the women who had vandalised the Hawk jets bound for Indonesia, and cleared in court of doing wrong. Most people agreed with this action but it was not clear if it was purely non-violent.

So if an action is violent depends very much on who is defining violence. Even if some may say an action is violent, for example vandalising a Hawk jet, it may still be a widely welcomed direct-action. There was consensus that non-violence in part means no violence against people. If communication or vandalism is violent depends on the situation and who is judging. There was no consensus on what the boundaries of non-violence are, the clear difficulties of justifying the means with the end.

NVDA network in Sheffield.

The group then settled down to talk about how NVDA action is publicised in Sheffield. Groups such as GROW (Grass Roots Opposed to War), DAN (Direct Action Network, action on disability/access issues), Critical Mass, Samba band and other more informal groups organise direct action

Often it is by word of mouth. Whilst events can be flyposted and publicised the nature of NVDA means secrecy to make sure police et al are not informed in advance. Discussion of having an email list to publicise NVDA actions.

Unfortunately due to limited time (as was the case in every workshop) we did not cover all that had been planned, but it was challenging as it was and left many questioning what had seemed clear before. Hopefully could organise another workshop to explore more what NVDA means in protests and uses of non-violent direct action.

If you got this far I reccomend the Seeds for Change site for further reading.

Jase