2007-08-22
- Statement of three of the accused
- Open letter to the Generalbundesanwaltschaft
- Richard Sennett/ Saskia Sassen: Guantánamo in Germany
- CampAG: Proposal for a cross-spectral big strategy congress
- radical left perspective on the g8
- Report of the Anti-sexist Contact and Awareness Group: Call for witnesses
- Japan, German police discuss security for G-8 summit in Hokkaido
- Japan, German police cooperate on security for G-8 summit in Hokkaido
- Seattle 1999: Was anyone at Westlake on Dec 1, 1999? Please forward.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of three of the accused in one of the § 129a proceedings against the militant group (mg)
On the morning of July 31, 2007, our apartments were searched by officers of the Federal Criminal Police (BKA) at the directive of the Federal Prosecutor (Bundesanwaltschaft). The charge put forth is membership in a terrorist association, the so-called militant group, on the basis of to § 129a StGB.
Only through this incident did we learn that the authorities have been investigating us for almost a year. These preliminary proceedings have allowed the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) and other federal agencies to surveil and invade our private sphere all the way into its most intimate realms. Our partners, friends, families and colleagues have all been affected by these surveillance measures. Our longtime friend and colleague Andrej H. has been arrested. The father of three children has since been detained in preterial confinement in Berlin-Moabit.
The Federal Prosecutor (BAW) justifies these massive attacks on our civil liberties in the arrest warrant with an array of outrageous constructs.
We gather the following allegations against us from the few documents available to us as yet:
* Two of us are said to have authored scholarly publications allegedly containing "key words and phrases that have also been used in writings of the ›militant group(s)‹". The BAW also attests that we possess the "intellectual capabilities" required for composing the mg statements claiming responsibility for their attacks. Furthermore, the BAW claims that we have access to libraries which we can use for research. Andrej is also said to have been involved in organizing protests against the G8 summit, concentrating on topics that the mg, too, has used as rationale for their attacks.
* One of us is also accused of having authored a journalistic article about a public conference where speakers discussed a 1972 militant attack. The mg allegedly also wrote about this attack some months earlier. This provides evidence, according to the BAW, that the author is a member of the mg.
* In two cases, the BAW accuses us of having contacts with individuals who are suspects in another - so far inconclusive - criminal investigation against the mg. Both contacts are primarily job-related. Furthermore, all of us are charged with "having multiple contacts to the extreme left-wing scene in Berlin". It is not mentioned that we also maintain countless contacts to political parties, community organizations, trade unions and social movements.
What we conclude from these charges:
Any scholar or journalist who writes on specific topics and uses libraries arouses suspicion. Anyone who has contacts to people deemed suspicious by the BAW may become a suspect herself. Anyone who seeks to protect his/her right to privacy and anonymity may also become a suspect. In case all three moments of suspicion converge, it must be - in this logic - a terrorist association.
Notwithstanding the absurdity of all this, the consequences for our everyday life have been devastating: For a year now, our phone conversations have been listened to, our emails surveilled, our internet use monitored, our flats have been kept under surveillance, and all our moves have been followed by means of mobile phone data. Possibly undercover informants have been spying on us. Partners, friends, colleagues and family members have also become targets of the investigations. Right now, we cannot surmise the extent of this spying operation.
While we are still at large, our friend and colleague Andrej H. is detained on the basis of the same allegations. He is held under very strict conditions in solitary confinement, he can see his family only for an hour every two weeks, and communication with visitors is allowed only through separation panes.
In Germany, this form of investigation of particular political attitudes has a long and dark history. As former citizens of the German Democratic Republic (GDR) we are particularly sensitized to this.
We demand the immediate suspension of the § 129a proceedings, the return and deletion of all the data gathered on us, and the release of all the indicted from jail, including the three accused of attempted arson. In accordance with the rule of law they should not even be in pre-trial confinement, as there is no danger of their fleeing. Their arrest became possible only via the dubious construct of "forming a terrorist alliance".
The whole proceedings are an utter scandal. They make very clear that the investigation paragraph 129a needs to be abolished.
For the accused in this proceeding:
RA Wolfgang Kaleck Immanuelkirchstr. 3-4 10405 Berlin - Prenzlauer Berg fon: +49-(0)30-44679218
Three of the accused, 12.08.2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open letter to the Generalbundesanwaltschaft against the criminalization of critical academic research and political engagement
On 31st July 2007 the flats and workplaces of Dr. Andrej Holm and Dr. Matthias B., as well as of two other persons, were searched by the police. Dr. Andrej Holm was arrested, flown by helicopter to the German Federal Court in Karlsruhe and brought before the custodial judge. Since then he has been held in pretrial confinement in a Berlin jail. All four people have been charged with "membership in a terrorist association according to § 129a StGB" (German Penal Code, section 7 on 'Crimes against Public Order'). They are alleged to be members of a so-called 'militante gruppe' (mg). The text of the search warrant revealed that preliminary proceedings against these four people have been going on since September 2006 and that the four had since been under constant surveillance.
A few hours before the house searches, Florian L., Oliver R. und Axel H. were arrested in the Brandenburg region and accused of attempted arson on four vehicles of the German Federal Army. Andrej Holm is alleged to have met one of these three persons on two occasions in the first half of 2007 in supposedly "conspiratorial circumstances". The Federal Prosecutor (Bundesanwaltschaft) therefore assumes that the four above mentioned persons as well as the three individuals arrested in Brandenburg are members of a "militant group," and is thus investigating all seven on account of suspected "membership in a terrorist association" according to §129a StGB.
According to the arrest warrant against Andrej Holm, the charge made against the above mentioned four individuals is presently justified on the following grounds, in the order that the federal prosecutor has listed them:
* Dr. Matthias B. is alleged to have used, in his academic publications, "phrases and key words" which are also used by the 'militante gruppe';
* As political scientist holding a PhD, Matthias B. is seen to be intellectually capable to "author the sophisticated texts of the 'militante gruppe' (mg)". Additionally, "as employee in a research institute he has access to libraries which he can use inconspicuously in order to do the research necessary to the drafting of texts of the 'militante gruppe'";
* Another accused individual is said to have met with suspects in a conspiratorial manner: "meetings were regularly arranged without, however, mentioning place, time and content of the meetings"; furthermore, he is said to have been active in the "extreme left-wing scene";
* In the case of a third accused individual, an address book was found which included the names and addresses of the other three accused;
* Dr. Andrej H., who works as urban sociologist, is claimed to have close contacts with all three individuals who have been charged but still remain free;
* Dr. Andrej H. is alleged to have been active in the "resistance mounted by the extreme left-wing scene against the World Economic Summit of 2007 in Heiligendamm";
* The fact that he - allegedly intentionally-did not take his mobile phone with him to a meeting is considered as "conspiratorial behavior".
Andrej H., as well as Florian L., Oliver R. und Axel H., are detained since 1st August 2007 in Berlin-Moabit under very strict conditions: they are locked in solitary confinement 23 hours a day and are allowed only one hour of courtyard walk. Visits are limited to a total of half an hour every two weeks. Contacts, including contacts with lawyers, are allowed only through separation panes, including contact with their lawyers. The mail of the defense is checked. The charges described in the arrest warrants reveal a construct based on very dubious reasoning by analogy. The reasoning involves four basic hypotheses, none of which the Federal High Court could substantiate with any concrete evidence, but through their combination they are to leave the impression of a "terrorist association". The social scientists, because of their academic research activity, their intellectual capacities and their access to libraries, are said to be the brains of the alleged "terrorist organization". For, according to the Federal prosecutor, an association called "militante gruppe" is said to use the same concepts as the accused social scientists. As evidence for this reasoning, the concept of "gentrification" is named - one of the key research themes of Andrej Holm und Matthias B. in past years, about which they have published internationally. They have not limited their research findings to an ivory tower, but have made their expertise available to citizens' initiatives and tenants' organizations. This is how critical social scientists are constructed as intellectual gang leaders. Since Andrej Holm has friends, relatives and colleagues, they now also are suspect to be "terrorists", because they know Andrej. Another accused individual was blamed for having the names of Andrej Holm and of two others charged (but not jailed) in his address book. Since the latter are also deemed to be "terrorists" - this is how "guilt by association" is established.
Paragraph § 129a, introduced in Germany in 1976, makes it possible for our colleagues to be criminalized as "terrorists". This is how, through § 129a, the existence of a "terrorist group" is claimed.
Through these constructs, every academic research activity and political work is presented as potentially criminal - in particular when politically engaged colleagues who intervene in social struggles are concerned. This is how critical research, in particular research linked with political engagement, is turned into ideological ring leadership and "terrorism".
We demand that the Federal Prosecutor (Bundesanwaltschaft) immediately suspend the § 129a-proceedings against all parties concerned and to release Andrej Holm and the other imprisoned from jail at once. We strongly reject the outrageous accusation that the academic research activities and the political engagement of Andrej Holm are to be viewed as complicity in an alleged "terrorist association". No arrest warrant can be deduced from the academic research and political work of Andrej Holm. The Federal Prosecutor, through applying Article § 129, is threatening the freedom of research and teaching as well as social-political engagement.
Initial signatures by:
* Prof. Dr. Alan Harding (University of Salford, UK), Prof. Dr. Michael Harloe (University of Salford, Vice-President),
* Prof. Dr. Andreas Huyssen (Villard Professor of German and Comparative Literature at Columbia University),
* Prof. Dr. Andrew Ross (New York University, New York),
* Prof. Dr. Andrew Sayer (Lancaster University, Sociology),
* Prof. Dr. Craig Calhoun (President, Social Science Research Council, and University Professor, Sociology, NYU),
* Prof. Dr. David Harvey (Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, Graduate Center of the City University of New York, New York),
* Prof. Dr. Dieter Rucht (Wissenschaftszentrum für Sozialforschung Berlin)
* Prof. Dr. Elmar Altvater (Freie Universität Berlin),
* Prof. Dr. Frances Fox Piven (President of the American Sociological Association, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology, City University New York),
* Prof. Dr. Frank Deppe (Universität Bremen),
* Prof. Dr. Geoff Ely (University of Michigan, Karl Pohrt Distinguished University Professor),
* Prof. Dr. Jennifer Wolch (Professor of Geography at the University of Southern California/Los Angeles).
* Prof. Dr. Joachim Hirsch (Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/M.),
* Prof. Dr. John Friedmann (University of California, Los Angeles), Prof. Dr. Herbert Gans (Columbia University, New York),
* Prof. Dr. Lawrence D. Berg (Canada Research Chair in Human Rights, Diversity & Identity, University of British Columbia),
* Prof. Dr. Manuel Aalbers (Universiteit van Amsterdam),
* Prof. Dr. Margit Mayer (Freie Universität Berlin),
* Prof. Dr. Martin Jay (Sidney Hellman Ehrman Professor of History, University of California Berkeley), Prof. Dr. Bob Jessop (Lancaster Universtiy),
* Prof. Dr. Michael Dear (Professor of Geography at the University of Southern California/Los Angeles),
* Prof. Dr. Michael Edwards (The Bartlett Centre for Architecture and Planning, UCL, London),
* Prof. Dr. Michael Storper (Centennial Professor of Economic Geography, London School of Economics, and Professor of Economic Sociology, Science Po, Paris), Prof. Dr. Erik Swyngedouw (University of Manchester, UK),
* Prof. Dr. Mike Davis (Prof. of Urban History, Irvine/USA),
* Prof. Dr. Neil Brenner (New York University, Sociology),
* Prof. Dr. Neil Smith (Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography, Director of the Center for Place Culture and Politics, Graduate Center of the City University of New York),
* Prof. Dr. Peter J. Taylor (Loughborough University, UK), Prof. Dr. John Urry (Lancaster University, Sociology),
* Prof. Dr. Peter Marcuse (Columbia University, New York),
* Prof. Dr. Philipp Oswalt (Universität Kassel),
* Prof. Dr. Rianne Mahon (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada),
* Prof. Dr. Richard Sennett (Professor of Sociology at the London School of Economics, Bemis Professor of Social Sciences at MIT, Professor of the Humanities at New York University),
* Prof. Dr. Roger Keil (York University, Toronto, Canada),
* Prof. Dr. Roland Roth (Hochschule Magdeburg/Stendal),
* Prof. Dr. Rowland Atkinson (University of Tasmania, Australien),
* Prof. Dr. Saskia Sassen (Columbia University, New York, and London School of Economics)
* Prof. Dr. William Sewell (The Frank P. Hixon Distinguished Service Professor of Political Science and History Emeritus, University of Chicago),
Media contact to solidarity group in Berlin: einstellung@so36.net
German lawyer and media contact for Germany: Wolfgang Kaleck Immanuelkirchstrasse 3-4 D-10405 Berlin Germany fon: +49-(0)30-4467-9218 fax: +49-(0)30-4467-9220
Media contact for international affairs: Prof. Dr. Neil Brenner (New York University, fon: USA-212-998 8349) Prof. Dr. Margit Mayer (Freie Universität Berlin, fon: 030-8385-2875)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Sennett/ Saskia Sassen: Guantánamo in Germany
In the name of the war on terror, our colleagues are being persecuted - for the crime of sociology. By Richard Sennett and Saskia Sassen
'Terrorism" has two faces. There are real threats and real terrorists, and then again there is a realm of nameless fears, vague forebodings and irrational responses. The German federal police seem to have succumbed to the latter: on July 31 they raided the flats and workplaces of Dr Andrej Holm and Dr Matthias B, as well as of two other people, all of them engaged in that most suspicious pursuit - committing sociology.
Dr Holm was arrested and flown to the German federal court in Karlsruhe; he has since been put in (pre-trial) solitary confinement in a Berlin jail. Of course the police may have solid, rational knowledge they are withholding, but their public statements belong to the realm of farce. Dr B is alleged to have used, in his academic publications, "phrases and key words" also used by a militant group, among them "inequality" and "gentrification". The police found it suspicious that meetings occurred with German activists in which the sociologists did not bring their mobile phones; the police deemed this a sign of "conspiratorial behaviour".
Thirty years ago Germany had a terrible time with indisputably violent militant groups, and that leaden memory hangs over the police. And it may well be that "gentrification" is a truly terrifying word. But this police action in a liberal democracy seems to fall more into Guantánamo mode than genuine counter-espionage.
Consider the hapless Dr B a little further. He's not actually accused of writing anything inflammatory, but seen rather to be intellectually capable of "authoring the sophisticated texts" a militant group might require; further, our scholar, "as employee in a research institute has access to libraries which he can use inconspicuously in order to do the research necessary to the drafting of texts" of militant groups, though he hasn't writtten any. The one solid fact the cops have on Dr Holm is that he was at the scene of the "resistance mounted by the extreme leftwing scene against the World Economic Summit of 2007 in Heiligendamm", perhaps mistakenly believing he is studying this scene rather than stage-managing it.
These are not reasons for Brits, any more than Americans, to cluck in righteous disapproval; in the long, sad history of the IRA, reality and fantasy entwined in an ever tighter cord. But, apart from hoping that our colleague Dr Holm will be freed if only he promises to carry his mobile phone at all times, we are struck by the grey zones of fragile civil liberties and confused state power that this case reveals.
The liberal state is changing. In the 60s, Germany had the most enlightened rules for refugees and asylum seekers in Europe; the US passed the most sensible laws on immigration in its history; France granted automatic citizenship to all those born on its territory, including all Muslims. Today all these countries have, in the name of the war on terror, revised their rules - the state of emergency prevails. The laws meant for real threats are invoked to counter shapeless fear; in place of real police work, the authorities want to put a name - any name - to what they should dread. States of emergency are dangerous to the legitimacy of states. In cases conducted like this one, a government stands to lose its authority and so its ability to root out actual terrorists.
If our colleagues are indeed dangerous sociologists, they should be prosecuted rationally. But, as in Guantánamo, persecution seems to have taken the place of prosecution.
Richard Sennett is a sociologist at the London School of Economics; Saskia Sassen is a sociologist at Columbia University
r.sennett [at] lse.ac.uk
[The Guardian, 21.08.2007]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CampAG: Proposal for a cross-spectral big strategy congress
Hello, since its last meeting, the camp working group had thought a bit about how to continue protest and resistance. This is what came out of it:
Proposal for a cross-spectral big strategy congress in Autumn/Winter 2007
Like no other event in the recent past the actions before and during the summit in Heiligendamm will whirl around the strategic coordinates ofour struggles for a different society. At least for the parts of this movement that are acting in Germany there is no way to avoid new evaluations and analysis about how to develop sustainable protest. Before the summit the mass run to the fence and the bypassing of a strongly armed police phalanx with mainly unconventional and peaceful methods were judged as skeptical as the possibility to use mass militancy or to use it at a threat potential in the balancing of powers. We will have to critically evaluate in how far this Mix of forms of protest and resistance
* only functions singularly at summit protests
* have lasting effects at all
* if the comparably strong international mobilization contributed to that
* in how far the cross-spectral character made possible a lot of things
* if on the other hand too many forces were bound to install the alliance in form of the Hanover circle.
* and we will have to discuss why some of the desired protest forms, like Plan B and decentralized actions, did not function in the wanted extent.
As CampAG we do not want and we can answer these questions as a collective, but during our work one aspect has been of special importance to us: The categorical insistence on the cross-spectral character of the camps and thus the protests, not bringing into line or purely instrumentalizing the respectively other spectrums for strategical reasons, but to be open to diversity, to acknowledge this character as a form necessary at the moment and as a strength. We want to see in this character a means of transmission to realize and newly develop the social forces against the existing conditions in the future as well. Therefore we think it essential for the next struggles to have a joint assessment of the G8 protests and to decide about the direction to take now together. At the moment there are discussions going on in many modules and spectrums, analyzing the events of Heiligendamm and developing a strategy from it for the left and radical left movement. As far as it is known Attac is meeting right now on its summer academy and the IL at the river Mosel, the dissent network will meet in September and from the 18th to the 21st of October the [german] Social Forum will take place in Cottbus. Of all these and other local and internal meetings we have expectations: We hope that first proposals will be resulting from the assessment process in the respective spectrums by autumn - which strategic elements shall form the basis of our struggle in 2008 and 2009, for example.
* which partial struggles in society have our special attention?
* or are there ideas how to create a superordinate ensemble of the protests?
* Do the summit protests in Japan 2008 and in Sardinia 2009 have a special significance for us?
If strategic proposals and results of analysis will be thrown into debate by the different spectrums - relating to our questions or answering others - we would really like to do our share and support the debate infra structurally. Which means that we propose to have a very huge cross-spectral meeting of debate, strategy and network for some days in the end of autumn or the beginning of winter 2007. First talk about rooms for a congress like that are already under way in Berlin, if Berlin would be a desirable place for that congress. We want to be significantly involved in the setting up of the congress, contentwise as well as organizationaly. We got positive feedback from a lot of participants of the camps, and we believe to have collected quite some reputation to guarantee the cross-spectral character in the preparation of such a meeting. As the preparation of a congress like that has to start early, we ask the different spectrums for a quick feedback on the proposal announced here. Part of this feedback should be if you think that a weekend will be enough or if we should give ourselves more time, using extended weekends or winter holidays.
greetings full of expectations from the CampAG
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
radical left perspective on the g8
translation of a text written by german comrades - published in the hamburg autonomous magazine zeck some weeks ago. reflections about the demos in hamburg and rostock, challenges of the radical left and miltant strategies.
Reflexions on the mobilization of the radical left against the G8 in Heiligendamm
"In danger and real trouble stearing a middle course is death"
This was the motto of a longer text the Revolutionären Zellen wrote about the peace movement in Germany and the worldwide economical and political changes understood as globalization today. Concerning the strategy of the radical left they said amongst other things, that "we have to get out of the fatal dependency on the peace alliance, we need to open up our own fronts. The following and orientation on topics and proceedings of the protest against deployment means a political and practical narrowing, that could lead to the reversal of the aims declared... As long as there is no radical mass movement in sight, which in their resistance to imperialist strategies of annihilation pose the question of power as well, we don´t have any alternative: Our policy has to carry on aiming at strengthening the Left, at radicalizing them and widening their militancy... The transformation of the "civil democracies", that is resulting from the politico-economic changes, will further restrict the legal room for manoeuvre of the Left, especially by the time the conditions themselves will demand a radicalization of resistance. The peace movement sufficiently proved that the new social movements are not a protective shield under which militancy can be organized. A radical left that has the self-concept of making possible resistance time and time again has to create its own structures of subversion an illegality, to stay incalculable, incognizable, unconquerable."
24 years later this analysis seems near and far at once. On the one hand the changes in global power relations had created completely new starting conditions for emancipatory and radical left politics in the FRG as well. On the other hand the course of protests against the G8 had shown that the radical and militant left is more than ever on the defensive. And one would only have to substitute "peace alliance" and "deployment" for "anti-globalization-alliance" and "G8" to render the analysis up-to-date.
In the beginning of the year diverse radical left groups took the ASEM summit (assembly of the ministers of exterior from Europe and Asia) that was going to take place in Hamburg immediately before the G8 as an occasion to organize a supra-regional demonstration, that was as well meant to be the upbeat of protests against the G8. Unlike the mass demonstration in Rostock the goal was a radical left mobilization, open to participation to others but not to form a broad alliance at the prize of abandoning content. The mobilization for this demo was successful only to some extent. Namely there has been a relatively large radical left block, that was bigger than those on other demos in the lasts years but smaller than the one on the last huge radical left demo 1995 in Hamburg against the proceeding against the Radikal [underground journal]. All in all the left radical block largely remained amongst itself, it didn´t really work to mobilize beyond the scene. While the political spectrum up to the Left party could be found in the second half of the demo, this part stayed way behind their capacities in broadness and numbers. The Interventionist Left had already refused to participate in the demo-alliance and rather backed the cooperation with Attac, other reformists and NGOs in Heiligendamm.
While the strength of the first half of the demo had the result that the cops didn´t launch bigger attacks until its dissolution, their Wanderkessel [moving encirclement] proved successful in so far as we did not take the offensive as well. But the demo was not strong enough to reach the political aim to "attack" the meeting in the Hamburg city hall. Hence it was the right decision to dissolve the demo at Rödingsmarkt, the point most closely to city hall. By this we kept a moment of incalculability. But then we did not manage, neither directly nor later on, to get into the inner city. Instead we shifted confrontation - as many times in recent years - to the Schanzenviertel and in front of the Flora [neighborhood of the political scene & autonomous center]. So a real questioning or disturbance of the summit was not possible. The usual small riots in front of the Flora didn´t only show that we are not able to carry the confrontation to the place of events. They showed as well that there are no successful concepts for a scenario of dissolution, and that there are no sustainable structures who could take matters in their hands and realize the political aims of the demo, despite its dissolution.
Besides its function as a (radical left) starter of the G8 the ASEM-demo additionally got the character of an anti-repression demo by the police raids of the 9th of may, directed against the "militant campaign" and targeting many places in the north of Germany. While there had been disputes in the anti-G8-alliances in springtime about declarations of Attac for example, who then dissociated themselves from several arson attacks in connection with the mobilization to Heiligendamm, the razzias and 129a-proceedings were now unanimously disapproved as criminalization and intimidation of the resistance critical of globalization.
However, after the demo of the 2nd of June in Rostock the dispute reached a new dimension, when spokesmen of Attac compared militants to Nazis and championed for the exclusion of militants, and to hand them over to the cops. While the Interventionist Left did not dissociate themselves from militant actions in their declarations, they did not leave the alliance of Attac and other reactionary forces. After the demo of Rostock the actions in front of the fence that surrounded Heiligendamm were characterized by political self-disarming. Militants were often hindered or even excluded. For the majority of opponents of globalization it is appropriate to encounter evicting police standing or sitting there with hands up high. This spectrum mainly consists of a young student middle class milieu, which like the peace movement 25 years ago has no idea of the boundaries of formal democracy, system enmity, or the repressive assertion of capitalist interests. In the struggle against the Castor transports to the Wendland the fragile comprehension of next-to-one-another in the alliance was still prevailing, which means that the militant left contributes in her own way to the struggle against Castor, while the more civic groups practice strategies of civil disobedience without offensively dissociating from the militants. Even if the spectrum critical of globalization is not identical with the anti-nukes, for the first time in years an ideological and practical cooperation of the majority of a protest movement with the cops against militant attempts became apparent here. Those groups of the radical left counting on the concept of broad alliances did not counter that. The militant Left after the demo in Rostock didn´t manage to reveal to the wider Left their terms of system enmity against a murderous world regime and the means they accordingly chose. Thereby it is completely irrelevant whether the clashes were also, or even predominantly sustained by agents provocateurs fulfilling orders of the cops. There was nearly no immediacy of contents from our side, why system enmity will not accept dictated limitations of the choice of means, that what we talk about is power relations in conflicts, the building of countervailing power and our aim of social liberation. As well it didn´t work out to explain the action out of itself. As the demo was organized by a very heterogeneous alliance and was further on characterized by a mostly de-escalative concept of the cops until the demo reached its final destination, the question arises whether is was politically clever to attack a van of the cops standing all by itself at the roadside. There is quiet a lot of rage piled up if you on demos walk for years in Wanderkessel encirclements of the cops. But this would have had to be transported in an offensive way politically afterwards. Instead the political field of demo organization and post processing was left to the spectrum reaching from Attac to the Interventionist Left.
In contrast the relaying of contents worked relatively well after the Anti-G8 Grazia's as well as before and after the ASEM demo. Besides spontaneous demos and militant solidarity actions there were press declarations, Interviews and press conferences and parts of our contents were to be found in the corporate media. In TV and newspapers the juridical basis and also the tactical reasonability of the repressive measures were questioned, as it was feared to heat up things. After the ASEM-demo the social democratic, green and conservative parties argued about the legitimacy of demo-Wanderkessel, even if they did so in a weird way. Taking place immiediately after the police raids, the relatively big demo in Hamburg also showed the potential of radical left mobilization. It has not been evanescent, but also not very strong.
Comparing the demo situations in Hamburg and Rostock, due to the masses of people it has been objectively possible in Rostock to offensively act against the cops, which was not the case on the ASEM-demo in Hamburg. In Hamburg we could not create these prerequisites. The few activists and groups concentrated their capacities and power on realizing a more or less organized demo and action week against the ASEM and the G8 in Hamburg. Following the political aim it would have made sense - as it would have been communicable - to go to the inner city of Hamburg and to stage militant actions at the fence in Heiligendamm, respectively to materially disturb the summit in other ways. Both could hardly be realized. Against the backdrop of these experiences we should realistically evaluate our forces. They are strong enough for symbolic militant propaganda, currently we do not seem to be able to do more.
A partly comparable political isolation can be seen in recent years in example of the "militant campaign". The Hamburg secret service Verfassungsschutz (VS) under its head Lochte and now his successor Uhrlau always were a bit ahead of the other organs of repression. But after the arson attack on the car of the boss of the Bild-newspaper Diekmann the present head of VS Vahldieck asked the militants to consider whether their strategy is politically sustainable.
One thing that can be read out of this statement is that the organs of repression do not have many ideas of how to clarify the assaults committed or how to prevent further attacks. Although they started their apparatus on a big scale: Within the framework of 129a proceedings, which usually involves large scale observations of those suspicious and their personal environment, phone tapping and house searches, also special methods of cross-referencing dragnet investigations [Rasterfahndung] got known: In several districts of Hamburg the whole physical mail coming in was surveilled to find out where letters claiming responsibility were coming from, to then observe the respective letter boxes. Likewise the Hamburg branches of a pharmacy chain store were monitored, which could have provided materials for the arson attacs. The same time the security agents of companies thought relevant for possible assaults were commissioned to enhance their own person and object protection. The cops themselves tried to improve their concept of cordon searches after assaults took place. So the security apparatus booted up quiet some of the methods available since the tracing of RZ and RAF (and this is "only" because of arson attacs...), but seemingly they are in the dark with their proceedings, as there apparently are no results that would justify a warrant against any one of the suspects.
On the other hand the Hamburg VS discovered a grain of truth. Within the radical left the assaults against the state secretary of finances Thomas Mirow from Hamburg, the boss of the newspaper Bild and the head of an advertising agency of the campaign "We are Germany" [Wir sind Deutschland] content wise speak for themselves. But politically they mainly have the character of punishment- and propaganda-actions: Following the Motto, that this and that person is responsible for this and that rascality. Like our current demos the actions remain symbolic, they express contradictions, but are unable to contribute to a shift in direction of society or to build up spaces of social countervailing power. As the radical left and also the social grassroots movements are as weak as they are, there are not even starting points for common campaigns emerging, that could create or execute material pressure. Outside the militant left the political relevance of the attacks neither lies in their explanatory statements nor in a certain quantity, but mainly in that they could not yet be clarified or hindered by the investigating agencies. Insofar the attacks bear some politically randomness. In contrast the expropriatory actions of the "Superheroes" and "Superfluous" at least initiated some social fantasies. Their public actions of appropriation and distribution in delicatessen shops and luxury restaurants in themselves are as well nothing but symbolic, but the same time they relate their critique to a general conscience of growing inequality and pauperisation processes. In the beginning of the 90s the RZ dissolved because they saw no possibilities anymore to militantly intervene into social (mass)struggles, respectively to support them. Meanwhile we reached a point where we do not even succeed to use street militancy to politically intervene and communicate politics critical of the system. The RZ were right in 1983 saying that "as long as the mass movements do not pose the question of power, our policy has to aim at strengthening the Left, at radicalizing them and widening their militancy." So from our point of view there are following questions to be asked for the clarification of content and for the practice of the radical left:
- How can we strengthen the practical cooperation of the remaining rests of the radical left?
- How can it be possible to agree on certain forms of action or fields of content, to make it possible that we reach a critical mass, resp. that we can build a political counterweight?
- How can we better communicate our contents and approaches to the left and the broader public independent of our actions in a continuous way?
- How can we make sure that our militant actions starting from mass situations (from demos, at fences or railroad tracks) get as much consent as possible, or at least acceptance before, during and after the actions?
- How can we avoid that after militant actions like the demo in Rostock (which could not be planned, but were not surprising either) nearly no political statements came from our side?
It is important for us to get a discussion going about these points within the radical and militant left. As militancy we consider forms of action that elude themselves from the regnant frame of action, and concerning content, how they contribute to come closer to a society free of rule and coercion.
The debates of the "militant group" about their militant platform did not really help in that. There abstract lectures about historical deductions of forms of politics and resistance were given without pointing out in a concrete way, how militant and radical politics could contribute today to a strengthening of contradictions towards a breakage of the system. At the same time we assume that the militant and radical left has to continuously consider these questions. This doesn´t have to always happen in public. Possibly it could make more sense to discuss during the preparation of actions and campaigns properly in small circles, how contents and forms of action could contribute to strengthen social contradictions, resp. the radical left. It won´t help just to keep it up. This would be the deadly middle course for the radical left today.
Die rosa roten Panterchen
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Anti-sexist Contact and Awareness Group: Call for witnesses
antisexist_awareness_group@riseup.net
Sexual police violence during the protests against the G8 in Heiligendamm 2007
During the protests against the G8 in the area around Heiligendamm, sexism, sexual police violence and the threats of sexual police violence repeatedly occurred. We are looking for witnesses, on the one hand for an internal exchange and a strengthening amongst the affected persons, on the other hand so that a group of affected persons, in an anonymous form, is able to act. This is important, so that this theme will be out in the public politically, since sexual police violence is mostly not addressed, especially not in the public. It is also important for this to come to the expected commission of inquiry. For us it's also important to point out, that there was also sexism and sexual violence within the protest movement against the G8. Even though we are focusing on the police, it is important that the sexual violence within the movement isn't forgotten.
But first about the classification of sexism and sexual violence in general, before becoming more concrete. The division of people in two sexes and the hierarchization of sexes is the creation of a system of force, on which base our society is built. With that, inclusions and exclusions are made, specific attributions and duties are assigned, from division of work until for example speech style. In order to maintain this system of force, it has to be actively created anew over and over again. In this societal process, sexism and sexual violence is an instrument of power in order to create and maintain these relations of power and to create and maintain hierarchies and dependencies. So this is a common practice to create hierarchical gender ratios.
Now about sexism and sexual violence as practices of state-run institutions of force, like the police and the army:
Sexism and sexual violence and especially rape are used and sometimes recommended, among other things, in situations of war as an instrument of destruction, exercise of power and humiliation of the so-called enemy. But also in so-called times of peace, structural violence is created through sexism and sexual violence. In the ongoing discourse it's again and again suggested that sexual violence and rape are exceptions and exposed individual cases. Reality is however, that sexism and sexual violence are daily life conditions, therefore the rule. Sexism and sexual violence operate like a weapon and are a purposeful directed instrument for use of violence and repression. This has continuity, for example after the raid on the Diaz school in Geneva,several women were threatened with rape.
Sexual violence completely ignores the right of self-determination of the affected persons. It attacks the physical and psychic integrity and acts in a traumatizing way.
In addition to the terrible experiences of violence, powerlessness and humiliation for the victims of sexual violence there is also the burden with feelings of shame and guilt with which the affected persons often have to struggle. Moreover it is an incredible stigma to identify yourself as a survivor of sexual violence and to take the step into this process, to formulate the experience of violence, to politicize it, to name and accuse the perpetrator. Because of all these reasons, sexual violence mostly can't be named as such in public. Huge resources are needed, such as support through friends, counseling or supporter-groups, to place yourself in this position. But even if the survivor finds strength enough to speak about the experience, mostly there's a second victimization, thus more injuries in succession. In addition with the burden of repeatedly having to talk about traumatizing experiences, there are mostly disastrous reactions from the outside: Either the woman's story is not believed, detailed information is demanded, it's said she's also partly guilty for what happened, or she is being defamed as being ill, crazy or hysterical.
These are, amongst others, reasons why survivors don't dare to take legitimate steps. It maybe that their belief in the legal system is shattered, or they don't feel strong enough to be able and walk this path or try to escape the stigmatization from others. The bigger part of the incidences is not being reported, and we as a support group for survivors also advise against filing charges in most of the cases.
On the other hand, affected people act based on a strength, which comes from the knowledge beforehand, that repression might happen and that sexism and sexual violence is a part in that. They don't let it get to them and don't let it terrorize them. They are prepared inside and shield themselves against what might come. The strength and decisiveness of the movement was used by them to not let the experiences of violence get to close to them and to face all this full of self confidence.
The incidents with which people came and talked to us about, go for example from the denial of tampons, police controls where people were grabbed in the crotch and their breasts, sometimes accompanied with lewd noises, police controls or ID treatments during which people had to undress fully or partly before their picture was taken, to the point of threats of rape in jails (GeSa).
All this happened in a context, in which police arbitrarily demonstrated and enforced their entitlement of force and sovereignty through coercion and violence. Activists saw themselves confronted with partial masked and armored police forces in black. An arbitrary control and search or even worse, preventative arrest to "prevent danger", speaks a very clear language: WE HAVE THE POWER - YOU DON'T.
Sexism and sexual violence, like shown in these examples, always stand in this context. They are used knowingly and purposefully, to intensify the already staged practice of humiliation and repression.
antisexist_awareness_group@riseup.net
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan, German police discuss security for G-8 summit in Hokkaido
Jorg Ziercke (L), president of Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office, shakes hands with Japan's National Police Agency head Iwao Uruma(r) at the agency in Tokyo on Aug. 13. Ziercke paid a courtesy call on Uruma after senior officials of the German police office and their Japanese counterparts discussed security measures for the Group of Eight summit to be held in July next year at the Lake Toya hot-spa resort area in Hokkaido. (Kyodo Aug. 13 TOKYO, Japan)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan, German police cooperate on security for G-8 summit in Hokkaido
Aug 13 12:37 AM US/Eastern
Officials of Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office and Japan's National Police Agency met Monday in Tokyo and agreed to cooperate over the security of the Group of Eight summit to be held in July next year at the Lake Toya hot-spa resort area in Hokkaido, NPA officials said.
The Japanese and German police agreed to exchange information on the latest trends regarding anti-globalization organizations and other extremists groups in Europe, the officials said.
Japan's NPA and Hokkaido prefectural police officials in charge of summit security will be sent to Germany to step up the information exchanges, they said.
Germany hosted this year's G-8 summit in June in the Baltic resort of Heiligendamm. Protestors from anti-globalization and other groups staged rallies during the summit, with some turning violent and clashing with police causing many injuries.
Jorg Ziercke, president of the Bundeskriminalamt, or BKA, and other senior officials plan to visit Tuesday the venue of the G-8 summit, Windsor Hotel Toya Resort & Spa, which stands atop a 600-meter mountain overlooking Lake Toya.
Senior officials of the NPA Security Bureau had discussions with officials Monday about the location of the venue and their security plans, as well as how to best guard the G-8 leaders against any intrusions by such anti-globalization groups.
The Japan-hosted summit, to be held on July 7-9 next year, will be attended by leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the United States.
After the meeting, Ziercke had talks with NPA Commissioner General Iwao Uruma.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle 1999: Was anyone at Westlake on Dec 1, 1999? Please forward.
We need to find ~ 175 individuals who were in Seattle during the WTO protests in 1999.
We won an important lawsuit against the city of Seattle which violated our rights and these folks need to contact the attorneys by AUGUST 28, 2007 if they want their portion of the settlement $$ (see below to download claim forms.)
Sooo.... WHO DO YOU KNOW who might have been in Seattle at the WTO protests in 1999? Please pass this along to them and to others who might have some connections to those events. (Consider sending to your lists or specific people, adding info to your blog, website or announcement lists, and especially, talking to folks.)
Westlake, Dec 1, 1999? Nov 30, 1999:
We're specifically trying to be sure all 175 people who were arrested at Westlake on December 1, 1999 get this info IMMEDIATELY since they have only two weeks left to return their claim (due August 28th, 2007.)
We settled with the city of Seattle for $1,000,000 and each person arrested at that location is entitled to a portion of those funds. (Hopefully it's clear that ONLY folks arrested at this particular time and place are part of this suit and eligible to make these claims.)
A jury found that our 4th amendment rights were violated. See press release about the case: http://www.witheylaw.com/TLPJ-WTOVerdictNewsRelease.pdf and some news about the settlement: www.witheylaw.com/WTO%20Trial.htm www.witheylaw.com/news.htm
The problem is that after nearly 8 years (and not knowing who was actually arrested there), almost everyone has moved or gotten a new phone or email. We need to use our networks to reach folks so PLEASE HELP get this to them by forwarding on to reduce those degrees of separation.
Again, apologies to folks who may not understand why I'm sending this to you or who get this multiple times. Mostly I tried to think of people who might have some connection to the issues, the tactics or the regions that brought people to Seattle in 1999. The hope is that you will know how to reach folks that were involved so we can use our networks to reach these 175 people.
As an aside, let me note that many of the 175 folks we've already found are still committed to their activism and are planning to put the funds they receive BACK INTO their respective MOVEMENTS. Many of us recognize that though ~175 of us will receive a portion of this settlement, the victory of this case is a victory for us all. The work happening in the streets in 1999 is ongoing...and I personally hope to support that work by funneling my portion of the settlement money into groups still doing that work. Though these arrests violated our rights, many of us of are people of relative privilege which is another reason to give collectively with these funds. That said, most activists I know rarely have large financial means so this will be a rare opportunity for some of us to support financially the causes we work so hard on with our other resources. (My personal view of the money I'll be receiving is that it isn't really mine...it belongs to all the people (50,000) who were in the streets in 1999 opposing the WTO and, even more, to all the people affected by the WTO's policies. In 1999, I was arrested (wrongly, the jury decided) speaking out for what I believed in and trying to create change. In 2007, I hope to see the funds I'll be getting used to continue that work.)
Thanks and solidarity, Erica K, Jane WTO #890, can@drizzle.com, 206-568-7110 (still in Seattle)
P.S. You may have heard that director Stuart Townsend has made a movie about the protests called "The Battle in Seattle." It's supposed to be based on true events...but we'll see how true it really is...
Taken in Seattle12-09-07 during the filming of the film: I just saw that it will premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival (Sept. 6-15) and I've heard that it will be released broadly around....November 30th, 2007. Many folks recognize that this means our little piece of history will be spotlighted again for a brief moment in time, depending on how well the film does. I've heard of some great plans to reclaim the voices of those actually here to tell the true history of those days and to bring the multitude of globalization issues back into our discussions. Hopefully the arrestees will be announcing our collective donations at about the same time.
INFO for ARRESTEES (those arrested mid-morning on December 1, 1999 at Seattle's Westlake Park)
If you are one of the 175 arrested in this situation and you haven't already turned in your forms, please download the two files below and send the claim form in by AUGUST 28th, 2007.
*Notice of the lawsuit: www.zoopla.net/viewFile.php?fid=4044 Claim form: www.zoopla.net/viewFile.php?fid=4045
NOT DELAY!
ALSO, let me make a pitch to Westlake arrestees: Let's join together and put some or all of our settlement money back into our movements.
A small group of arrestees has put together a preliminary proposal that we'd like you to consider about how we can magnify the impact of our giving (including hooking up some matching funds.) From conversations with other arrestees, I know many of us do plan to donate most or all of our settlement money (after taxes) to our communities and to further the work we that brought us to Seattle in the first place in 1999. This proposal provides a forum for us to figure out how to collaborate on that. I invite those who receive settlement funds to consider participating.
We'll try to send the proposal to anyone who makes a valid claim to the settlement dough but, in case we miss you, please email me (can@drizzle.com) or wtosettlement@gmail.com if you are interested in this initiative. Look for this in your email soon. (If you got this first email from someone besides me, we probably don't have your email so be sure to drop us your current email address so we can include you.)
Again, let's use these funds to continue the work we began in 1999! Even if you don't plan to pool your funds with us, we'd love to know what other initiatives you use the settlement to support.
In solidarity, Erica Jane WTO #890 can@drizzle.com 206-568-7110
PS. WESTLAKE ARRESTEES: DON'T FORGET to DOWNLOAD and FILL OUT the PAPERWORK by August 28th!!!!
FYI: Sent by attorney Tyler Weaver on May 30, 2007 to a listserve of arrestees (but only a few folks are still on it after 8 years):
Only Westlake arrestees have access to this list. If forwarding this to others in the community, please make sure the message contains no sensitive legal communications.
Attention all-
I am pleased to finally be able to send you the official, court-approved notice of the settlement and the claim form for the recent settlement on behalf of those arrested on December 1, 1999, in Westlake Park. These documents are being sent to every person for whom we have a street address, and are also attached in .pdf format. [see download links above]
The notice describes in detail the settlement, the process for any objections and submitting claims, and the various deadlines. Hopefully all of your questions are answered there. If not, there are several avenues, as listed in the notice of the settlement, for you to ask questions and receive answers. If you were arrested at Westlake Park on December 1, 1999, the deadline for returning your claim form is August 28, 2007. There's no reason to wait that long, however.
I should also note that the settlement does not provide for any funding of non-profits or future protest or educational activities. However, if anyone wants to pool all or a portion of their settlement funds for a collective action, you can email either wtosettlement@gmail.com, or can@drizzle.net for more information, and to express your interest and/or participate in the planning process. This is completely and totally voluntary and is not part of the settlement, nor a condition to anyone's participation in the settlement. I merely include this information in the event anyone is interested in banding together.
If you know of anyone else who was arrested at Westlake Park, please forward this message and the attachments to them as soon as possible.
Tyler Weaver Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.