[Imc-communication] about the proposal to purge Darwin-imc

[Petros Evdokas]

Thank you Takver, I appreciate the clarifications you made. Some 
aditional comments below:

takver wrote:

> As far as I am aware Melbourne Indymedia collective members have had no
> direct contact with members of the Arafura IMC. Melbourne is also not
> the backer of the Arafura Application. The main sponsor of Arafura IMC
> is Sydney IMC, and the application has also been supported by the
> Wellington Collective of Aotearoa IMC

I have also been attacked publicly by Mick Lambe. He has even used the 
pages of Cyprus IndyMedia to attack me. But my approach to it is 
entirely different - I see his point!

He has called me a liar, a racist, an undemocratic dictatorial person, 
and many other things. Nevertheless, I consider that Mick is driven to 
this insane behaviour by injustices for which *we* - the indymedia 
network - are collective responsible. At this point Mick can not be held 
responsible for what he is publishing.

He is only lashing out in a clumsy and disordered style - but his 
complaints are valid. A healing, both internally and externally will 
have to take place before his work can be harmonized again with 
indymedia. But it is we who must find solutions for that healing to 
happen. A political purge in violation of our own principles is not a 
healing either for indymedia at any level (global, regional, local), nor 
for Mick Lambe.

We don't have to agree about whether Mick Lambe is a good or bad person, 
about whether he is a victim or a perpetrator (in the current phase he 
is both) - there are more important values that we already agree on, 
which bind us together as colleagues into a network. Regardless of what 
we think of Mick, we need to be able to separate our own 
responsibilities from his.

We have our principles of unity to uphold, and our editorial policy. In 
order to preserve these, we need to disengage from conflict with Mick, 
and to be supportive of the re-validation process that was set up a few 
months ago between the new-imc group and the two groups into which the 
Darwin group has been split. Let's give that process a chance to work.


If we accept that any of the local imc collectives now can take an 
initiative to dictate members (by name!) to other collectives at the 
threat of the entire group's expulsion, where will this end? Tomorrow, 
any one of our groups might face the same: "either expel this person, or 
the whole group shall be expelled".

Instead, I ask of you, I ask of all of us, to please find some way to 
disengage from conflict, and to exercise compassion: all, or most of our 
local imc groups have troubled members, all of us know indymedia members 
who, if they are harrassed sufficiently can be driven to publishing an 
endless stream of non-sensical material. Is that enough justification to 
purge an imc local? Or to purge a particular member?

What happened to our principle of autonomy and self-determination? I 
believe that most of us in indymedia have a true and genuine respect for 
it and I believe you do too. I'd like to invite you to please reconsider 
this approach.

It's not just a slogan that we say we uphold the principle of autonomy. 
It is a good guide to solving problems of this type. In harmony with 
this principle, we can look for internal (local) solutions to problems 
which otherwise if ignored, only lead to outside interventions and an 
endless cycle of conflict.

Do we want that endless cycle of conflict? I can assure you that the 
expulsion of Mick or of the entire Darwin-imc group is not going to end 
the conflict: it will lead to an entrenchment of the conflict, one that 
will be even more difficult to reverse.

Please reconsider.
Thanks,
Petros
_______