[Imc-uk-features] Anti-Imperial Editorial Guideline?

[Chris]

Hi

One thing I'd like to suggest for the next network meeting
is that we agree a additional anti-imperial, anti-war
editorial guideline -- although we perhaps take it for
granted that Indymedia doesn't support the UK / US
occupation of Iraq and all the other imperial
interventions that have left millions dead since WWW2 I
think it would help if we were upfront about our
subjectivity when it comes to the genocide and war crimes
committed by the state: we are opposed to them.

Anti-war protests have been perhaps the most reported
protests on the site since the laungh of the "war on
terror" yet opposition to war isn't mentioned in our
editorial guidelines. The only statment I think we have
that even mentions the anti-war movement is what we agreed
on the day of the 7/7 bombings:

    Indymedia UK Statement on London bombs
 
    Short statement on the bombs in London today:
 
    "Indymedia UK stands in solidarity with all the victims
    of today's horrific attacks in London. We share the
    disgust felt by all about these acts and their
    perpetrators, our thoughts are with the victims and
    their families. We are also acutely aware that these
    events will be exploited by the most reactionary
    elements of the British media and political
    establishment for their own selfish purposes.
 
    We are particularly concerned about a possible backlash
    against Britain's Muslim community as we saw following
    9/11 in the USA. We urge all activists involved in
    progressive politics to do everything they can to stop
    this from happening. Now is the time to be building
    bridges between all communities as we have seen with the
    anti-war movement. Don't feel helpless, do something.
 
    We will continue to give a voice to all who have an
    opinion on these events and have little or no voice in
    the mainstream media. Our usual editorial guidelines
    apply.
 
    IMC'ista, 07.07.2005 16:15

  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/static/londonattack

The thing that prompted me to think there is a need for
this is an editorial decision that was made yesterday,
this comment:

    The actual situation
    03.09.2007 15:53

    As much as I'm sure the some IMC reader would love to
    think the UK forces in Basra have suffered some sort of
    defeat the reality is very different.
    
    In real terms the British policy from the start in
    Basra has been the route the US should have taken. The
    UK has spent time and money training Iraqi froces to
    replace them on a road by road, town by town, province
    by province basis and this has enabled a gradual
    reduction in forces and in general far more local
    stability when compared to the US controlled areas.
    
    The Brirish Army has completed this training pretty
    much on the timeline and with minimal casualities in
    military terms.
    
    Finaly the comments by the poster 'Danny' illustrate
    such a complete and utter lack of understanding of not
    only the current situation in the Southern Iraqi area
    but also control of supply lines in a military
    environment he really should not contribute. UK and US
    air superiority is absolute, the insurgents have no
    attack capability against massed armour and to suggest
    that the US Army could not leave Iraq anytime it wanted
    with no more than very minimal probis just fanciful.
    
    Arran 

  https://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/09/380152.html?c=all#c180335

Was, understandably, hidden, then Ben decided to unhide it
and promote it as an addition to the article. I then
depromoted it and then after that ftp hid it again. I
don't think that indymedia should promote
pro-establishment disinformation -- there is quite enough
of this in the mainstream media already.

I have copied this to the features list for info -- best
if any discussion about any changes to the editorial
guidelines are done on the process list.

Chris

-- 
Aktivix -- Free Software for a Free World