[Imc-unity] Fwd: Re: [IMC-Process] San Diego and POUs
Thu, 8 Nov 2001 23:00:03 -0800
>Subject: Re: [IMC-Process] San Diego and POUs
>From: Stephen P Konieczka <email@example.com>
>List-Id: IMC Process and Decisionmaking Discussion
>Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 01:21:03 -0600
>i agree in principle. activists asking not to be photographed shouldn't
>be (unless weilding 2x4 as intimidation). and when certian actions are
>observed, filmed or recorded those items are not made public. however, to
>bring us back to this draft POU#3, to say that anyone should not be
>photographed so long as they ask not to be, no matter who they are, will
>prevent the exposing of gross violations of human rights and dignity. if
>folks don't want to be doucmented doing things then they have the
>responsibilty to sheild themselves from prying eyes in a manner that does
>not threaten those people documenting. In turn we express our solidarity
>by never violating their trust.
>i'll suggest the following as a starting place for the rewrite of POU#3.
>As individuals Indymedia respects the right of people to request that
>they not be documented in any fashion, as we may wish the same at times.
>However, circumstance will not always allow our members to comply with
>these requests and we reserve the right to act upon our judgement. As an
>expression of our solidary with those we continue to document after being
>requested to cease Indymedia will not violate the trust of indidviduals
>by releasing compromising documents, film or tapes into the public domain
>or surrender them to any authority.
>On Wed, 7 Nov 2001 20:26:27 -0800 (PST) ferry Ben <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>> i agree with you jim when u say that that is not just
>> one way to get in consensus and i think the way the
>> local imc will adopt depende on them. The only thing
>> is that we need to know that the way you will choose
>> should be democratic and non-hierarchical...mostly of
>> the ppl here in brasil has never heard of the "twinkle
>> fingers" and has no idea what that is bout, and we
>> use consensus on all our meeting..not only imc's
>> anyways that was just an example of how things could
>> be different but still be democratic and
>> non-hierarchical...and we can still get in a
>> About the part where you talk about your situation
>> with the police in genova, i'd like to put my position
>> as that i really dont care about the "cop's rights"
>> ...but i do agree that we should at least re-write
>> this part of the principals cuz it looks like that we
>> must respect the cop's rights as well....maybe we
>> should start to try to re-write it...something like:
>> "we would respect the activist who asked not to be on
>> the picture, video, audio...and we will use the comom
>> sense when we reproduce some material where could put
>> ppls lives in dangerous..(exemplo: someone breaking or
>> setting fire on something in a material where this
>> person could be indentificated by the police...we
>> should not publish cuz we will be given it to the
>> police ) i dont know if i could make myself
>> clear..this was just one of the examples from
>> situations that could happen...that is a lot
>> more...anyways..we should re-write it..
>> --- Proletarian Productions <email@example.com> wrote:
> > > Hi all,
>> > It looks as if some folks took a little exception to
>> > some of our discussion
>> > of some of the Principles of Unity. So I'd like to
>> > speak to that for the
>> > San Diego IMC.
>> > On PoU #3 I think we all respect the rights of
>> > activists not to be filmed
>> > or photographed, where we had problems was with
>> > police and public
>> > officials, and the like that ask you not to record
>> > their voice or image?
>> > When there was an action here over the death of
>> > Carlo in Genoa I was asked
>> > by a security guard (federal employee) to respect
>> > his right to privacy and
>> > not video him. Well, he was harassing a Black Block
>> > at the time I started
>> > rolling and when he focused his attention on me it
>> > took pressure off the
>> > activist, so once the brother took off I stopped
>> > tapeing. This is the kind
>> > of thing we had questions on during our discussion.
>> > I hope this clears it up for everyone.
>> > On concensus, let me say we come to concensus on
>> > issues, usually. :) As you
>> > can see in our discussion of the PoUs. For instance
>> > "2) All IMC's consider open exchange of (2) and open
>> > access to information a
>> > prerequisite to the building of a more free and just
>> > society."
>> > "ACTION: Accepted by consensus. Jonathan asked, as a
>> > point of information,
>> > whether "information" also meant opinion."
>> > We agree to the principle that a non-hierarchical,
>> > democratic, decision
>> > making process is the way to get to concensus. What
>> > a majority of us don't
>> > really belive is that the only way to achieve a
>> > concensus is through "the
>> > concensus process" as practiced by so many today.
>> > That process is
>> > definitely a way to come to concensus but not the
>> > only way. We have pretty
>> > small meetings and find that we can usually come to
>> > concensus through open
>> > discussion of an issue and that it will become
>> > apparent what the feeling of
>> > the group is through that discussion. Ocasionally
>> > we'll vote or do "twinkle
>> > fingers" but usually that's not necessary.
>> > So once again I hope this clears up or position on
>> > this.
>> > Que VIVA IMC!
>> > Jim
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > imc-process mailing list
>> > firstname.lastname@example.org
>> Do You Yahoo!?
>> Find a job, post your resume.
>> imc-process mailing list
>imc-process mailing list