[New-imc] hypothetical process issues Darwin/Arafura

[mick lambe PARIAH]

the entire collective - apart from justin - (who was fortunate not to have these people invade his home with threats and violence) - want arafura blocked.

how many times must this fact be repeated?

our first meeting ratified the expulsions - our second ratified the block.

All of our collective - including Justin - believe the 'arafura' collective is a stunt to continue this drama and harm us. 

emails from dimc members make that clear.

the strike continues


- mick
______

boud <boud at riseup.net> wrote: hi new-imc,

On Fri, 30 Jun 2006, Petros Evdokas wrote:

> On the issue of mutual blocks between Arafura and Darwin against each
> others' cases:

AFAIK, only mick from Darwin has expressed an intention to block
Arafura - Arafura has *not* expressed an intention to block Darwin
(AFAIK) and i expect that Arafura would be unlikely to do so.

> I feel it's time we (new-imc) take responsibility for our perceptions
> and rule them both irrelevant and contrary to the spirit of our current
> procedure with the two groups.

The formal problem is that new-imc does not have this power to "rule the
blocks irrelevant". Common sense might mean that on imc-process, blocks
from either one of the two would be de facto considered invalid.

However, asking both groups to commit to not blocking the other is
also something that they can do to improve their relationship. It also
means they have to trust other, independent local IMCs to do this on
their behalf if necessary.  At the moment mick from Darwin has stated
his intention to block Arafura (though we don't know if the whole
collective consensed on this), but i haven't seen an intention in the
reverse direction.

> After all, our effort here is to address what we (new-imc) consider to
> be an irreconcilable split between two groups. Irreconcilable.
>
> We should learn from what happened in the past (San Francisco imc is a
> terrible and great example) and avoid the same pitfalls of loosing the
> folow and continuity of our procedures as they get stuck in the mud of
> insane motions and countermotions.
>
> This is an informal proposal that we should tell the two groups that
> their (present and future) blocks to each other are considered
> invalidated and inappropriate given the particularities of the conflict.
>
> I'm willing to make this into a formal proposal if there's a need.

Well, if you want to override possible bad intentions from either group,
then probably imc-process is the place. IMHO new-imc can only make
recommendations.

solidarity
boud


_______________________________________________
New-imc mailing list. Lista de correo New-imc
New-imc at lists.indymedia.org
http://lists.indymedia.org/mailman/listinfo/new-imc



   mick lambe - coordinator: PARIAH - BETTER A PARIAH - THAN A LIAR
People Against Racism In Aboriginal Homelands - Northern Territory Australia 

Archived by the National Library of Australia for preservation
 as a site of national significance and lasting cultural value
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pariahnt - (spam free zone)

PARIAH Mobile: 0404772989





 		
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
 Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail Beta.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/attachments/20060701/6fba12f1/attachment.htm