[New-imc] Back to the JUDEN proposal - despite its rejection - another biased abuse of process

Mon Oct 16 14:12:00 PDT 2006

 "I still see no reason why Darwin imc should be deprived of its domain. We have seen threats published from other imc groups and individuals in the area to "block" Darwin's domain from being returned. I consider those threats to be unethical, irrelevant to imc procedures and process, and out of turn. It will come to a fight - a much deeper fight than any of them suspect - if they try to block Darwin any longer."  "Darwin case has revealed that a number of imc groups "down under" are in violation of the POU and Ed Pol" 

 "Petros Evdokas" (new-imc) 

----------------------------------------------

I see no reasons given for any decisions by Paris imc save bias - just an unwillingness to accept your Oz network's disgusting record of villification and lies about activists and their use of race/hate campaigns to provoke and distress people

There is no explanation for perth imc's actions in seizing our site and giving it to people we expelled

You are ignoring cause to address effects - that is bias

I consider that people who need to lie and abuse process to get their own way - are a danger to independent media in Oz

darwin indymedia operated fine autonomously and were vindicated of the false charges from the people we expelled

you chose to ignore that and instead supported the expelled people coming to our homes and threatening and assaulting us  - that is extreme and hateful bias

you bet I'm angry - return our domain and keep out of our affairs or face an anti-racism campaign - because Oz imc is run by a pack of patronising white racists 

you are also supporting this racism and hate we and other activists have endured for years exclusively on the Oz imc and are now censored from criticising

you are welcome to deconstruct my logic here

http://pariahnt.org/Oz-indymedia/pages/NZ-Aotearoa-racism.htm

NZ imc were unable to refute a single fact

http://pariahnt.org/Oz-indymedia/pages/asher_NZ_Aotearoa_IMC_response.htm

 - maybe Paris can do better

I do not have to lockstep with you or anyone else (autonomy) - just abide by the POU your network continue to break without explanation

show us the process that removed our domain - returned it and seized it again

and remember what you are supporting - lies - racism and hate - years of it

this is just a rehash of a personal hate proposal again - Andrew Lowenthal's infamous 'juden' proposal - a melbourne imc member described as a "racist" by our Aboriginal members - it was REJECTED

"Any collective wishing to call itself Darwin Indymedia would therefore require, as part of it's constitution, to exclude this individual (mick lambe) and would automatically forfeit it's place as an IMC if he were ever to become a member." [1]

You are totally abusing process again

you are biased autocrats who cannot handle criticism after hosting years of hate, racism and lies against darwin activists

accept diversity (POU) and leave people be (autonomy)

boud - "It seems to say that the shared decision (however it got made) 
was that new-Darwin-IMC is not functional at the moment and should not
have a domain name"

unlike Oz imc's that censor criticism and host lies and racism against their critics?

as our site has been taken down twice and has continually been without a domain for two years  - while you did your best to destroy and intimidate us - I'll ignore the 'darwin is not functional' crap

Not good enough - why was our domain taken? Was it due to lies and biased autocracy?

Of course it was - and the evidence is available for anyone who can read - objectively

This is just more bias and an another attempt to get up Andrew Lowenthal's failed HATE proposal

"Mick DIMC - "We do not recognise any "powers-that-be" - that is 
 heirarchical and not what indymedia is about. If that is the reality 
 and innocent people must suffer it - there needs to be some change." 

 Cam quoting Mick - We do not recognise any "powers-that-be" 

 Cam - Ok, it seems they don't recognise you either. 

 Consider that an opportunity Mick. Stacy can be won over. 

 It may not be the way you like doing things, but if you really 
 really really want the domain back, maybe you would consider this 
 option. 

 There are many others that would block a new-imc application if you are 
 involved. 

 One of the most vocal, as you are aware, is 'and' (Andrew Lowenthal) from melbourne IMC. From my conversations with him, he will be allot harder to win over than Stacy is. 

 I would recommend you approach and_ and tell him you want to put things in the past and start again. Be nice about it, be humble."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Don't tell me how to respond to people who used lies, threats and assault at our homes and hate/race posts on your network to force me to be "humble"

For two years your network has tried UNSUCCESSFULLY to make liars out of our collective - while running hate and race campaigns to provoke and hurt our people - I'm justifiably angry and disgusted and the continuing exclusion of Aboriginal people is racist and inexcusable

This email will be censored on new-imc - so much for process

mick - DIMC
http://pariahnt.org/
____________

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

IMC Paris has written a message to the network on imc-process:
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2006-October/1012-my.html

Although it has several ambiguities requiring some guesswork to
interpret, i think it nevertheless clearly responds to what many of us
(not all) were concerned about in the new-imc group (and is more
strongly opposed to new-Darwin-IMC in its present state than what many 
of us would prefer):

(1) it completely rejects the statement, "Darwin IMC is an affiliated
IMC and should get its domain back" and

(2) it recognises the de facto reality and

(3) it in effect rejects (in a psychological sense) mick from the
network (this is what is stronger than what probably most of us would
prefer in new-imc)

(1) It rejects the statement, "Darwin IMC is an affiliated
IMC and should get its domain back" in several ways:

* It rejects the idea of affiliation/disaffiliation and automatic
"rights" of affiliated members, which i think that several of us in new-imc
accepted without wondering if the concept itself was being pushed too far:

> That we are not asking for the disaffiliation of Darwin is nothing to 
> do with the previous blockages (these would not have prevented us from 
> making a similar proposal) and should in no way be construed as 
> justifying Mick's action: it is simply that we reject the principle of 
> affiliation and disaffiliation.

* This comment seems to imply (in the context of their whole message)
that dns should not feel obliged to give new-Darwin-IMC control of their
domain name:

> 3. As the attribution of the domain name is a shared decision, nothing 
> stops them from using a name other than indymedia.org:

It seems to say that the shared decision (however it got made) 
was that new-Darwin-IMC is not functional at the moment and should not
have a domain name, and notes that nevertheless, the group can get 
another, non-indymedia domain name (which in fact they did do).

* This comment seems to imply (again in the context of their whole message)
that they should be removed from the cities list, but that individual
imc's can link to it if they wish:

> 4. Inclusion in cities.xml also being a shared decision, nothing 
> prevents their supporters from making links to their site;

It seems to say that the shared decision (however it got made) 
was that new-Darwin-IMC is not functional at the moment and should not
be on the cities list, and notes that nevertheless, the group can be linked
to by local imc's who wish to do so.

(2) it recognises the de facto reality:

> 5. As Darwin no longer has any connection, it is de facto disconnected 
> from the network.

This is what some of us might call the question of "affiliation",
though with different connotations. AFAIR, i did suggest that the word
"affiliation" has problems due to its patriarchal origin. If Paris
wants to describe this is in a different way, saying that new-Darwin
is "disconnected" from the network at the present time rather than
"not considered as affiliated", then i think at least the meaning is
close enough for what we wanted for new-imc work: at the moment the
group is not "connected", but with john and petros' patient help, it
will hopefully get reorganised, learn consensus process, decide
whether or not it wants to become an open, non-hierarchical group,
etc., and thereby "become connected".

(3) it in effect rejects (in a psychological sense) mick from the
network (this is what is stronger than what probably most of us would
prefer in new-imc)

> We consider that Mick has no place in this network and we wonder why 
> he is insisting on remaining, given that his actions clearly 
> contradict his stated principles. We think that nothing can justify or 
> excuse them.

i don't think they are opposing any individuals (e.g. petros, john m)
from working with (or trying to work with) mick, nor are they opposing
any collectives from working with him.

> We believe that as 
> long as an entity of the network wishes to assist another member of 
> the network, we should not stop them.

But they do seem to say that they are unlikely to cooperate with him
as part of the network, and they don't expect him to heal like some of 
us are hoping. At the same time, they're not "interfering" in the way
the IMC Cyprus statement talked about.

So CMI Paris' point of view is quite different from that of petros.
It's just that they are saying that Darwin is "disconnected" rather than
"disaffiliated" from the network.

i don't know if CMI Paris will come up with a clear statement about
whether it's blocking or standing aside from the precise text of our
proposal - this is one of the ambiguities in the message, which says
(near the beginning):

> ... This is a 
> collective response.

but does not say to whom or to what question it's a response. It may be 
a response to ben (imc uk?)
http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/imc-process/2006-October/1009-hx.html

It seems to me that what would be consistent with their new message is
not to remove the whole sentence:

|  However,
| we are acting with the understanding that - at the moment - neither of
| the collectives with which "new-imc" is now working should be considered
| affiliated, or have use of those things which are contingent upon full
| membership in the IMCN (such as, for example, the use of a
| ".indymedia.org" domain name for their websites).

but to put instead something like:

However,
we are acting with the understanding that - at the moment - neither of
the collectives with which "new-imc" is now working should have the use of a
".indymedia.org" domain name for their website nor be on the cities list.

That would be clear about dns and the cities list and in this case, 
i don't see any problem with dropping the reference to "affiliation".

i guess we should wait till the deadline passes (another week) to see
if they are willing to respond to the clarification question which we have
already asked.

i should say that one way i see of summing up their point of view is
"relax, be cool, use common sense and rough consensus, and
decentralise".

In this particular situation, maybe IMC Paris is right, and we may not
even need another formal proposal to imc-process...

Anyway, let's see in a week's time...

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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.indymedia.org/pipermail/new-imc/attachments/20061016/eca74b83/attachment.htm 