I doubt the BBC particularly wants my off-the-cuff attempt to pee in their iCan pool and I really look forward to goading Johnathan Miller into setting up an anti-TV licence campaign on iCan. However with the Cambridge Women in Black we see an example of exactly the sort of campaign the BBC had in mind when it set up its strange vaguely bloggish monstrosity. They state:
Cambridge Women in Black are holding silent vigils to protest against the ‘war on terror’. We are women of all ages and from all walks of life who oppose the use of violence. We are wearing black to show that we mourn all victims of terrorism and war.
In March 2003 the UK and US governments again attacked the people of Iraq, who have already suffered extensively from war and more than a decade of devastating sanctions. Cambridge Women in Black are here to show that we believe that more violence will not bring security and peace. We call on our government to stop creating yet more misery and hatred.
Note that the woes of the Iraqi people are not due to decades of Ba’athist mass murder and repression but are from the war and sanctions… sanctions during which large palaces and grandiose mosques were constructed in Iraq. Still, I do not suppose I should hold that against the ‘Cambridge Women in Black’ because after all, they state they are mourning “all victims of terrorism and war”… and never said anything about the victims of national socialist tyranny.
story via The Daily Ablution
and never said anything about the victims of national socialist tyranny
Silly Perry. Socialism never harmed anyone. Only capitalism. I’m glad the Cambridge Women in Black oppose violence–somebody needed to oppose removing vicious tyrants from power. How disgustingly violent. After all, he did make the trains run on time. And there was health care! If you were sick with the disease of desiring liberty, you could be cured with the ancient, holistic tradition of lead.
You peed in their poo? Yuck, man.
not to pee on your poo, but where’s the evidence that this is “exactly the sort of campaign the BBC had in mind”?
Oh sure, if you’re slotting everything into a wide ranging leftist-pinko-trot-BBC funded-by-tax-and-the-apparatus-of-the-state aiding and abetting the worldwide-socialist-authoritarian-conspiracy then you can assume you know the reasons are those you’ve put forward.
I actually thought the basic reasons behind iCan were that the BBC was so behind the pace on the fuel protests a few years ago that they wanted to have a way to be able to easily get hold of grass roots political and social campaigning, and they’re trying desperately to provide ‘public service’ in order to hold onto the charter.
Having a go at the BBC because some of the people using it do things you think are stupid is akin to having a go at guns because some of the people shooting them are stupid.
And surely that’s something you’d never do…
Well the fact a member of the BBC staff is a supporter is a bit of a give away that the ‘women in black’ is rather a better fit with their culture that Anti-Activist Activism. I note that their remarks I read a while back about ‘encouraging engagement in the democratic process’ (or words to that effect) are not up any more (or have moved, given they are still in beta that is not really too surprising)… but as I am encouraging people to disengage from the democratic process in Britain and just stop cooperating regardless, it would be fair to say my campaign is probably not what they would prefer to see… and I suspect if I can convince Johnathan Miller to do the same thing that will be even less welcome. It is hard to see how that would not be the case.
I am having a go at the BBC because I resent being robbed each year by the state owned media which I so loath… that I can also attacfk some people using their services is just extra sauce as far as I am concerned.
With all this fuss over with the Cambridge Women in Black, let’s not forget the venerable ‘F*****g Furious Foundation’, also represented on iCAN. As they put it:
The FFF “exists to undermine the dominant neo-liberal ideology and the foreign policy of the US government by providing an artistic creative counter-cultural force, both learning from and inspiring social movements around the world”.
Neo-liberalism has no chance against the FFF.
The Tapir
dailyablution.blogs.com
The F*****g Furious Foundation?!!
Is this a radical off-shoot of the Not Best Pleased Society?
Cambridge Women in Black?
Are you sure they’re not a female Johnny Cash tribute band?
Well (God bless ’em) apparently they spelled their name out in full – until the Telegraph’s (final) BeebWatch mentioned them yesterday, claiming that the name was ‘spelled out in full’ – which apparently prompted the BBC into some self-censorship.
So the name was changed to a more demure incarnation before noon yesterday.
What’s really interesting to me is the fact that, despite the publicity (albeit in The Telegraph) they still only have 5 supporters (including MIDNIGHT ANGEL…(ACE)…AND..GUARDIAN ANGEL..AND GODDESS OF ALL THINGS ANGELIC) as of right now.
The Tapir
http://dailyablution/blogs.com
Well (God bless ’em) apparently they spelled their name out in full – until the Telegraph’s (final) BeebWatch mentioned them yesterday, claiming that the name was ‘spelled out in full’ – which apparently prompted the BBC into some self-censorship.
So the name was changed to a more demure incarnation before noon yesterday.
What’s really interesting to me is the fact that, despite the publicity (albeit in The Telegraph) they still only have 5 supporters (including MIDNIGHT ANGEL…(ACE)…AND..GUARDIAN ANGEL..AND GODDESS OF ALL THINGS ANGELIC) as of right now.
The Tapir
http://dailyablution.blogs.com
Tim Newman – V good!
So I am starting to wonder if iCan is just a government sponsored IndyMedia?
Those Women In Black (as opposed to Men In Black?) seem to have a bad memory – the war was never against the Iraqi people, but against Saddam and his regime.
Johan, remember. These people are not actually against war, or even against US wars. They are agains the US waging war without their approval. Remember Yugoslavia in 1999 ? Three months of bombing with no UN resolution sanctioning it, all for crimes Saddam had already committed 15 years ago. Where were the volunteer human shields ? Where were the protesters ? Guess they can’t be bothered if there is no oil.
They are agains the US waging war without their approval.
I think the last five words are redundant. (I know the Balkans looks like a counterexample, but remember the security of the US wasn’t at stake there.)
Jeanne, you and I know they are. And you might even agree with me that they should be.
But that’s the point. Some seem to believe American power is some sort of global public service. And they bitch and moan about America acting independently as if it was the NHS.
Right on, Sylvain! 🙂
the war was never against the Iraqi people, but against Saddam and his regime.
Ah, but these are the same people who say that, in a democracy, “we” are the state, as a means of excusing and justifying any exercise of state power. They simply cannot comprehend that the state is something separate and apart from them.
And remember, Saddam was democratically elected with 99% of the vote!
R.C Dean,
yes, you are right. The inability for many people to separate the State from ordinary civilians is terrible. It is probably the vicious and poisonous idea that has ever existed.
Right, I forgot that Saddam got 99% of the votes…after all, Iraqis were much better off with him in power…right?