Relate to anarchist deliberate acts of violence may be seen as something very natural for most people if they think about anarchism as a whole. But for most young anarchists, it must be hard to imagine that in the early 80's, the armed struggle in Canada not only seemed possible, but a small group from the Vancouver anarchist community is committed to it. In addition, there was a small but significant support for these three actions.
In the name of Direct Action and Wimmer's Fire Brigade, claimed they never explicitly as anarchists. For that reason, neither did his supporters. Though never denying that we were. Our anarchism developed more in political practice than in theory and history. In this debate, the word "we" should be referred to the small environment where they left the five of Vancouver. Only those five decided to follow their ideas through a logical conclusion and go underground. Others also were influenced by similar developments in different places, and shared the desire to shake Canadian politics.
The political context for Direct Action was international. Between mid, late 70's and early 80's Red Army Faction (Rotte Arme Fraktion, RAF) in Germany and the Red Brigades in Italy were the largest guerrilla groups within the whole range of groups in Europe. The insurrection in Europe seemed possible despite the huge level of repression directed against militants're killed and kidnapped politicians and executives. Canadian anarchist newspapers such as the Open Road, Bulldozer and Resistance in North America echoed these struggles.
copaba The armed struggle is also often the agenda in the United States. The popular idea is that the political struggle ended in the early 70's after the end of the Vietnam War. But even if the anti-war groups and other movements had been removed, remnants of the militant groups had gone underground to continue the fight against the system. On the East Coast, the Black Liberation Army (Black Liberation Army), formed at the time that the Black Panthers (Panthers) are passed into hiding after having learned the lesson of the intense and deadly repression that went in against, was active until 1981. The United Freedom Front (United Liberation Front) and the Armed Resistance Movement (Armed Resistance Movement) was active until early 1980, attack on government buildings to protest American military involvement in Central America and attacking corporate objectives to protest its involvement in South Africa.
On the West Coast, groups like the Symbionese Liberation Army (Symbionese Liberation Army) and the New World Liberation Front (Front de Liberation of the New World) robbed banks, planted bombs and kidnapped Patty Hearst, a wealthy heiress. These groups were politically suspect and were certainly not anti-authoritarian. Many radicals felt that were significantly infiltrated by the police. Despite all contributed to the trial argued that armed action could be effective as they had their impact.
were also many small autonomous groups, some of which were explicitly anti-authoritarian anarchists, who were active until the end of the decade. Dune and Larry Bill Giddins, for example, are two anarchists who remain incarcerated in the United States today for actions that took place at that time. Bill and Larry were arrested in October 1979 after a shootout in the streets of Seattle when they tried to pull a friend out of jail.
The best known of these West Coast group was the George Jackson Brigade (George Jackson Brigade) was formed by anarchists and Marxists. Committed a series of actions in the Seattle area in the late 70's, often in support of the movement of prisoners which was quite strong in those years. The GJB was anti-authoritarian, pro-women, pro-gay and lesbian people and defended the collective, as opposed to political parties. Even though all groups were finally're crushed, they came to offer an alternative policy to organize demonstrations and publish newspapers.
Open Road in Vancouver, Toronto Bulldozer, and Resistance, which started in Toronto and then moved to Vancouver, and covered the armed resistance in United States and the subsequent repression. This coverage played a bigger role when his supporters in the United States were dissolved, and left the majority tried to distance himself from them as much as he could. We publish statements explaining actions. We provide support coverage in their judgments and we offered outlets for the writings of the combatants who had been captured. The revolution, or at least a protracted struggle, it seemed entirely possible. Five were for the most part the product of the wave of armed struggle in North America, and part of the political machinery of the growing anti-war anti-NATO movement. Our perspective was quite internationalist even but we understood that we work within our local and national situations.
In the spring of 1982 a bomb destroyed the almost complete substation Cheekeye hydraulic-Dunsmuir. This construction had a strong opposition from local residents in the environmental field. It was thought that lead to the industrialization of Vancouver Island and the construction of nuclear power plants for export earnings to the United States. Hundreds of kilos of dynamite put an end to that plan in the midst of his trial.
There was considerable local support for action. It was unclear whether Direct Action, which had claimed the action was an anarchist group or no, but would not have made any difference in the meaning of it.
The stock had increased the political stakes in Canada. But as the attack had taken place in a natural park, it was easy to ignore. The next action would not be.
Late in the afternoon of October 14, 1982, a truck exploded outside the Litton Industries plant in Rexdale, in the northwest area of \u200b\u200bToronto, with the result of millions of dollars in damage. Seven workers were injured, one lifetime. After a few days, Direct Action issued a statement claiming responsibility. As a political piece, the statement is as relevant today as it was in 1982, the only difference being that the Cold War is over. The most important thing of it is self-criticism that is made by seeing the police and security guards as superheroes. They were not. The Direct Action mistakes that were aggravated by the inadequate response of both the guards and the police.
The attack was quite simple: drive a stolen truck loaded with dynamite through the gates and park Litton front in front of the building, leave in 35 minutes the truck would explode. To ensure that the bomb threat was taken seriously, drove the truck correctly in front of the glass cockpit of the security guards. But the guards did not notice the presence of the van but even from the position of conductor of the same could clearly see the guards. Then the warning call was not understood. But at least caught the attention of the guards toward the van. Unfortunately, Direct Action were a little smarter. They had placed a box painted fluorescent orange on the outside of the truck, easily visible from the cockpit of the guards. Placed over the box a sheet of paper with information and instructions. They hoped that the guards moved towards the box once they had received the call. To emphasize the seriousness of the situation put a stick of dynamite on the box disassembled. Another error. Security guards stayed away from the box, because they did not know that the dynamite was unarmed. Despite the obvious threat, the security guards began to evacuate the plant up to twenty minutes after receiving the warning call. Then the bomb went off earlier than expected, probably activated by radio signals from police cars that were coming to the area.
The attack took place at a time when the Cold War between the U.S. and the USSR was quite intense. Ronald Reegan, representing the sector of the American ruling class was determined in making the U.S. the so-called evil empire, had been elected president. Both sides were trying to realize the first steps of nuclear capacity through the production of new weapons such as cruise missiles, the Pershing missiles, submarines with nuclear capability and the neutron bomb. The possibility of nuclear war was real enough then.
In response, we developed a peace movement in Europe, North America and elsewhere. The consent of Canada to the United States to test cruise missiles over northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories was seen as an affront to the peace activists. Litton had become the focus of broad protests from peace groups who dedicated himself to producing guidance system for missiles. They had carried out a series of peaceful protests in Litton that resulted in the arrest of dozens of protesters for civil disobedience. But as in the case of Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, protests were not getting anywhere.
The initial reaction of many radicals and activists to read the headlines was joy. But this changed after a sober reflection when we consider carefully the implications. The attack was not only a challenge to the warfare state, but also to peaceful coexistence that many activists had with the system. It is clear that even with the wounded, there was not much reaction from the average citizen. For most people, the attack was just another spectacular event but in a world that was going crazy.
Naturally, anarchists and pacifists was an important event. The anarcho-communist newspaper Strike! Toronto initially condemned the action because that would discredit the movement. He repeated the usual criticism that such actions could not do anything for themselves. Direct Action was never claimed so. To quote the statement "As we have no illusion that such direct actions such as this, can by themselves lead to view of Canada's role as an economic and military imperialism of the West, if we believe that the militant direct action can have a constructive role as a springboard to the kind of consciousness and organization that must be developed if we are to defeat the nuclear masters. "
A more sophisticated critique was published anonymously by anarchists who came from the environment Kick It Over. They complained that "the bombing of Litton can not say it has increased its activity or the community or workers in the plant." Okay, but you can use the same argument about publishing newspapers and most of the activities that we usually do. These anarchists did not condemn violent Direct Action to be rather placed the violence in the context of state violence. Although erroneously labeled the attack as "avant-garde Terror" were correct in saying that "clandestine organizations tend to isolate the people" and see their own existence to become an end in itself. Again, this problem does not have only the clandestine groups.
In early November, less than a month after the attack, the Toronto Globe and Mail published a major front-page article linking the Litton bombing anarchist community of Vancouver. It quoted unidentified anarchists that drew the similarities between the policies of Direct Action and the Vancouver anarchist scene. In a later, more compression, other anarchists article provided some background information such as what could be the purpose of the attack, not to explicitly claim that it was an anarchist action. This article was condemned by many anarchists in Toronto but it helped to get the ideas to the whole society.
mid-December, the main local peace groups in Toronto were raided as well as the homes of its senior members. Activists from Toronto and Peterborough were searched, harassed and threatened by the police. Has never been clear to a large extent if the police thought that these pacifists were really suspicious or if the raids were used simply to discontinue their work against Litton. Some pacifists tried to put as much distance as they could between them and the people who committed the attacks. But there was enough support from other peace activists to demonstrate that it was necessary to carry out a complete break between militants, so its position simply turn around the use of violence. The largest demonstration took place against Litton never occurred on November 11, 1982, less than a month after the attack. As we said at the time, military action can do more visible forms of protest, rather than less credible. Litton
lost a major contract shortly after the bombing. As stated by its president, Ronald Keating, "They (the protesters) are a nuisance, had enough publicity, and the Americans read every damn piece of it. The pressure of these people have done that Americans will think twice "He added sadly that" nobody has suffered more attacks. "
In Vancouver, there was a small response to Cheekeye-Dunsmuir. But in early November, the situation had become more intense by the firebombing of three tents Red Hot Video, seriously damaging two of them. The Wimmer's Fire Brigade had decided to make literal the name of the chain specializing in violent pornography. The attack came just as the video industry was being launched. Red Hot Video, an American chain built an inventory of video tapes that had been pirated hardcore porn movies. According OpenROSA "many of the films had not only explicit sex scenes, but also women being gagged, beaten, raped, tortured, forced enemas provoked by armed intruders and other forms of degradation."
Women's groups had fought against Red Hot Video for six months, but did not get any response from the State. For a few weeks, dozens of women's groups of all kinds issued statements of sympathy and understanding for the action, demonstrations were held in a dozen centers across the province, and six porn shops were closed, moved or removed much of the material for fear of being the next target. For two months the first indictments were produced by combining explicit sex and violence.
The reason that the action of Wimmer's Fire Brigade was so successful was not simply because tactics, but that was fairly well integrated, being complementary, within the public campaign. As expressed BC Blackout, an independent biweekly newsletter, "WFB action could only have its impact due to the months of hard work carried out numerous groups and individuals through the self, researching, networking, pressuring authorities, documented their cases - after all, building the infrastructure for a move honest, effective and basic. This explains why women's groups were able to move so quickly and consistently in dealing with the interest of the media and the public by the facts and the comments after the attacks. "
January 20 1983 near Squamish (British Columbia, Canada) the five returned to Vancouver after target practice in the mountains. The police, disguised as employees of the Department of Circulation, stopped his truck and took them out a violent attack of it and arrested them at gunpoint. They were accused of 12 to 15 charges, including Red Hot Video, Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, conspiracy to rob a Brink's van, as well as conspiracy to commit more attacks. Immediately after the arrests, police held a press conference in which exposed the huge weapons they claimed had been seized from the Five. This was the beginning what is known as the "Trial of the media", by the way the police and the prosecution used the media to try to pollute public opinion not only against the Five, but also against the motion Anarchist in general. The headlines shouted about "the police catching terrorists" and "national connections anarchist cell." The police carried out raids on four homes in Vancouver the next morning at the conclusion of the first support group meeting. Not made any arrests, but were confiscated typewriters were verbal abuse.
The official history of the police claimed that developments in the case came when a reporter from the Globe and Mail newspaper showed anarchists Toronto police, which, looking at the statement in Resistance Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, mailing address Vancouver post office box. The police, in theory, put the address under surveillance and were eventually able to locate the Five through a series of contacts. The story was so convincing that she received a substantive reward before discussing it with friends and more conscious principles.
This story was a cover for the police and was unaware of the existence of the five. They were under police surveillance for one reason or another long before the first action. Brent Taylor and Ann Hansen, in particular, were well known in Vancouver. A police officer need not be too smart to be considered as possible suspects. Many activists knew that even suspected that probably had something to do with Direct Action. They were the only ones who were masked to the demonstrations regularly, looking more prepared for a protest in Germany than in Vancouver.
is quite likely that the police had been carrying out actions against Red Hot Video. This very important win at trial. Vancouver police obtained a warrant to tap their phones and bugging their homes in order to investigate the case of Red Hot Video. The warrants are supposed to can only be issued as a last resort when all other means of investigation have not worked, but in this case were issued shortly after the attack. Moreover, they were unnecessary if the police already knew who had participated in the attacks. The security service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had observed committing other crimes and was under observation at the time of the attack on Red Hot Video, but there was no surveillance covering note the period of the current attack.
really was assumed that the police needed to tap the phones to connect to the five with Litton, for which would be much harder to ask for a legal injunction. Evidence obtained through this listening provided most of the case against the Five, which explains why the first part of the trial was confronted with its own legality.
On June 13, 1983 there was a raid by the local brigade headquarters Litton in Bulldozer. The court order - which included charges of sabotage in Litton, slander insurgent and an abortion - specifically allowed the police to confiscate anything related to the publication bulldozer. They took planes, letters, articles, magazines and the list of subscribers. We finally got all this stuff back after a year of legal struggle.
The slander by insurgent apparently made reference to a pamphlet entitled "Peace, paranoia and politics" that drew the policies around the Litton bombing, the peace movement and the arrest of the Five. Insurgent slander theoretically means to call for an armed uprising against the state, The last time the charge had been used was during the year 1950 against trade unionists in Quebec. Our lawyers are eagerly anticipating defending this position, and in the end turned to talk about it.
The charge of performing an abortion came as a midwife, Colleen Crosby, allegedly carried out a menstrual extraction a person from the group Bulldozer. The fact caught the attention of the police through wiretaps. Crosby Police arrested a week later and took her car for several hours, threatening to accuse her of performing an abortion unless spoken to them about any connection between Bulldozer and the Litton bombing. Crosby in any way refuse to cooperate, but neither had any information to give. It took two years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get withdraw the charges.
The weakness of our politics - the Five and their supporters - it became clear during the trial and did support work around it. The Five assumed that would end up falling under a hail of bullets, but rather the relative glory of a spectacular death were faced with a more prosaic reality of having to sit and await trial in prison. The lack of preparation, both political and personal, to the almost inevitable consequences of their actions was exacerbated by the lack of preparation of their supporters. It's easy to reprint statements from colleagues in the underground, but it is much harder and lawyers deal with raids, harassment, and look away to friends and colleagues just as the support and work are more necessary than ever. One must be able to withstand the high political stress over what could be a couple of years, while developing policies that may not be supported by any of your friends or political associates, let alone society as a whole. Still, a competent and principled support is crucial if the actions in secrecy will have any lasting impact. The community in Vancouver was able to maintain a presence inside and outside the courtroom during the trial despite the differences that arose about the strategy used to support them. In Toronto, we were able to keep the ideas in circulation, but had little social impact.
During the initial confusion, the right to a fair trial became the principal claim. Since it seemed possible that the listeners who provided the bulk of the evidence could be rejected, the strictly legal route was difficult to endure without a prior political clarity that arise as the trials were to lead. Either way, the right to a fair trial should not be ignored if the battle will be waged in the legal field, but the battleground state, and its first weapon will be criminalization. Prosecutors charge separated state in four trials, The first one would deal with less important political positions, gun crime and conspiracy to rob a Brink van. While for some people with some understanding of the policy might be obvious because the guerrillas need weapons and money, the television images of a desk full of weapons, and reports of plans to rob a Brink's van, were shown to remove the claim thoroughly that the Five were mainly political activists. The struggle for a fair trial attracted the support of activists, progressive journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. But it could create real problems if the case is legally shew as "fair." Or when, as finally, the five pleaded guilty. Some people gave us their support felt manipulated to have given his support to people guilty, even though we try to be clear by stating that there is a difference to plead not guilty and innocent.
The strategy of "Trial of the media" collapsed when the court ruled that evidence obtained by tapping admissible. The first trial on weapons and conspiracy to rob a Brink van began in January 1984. The evidence of the first four months were based mainly on the surveillance period prior to the arrests. In March, Julie Gerry Hannah Belmas and presented their guilty pleas, including Red Hot Video, and Julie, the bombing of Litton. In April, Doug Stewart was acquitted of charges of Brink but was convicted of a crime at gunpoint. In June, he pleaded guilty to Cheekeye-Dunsmuir. The jury convicted Brent Ann and all charges in the first trial. In June, by a surprise move, pleaded guilty Ann Cheekeye-Dunsmuir and Litton.
Brent brought to Toronto for a trial on Litton and eventually pleaded guilty. Recognizing our own weakness, he said that little could be achieved politically in Toronto if the trial went ahead. In our relative isolation was difficult imagine what would have been assumed to be a major effort to introduce policies that were behind the attack by a hostile media. But not doing so meant that there was never a long-term nor a sense of direction for those who can who were willing to come forward with more active support. It was not our greatest moment of glory.
To summarize this part, let me quote the statement of Ann Case, "When I was arrested at the beginning, I was intimidated and surrounded by the court and prison. This fear gave me the basis for believing that if he participated in legal gambling, I could get my absolution or a reduced sentence. This fear obscured my vision and I am mistaken in thinking that the judiciary could give me a chance. But those six months in the courts sharpened my perceptions and strengthened my political beliefs to see that the legal game is rigged and political prisoners marked cards dealt them. "
Doug Stewart was sentenced to six years, and served a maximum of four. Gerry Hannah to ten years, but I am free at five years. Julie, with only twenty years at the time of sentencing, to twenty years. He appealed and the reduced five years when he turned against Ann and Brent, effectively sabotaging their appeals. Many people got angry enough at this betrayal of Julie, but his testimony was not the reason why Ann and Brent were convicted. If Julie really wanted to make a deal could have involved other people lying. But he did this.
Brent was sentenced to twenty years to life imprisonment Ann. The sentences, especially those of Ann and Brent, were considered too harsh. But the state wanted to quell any incipient guerrilla activity. The prison system, however, is that really determines how long will it take people convicted. Ann and Brent took to the streets within eight years. Compared to what happened with other American guerrillas, was something almost indulgent.
Doug Stewart wrote in Open Road following his conviction that the size of the bombs was problematic. Suggested that mid-level attacks such as fire and mechanical sabotage were easier to carry out the attacks, noting that demand large-scale actions go into hiding. Direct Action to be understood by breaking contact with other people about politics, that to act in a city, should live elsewhere. But this required enormous personal sacrifices and emotional. Completely cut ties with friends and lovers was the mistake that left a trail for the local police. Small actions are technically simpler and allow, as Stewart said "a group together easily and quickly around a particular issue. " Mid-level activities also "have a less intense impact on one's personal life. If you're not in hiding, these less emotionally isolated, and the overall stress level is much lower. Being stopped by a middle-level action would be much less devastating in every way. A conviction of two or three years is no joke, but it is substantially easier to deal with it than a ten or twenty years. "
To summarize, let me quote an article that appeared in the News Prison Service ten years after the Litton:
"It becomes clear that policy actions such as're attacks, propaganda by deed, as they are known, are not covered by a non-political. Even though few people understand the motivations that lie behind the attack, the positive side is that you should not have to be necessarily a major backlash. It's a mistake to think that something like the Litton bombing could be a wake up call to people and encourage them to do something about the critical situation they face. But properly explained can make a difference for people who are already aware of the situation and who are frustrated with other methods of struggle. "
"guerrilla actions are not an end in themselves; That is, a singular action, or even a coordinated series of actions, are unlikely to get more than an immediate goal. Such actions are problematic assuming they can get to replace the non-clandestine political work. But if they could be located within the wider political work, one tactic among many, then movement could provide more space with which to maneuver, making them both more visible and credible. At the same time, activists give a psychological boost, a feeling of victory, despite the ephemeral, so that they could take their own political work with renewed enthusiasm ... "
" For most American activists, armed struggle is reduced to a moral question: 'Should or should not use violent means to advance the fight? " Although this is relevant on a personal level, only creates confusion about what really is a political issue. Most of the radicals, this time in history, will not be directly involved in armed attacks. But as they develop resistance movements in North America is inevitable that some may come to take armed action. The question would focus on whether these actions would be armed accepted as part of the spectrum of activities required. Much would depend on whether people were suffering attacks or threats. Far from being a "terrorist," the story of armed struggle in North America shows that the guerrilla was careful enough in selecting their targets. There is a difference between attacking military targets or corporations, or even kill police officers in response to his use of violence, and placing bombs in crowded streets. The left in America has never carried out random acts of terror against the population as a whole. Report anyone who had chosen to act outside of the restrictive and defined limits of "peaceful protest" to simulate a higher morality, or to theoretically avoid alienating people is to give the State the right to determine what the allowable limits of protest. "
repression is most effective when it is able to prevent radical ideas are transmitted to a new generation of activists. If ideas can be transmitted, then the new wave of activists develop their policies from the base that had been created. Fortunately, an otherwise relatively small but very active young activists adopted many policies around Direct Action and developed through projects such as Reality Now, Anarchist Black Cross and Ecomedia. His work as the pacifist movement, punk or indigenous support helped ensure that those policies do not die when the five came in prison.
In the name of Direct Action and Wimmer's Fire Brigade, claimed they never explicitly as anarchists. For that reason, neither did his supporters. Though never denying that we were. Our anarchism developed more in political practice than in theory and history. In this debate, the word "we" should be referred to the small environment where they left the five of Vancouver. Only those five decided to follow their ideas through a logical conclusion and go underground. Others also were influenced by similar developments in different places, and shared the desire to shake Canadian politics.
The political context for Direct Action was international. Between mid, late 70's and early 80's Red Army Faction (Rotte Arme Fraktion, RAF) in Germany and the Red Brigades in Italy were the largest guerrilla groups within the whole range of groups in Europe. The insurrection in Europe seemed possible despite the huge level of repression directed against militants're killed and kidnapped politicians and executives. Canadian anarchist newspapers such as the Open Road, Bulldozer and Resistance in North America echoed these struggles.
copaba The armed struggle is also often the agenda in the United States. The popular idea is that the political struggle ended in the early 70's after the end of the Vietnam War. But even if the anti-war groups and other movements had been removed, remnants of the militant groups had gone underground to continue the fight against the system. On the East Coast, the Black Liberation Army (Black Liberation Army), formed at the time that the Black Panthers (Panthers) are passed into hiding after having learned the lesson of the intense and deadly repression that went in against, was active until 1981. The United Freedom Front (United Liberation Front) and the Armed Resistance Movement (Armed Resistance Movement) was active until early 1980, attack on government buildings to protest American military involvement in Central America and attacking corporate objectives to protest its involvement in South Africa.
On the West Coast, groups like the Symbionese Liberation Army (Symbionese Liberation Army) and the New World Liberation Front (Front de Liberation of the New World) robbed banks, planted bombs and kidnapped Patty Hearst, a wealthy heiress. These groups were politically suspect and were certainly not anti-authoritarian. Many radicals felt that were significantly infiltrated by the police. Despite all contributed to the trial argued that armed action could be effective as they had their impact.
were also many small autonomous groups, some of which were explicitly anti-authoritarian anarchists, who were active until the end of the decade. Dune and Larry Bill Giddins, for example, are two anarchists who remain incarcerated in the United States today for actions that took place at that time. Bill and Larry were arrested in October 1979 after a shootout in the streets of Seattle when they tried to pull a friend out of jail.
The best known of these West Coast group was the George Jackson Brigade (George Jackson Brigade) was formed by anarchists and Marxists. Committed a series of actions in the Seattle area in the late 70's, often in support of the movement of prisoners which was quite strong in those years. The GJB was anti-authoritarian, pro-women, pro-gay and lesbian people and defended the collective, as opposed to political parties. Even though all groups were finally're crushed, they came to offer an alternative policy to organize demonstrations and publish newspapers.
Open Road in Vancouver, Toronto Bulldozer, and Resistance, which started in Toronto and then moved to Vancouver, and covered the armed resistance in United States and the subsequent repression. This coverage played a bigger role when his supporters in the United States were dissolved, and left the majority tried to distance himself from them as much as he could. We publish statements explaining actions. We provide support coverage in their judgments and we offered outlets for the writings of the combatants who had been captured. The revolution, or at least a protracted struggle, it seemed entirely possible. Five were for the most part the product of the wave of armed struggle in North America, and part of the political machinery of the growing anti-war anti-NATO movement. Our perspective was quite internationalist even but we understood that we work within our local and national situations.
In the spring of 1982 a bomb destroyed the almost complete substation Cheekeye hydraulic-Dunsmuir. This construction had a strong opposition from local residents in the environmental field. It was thought that lead to the industrialization of Vancouver Island and the construction of nuclear power plants for export earnings to the United States. Hundreds of kilos of dynamite put an end to that plan in the midst of his trial.
There was considerable local support for action. It was unclear whether Direct Action, which had claimed the action was an anarchist group or no, but would not have made any difference in the meaning of it.
The stock had increased the political stakes in Canada. But as the attack had taken place in a natural park, it was easy to ignore. The next action would not be.
Late in the afternoon of October 14, 1982, a truck exploded outside the Litton Industries plant in Rexdale, in the northwest area of \u200b\u200bToronto, with the result of millions of dollars in damage. Seven workers were injured, one lifetime. After a few days, Direct Action issued a statement claiming responsibility. As a political piece, the statement is as relevant today as it was in 1982, the only difference being that the Cold War is over. The most important thing of it is self-criticism that is made by seeing the police and security guards as superheroes. They were not. The Direct Action mistakes that were aggravated by the inadequate response of both the guards and the police.
The attack was quite simple: drive a stolen truck loaded with dynamite through the gates and park Litton front in front of the building, leave in 35 minutes the truck would explode. To ensure that the bomb threat was taken seriously, drove the truck correctly in front of the glass cockpit of the security guards. But the guards did not notice the presence of the van but even from the position of conductor of the same could clearly see the guards. Then the warning call was not understood. But at least caught the attention of the guards toward the van. Unfortunately, Direct Action were a little smarter. They had placed a box painted fluorescent orange on the outside of the truck, easily visible from the cockpit of the guards. Placed over the box a sheet of paper with information and instructions. They hoped that the guards moved towards the box once they had received the call. To emphasize the seriousness of the situation put a stick of dynamite on the box disassembled. Another error. Security guards stayed away from the box, because they did not know that the dynamite was unarmed. Despite the obvious threat, the security guards began to evacuate the plant up to twenty minutes after receiving the warning call. Then the bomb went off earlier than expected, probably activated by radio signals from police cars that were coming to the area.
The attack took place at a time when the Cold War between the U.S. and the USSR was quite intense. Ronald Reegan, representing the sector of the American ruling class was determined in making the U.S. the so-called evil empire, had been elected president. Both sides were trying to realize the first steps of nuclear capacity through the production of new weapons such as cruise missiles, the Pershing missiles, submarines with nuclear capability and the neutron bomb. The possibility of nuclear war was real enough then.
In response, we developed a peace movement in Europe, North America and elsewhere. The consent of Canada to the United States to test cruise missiles over northern Alberta and the Northwest Territories was seen as an affront to the peace activists. Litton had become the focus of broad protests from peace groups who dedicated himself to producing guidance system for missiles. They had carried out a series of peaceful protests in Litton that resulted in the arrest of dozens of protesters for civil disobedience. But as in the case of Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, protests were not getting anywhere.
The initial reaction of many radicals and activists to read the headlines was joy. But this changed after a sober reflection when we consider carefully the implications. The attack was not only a challenge to the warfare state, but also to peaceful coexistence that many activists had with the system. It is clear that even with the wounded, there was not much reaction from the average citizen. For most people, the attack was just another spectacular event but in a world that was going crazy.
Naturally, anarchists and pacifists was an important event. The anarcho-communist newspaper Strike! Toronto initially condemned the action because that would discredit the movement. He repeated the usual criticism that such actions could not do anything for themselves. Direct Action was never claimed so. To quote the statement "As we have no illusion that such direct actions such as this, can by themselves lead to view of Canada's role as an economic and military imperialism of the West, if we believe that the militant direct action can have a constructive role as a springboard to the kind of consciousness and organization that must be developed if we are to defeat the nuclear masters. "
A more sophisticated critique was published anonymously by anarchists who came from the environment Kick It Over. They complained that "the bombing of Litton can not say it has increased its activity or the community or workers in the plant." Okay, but you can use the same argument about publishing newspapers and most of the activities that we usually do. These anarchists did not condemn violent Direct Action to be rather placed the violence in the context of state violence. Although erroneously labeled the attack as "avant-garde Terror" were correct in saying that "clandestine organizations tend to isolate the people" and see their own existence to become an end in itself. Again, this problem does not have only the clandestine groups.
In early November, less than a month after the attack, the Toronto Globe and Mail published a major front-page article linking the Litton bombing anarchist community of Vancouver. It quoted unidentified anarchists that drew the similarities between the policies of Direct Action and the Vancouver anarchist scene. In a later, more compression, other anarchists article provided some background information such as what could be the purpose of the attack, not to explicitly claim that it was an anarchist action. This article was condemned by many anarchists in Toronto but it helped to get the ideas to the whole society.
mid-December, the main local peace groups in Toronto were raided as well as the homes of its senior members. Activists from Toronto and Peterborough were searched, harassed and threatened by the police. Has never been clear to a large extent if the police thought that these pacifists were really suspicious or if the raids were used simply to discontinue their work against Litton. Some pacifists tried to put as much distance as they could between them and the people who committed the attacks. But there was enough support from other peace activists to demonstrate that it was necessary to carry out a complete break between militants, so its position simply turn around the use of violence. The largest demonstration took place against Litton never occurred on November 11, 1982, less than a month after the attack. As we said at the time, military action can do more visible forms of protest, rather than less credible. Litton
lost a major contract shortly after the bombing. As stated by its president, Ronald Keating, "They (the protesters) are a nuisance, had enough publicity, and the Americans read every damn piece of it. The pressure of these people have done that Americans will think twice "He added sadly that" nobody has suffered more attacks. "
In Vancouver, there was a small response to Cheekeye-Dunsmuir. But in early November, the situation had become more intense by the firebombing of three tents Red Hot Video, seriously damaging two of them. The Wimmer's Fire Brigade had decided to make literal the name of the chain specializing in violent pornography. The attack came just as the video industry was being launched. Red Hot Video, an American chain built an inventory of video tapes that had been pirated hardcore porn movies. According OpenROSA "many of the films had not only explicit sex scenes, but also women being gagged, beaten, raped, tortured, forced enemas provoked by armed intruders and other forms of degradation."
Women's groups had fought against Red Hot Video for six months, but did not get any response from the State. For a few weeks, dozens of women's groups of all kinds issued statements of sympathy and understanding for the action, demonstrations were held in a dozen centers across the province, and six porn shops were closed, moved or removed much of the material for fear of being the next target. For two months the first indictments were produced by combining explicit sex and violence.
The reason that the action of Wimmer's Fire Brigade was so successful was not simply because tactics, but that was fairly well integrated, being complementary, within the public campaign. As expressed BC Blackout, an independent biweekly newsletter, "WFB action could only have its impact due to the months of hard work carried out numerous groups and individuals through the self, researching, networking, pressuring authorities, documented their cases - after all, building the infrastructure for a move honest, effective and basic. This explains why women's groups were able to move so quickly and consistently in dealing with the interest of the media and the public by the facts and the comments after the attacks. "
January 20 1983 near Squamish (British Columbia, Canada) the five returned to Vancouver after target practice in the mountains. The police, disguised as employees of the Department of Circulation, stopped his truck and took them out a violent attack of it and arrested them at gunpoint. They were accused of 12 to 15 charges, including Red Hot Video, Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, conspiracy to rob a Brink's van, as well as conspiracy to commit more attacks. Immediately after the arrests, police held a press conference in which exposed the huge weapons they claimed had been seized from the Five. This was the beginning what is known as the "Trial of the media", by the way the police and the prosecution used the media to try to pollute public opinion not only against the Five, but also against the motion Anarchist in general. The headlines shouted about "the police catching terrorists" and "national connections anarchist cell." The police carried out raids on four homes in Vancouver the next morning at the conclusion of the first support group meeting. Not made any arrests, but were confiscated typewriters were verbal abuse.
The official history of the police claimed that developments in the case came when a reporter from the Globe and Mail newspaper showed anarchists Toronto police, which, looking at the statement in Resistance Cheekeye-Dunsmuir, mailing address Vancouver post office box. The police, in theory, put the address under surveillance and were eventually able to locate the Five through a series of contacts. The story was so convincing that she received a substantive reward before discussing it with friends and more conscious principles.
This story was a cover for the police and was unaware of the existence of the five. They were under police surveillance for one reason or another long before the first action. Brent Taylor and Ann Hansen, in particular, were well known in Vancouver. A police officer need not be too smart to be considered as possible suspects. Many activists knew that even suspected that probably had something to do with Direct Action. They were the only ones who were masked to the demonstrations regularly, looking more prepared for a protest in Germany than in Vancouver.
is quite likely that the police had been carrying out actions against Red Hot Video. This very important win at trial. Vancouver police obtained a warrant to tap their phones and bugging their homes in order to investigate the case of Red Hot Video. The warrants are supposed to can only be issued as a last resort when all other means of investigation have not worked, but in this case were issued shortly after the attack. Moreover, they were unnecessary if the police already knew who had participated in the attacks. The security service of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) had observed committing other crimes and was under observation at the time of the attack on Red Hot Video, but there was no surveillance covering note the period of the current attack.
really was assumed that the police needed to tap the phones to connect to the five with Litton, for which would be much harder to ask for a legal injunction. Evidence obtained through this listening provided most of the case against the Five, which explains why the first part of the trial was confronted with its own legality.
On June 13, 1983 there was a raid by the local brigade headquarters Litton in Bulldozer. The court order - which included charges of sabotage in Litton, slander insurgent and an abortion - specifically allowed the police to confiscate anything related to the publication bulldozer. They took planes, letters, articles, magazines and the list of subscribers. We finally got all this stuff back after a year of legal struggle.
The slander by insurgent apparently made reference to a pamphlet entitled "Peace, paranoia and politics" that drew the policies around the Litton bombing, the peace movement and the arrest of the Five. Insurgent slander theoretically means to call for an armed uprising against the state, The last time the charge had been used was during the year 1950 against trade unionists in Quebec. Our lawyers are eagerly anticipating defending this position, and in the end turned to talk about it.
The charge of performing an abortion came as a midwife, Colleen Crosby, allegedly carried out a menstrual extraction a person from the group Bulldozer. The fact caught the attention of the police through wiretaps. Crosby Police arrested a week later and took her car for several hours, threatening to accuse her of performing an abortion unless spoken to them about any connection between Bulldozer and the Litton bombing. Crosby in any way refuse to cooperate, but neither had any information to give. It took two years and thousands of dollars in legal fees to get withdraw the charges.
The weakness of our politics - the Five and their supporters - it became clear during the trial and did support work around it. The Five assumed that would end up falling under a hail of bullets, but rather the relative glory of a spectacular death were faced with a more prosaic reality of having to sit and await trial in prison. The lack of preparation, both political and personal, to the almost inevitable consequences of their actions was exacerbated by the lack of preparation of their supporters. It's easy to reprint statements from colleagues in the underground, but it is much harder and lawyers deal with raids, harassment, and look away to friends and colleagues just as the support and work are more necessary than ever. One must be able to withstand the high political stress over what could be a couple of years, while developing policies that may not be supported by any of your friends or political associates, let alone society as a whole. Still, a competent and principled support is crucial if the actions in secrecy will have any lasting impact. The community in Vancouver was able to maintain a presence inside and outside the courtroom during the trial despite the differences that arose about the strategy used to support them. In Toronto, we were able to keep the ideas in circulation, but had little social impact.
During the initial confusion, the right to a fair trial became the principal claim. Since it seemed possible that the listeners who provided the bulk of the evidence could be rejected, the strictly legal route was difficult to endure without a prior political clarity that arise as the trials were to lead. Either way, the right to a fair trial should not be ignored if the battle will be waged in the legal field, but the battleground state, and its first weapon will be criminalization. Prosecutors charge separated state in four trials, The first one would deal with less important political positions, gun crime and conspiracy to rob a Brink van. While for some people with some understanding of the policy might be obvious because the guerrillas need weapons and money, the television images of a desk full of weapons, and reports of plans to rob a Brink's van, were shown to remove the claim thoroughly that the Five were mainly political activists. The struggle for a fair trial attracted the support of activists, progressive journalists, lawyers and human rights activists. But it could create real problems if the case is legally shew as "fair." Or when, as finally, the five pleaded guilty. Some people gave us their support felt manipulated to have given his support to people guilty, even though we try to be clear by stating that there is a difference to plead not guilty and innocent.
The strategy of "Trial of the media" collapsed when the court ruled that evidence obtained by tapping admissible. The first trial on weapons and conspiracy to rob a Brink van began in January 1984. The evidence of the first four months were based mainly on the surveillance period prior to the arrests. In March, Julie Gerry Hannah Belmas and presented their guilty pleas, including Red Hot Video, and Julie, the bombing of Litton. In April, Doug Stewart was acquitted of charges of Brink but was convicted of a crime at gunpoint. In June, he pleaded guilty to Cheekeye-Dunsmuir. The jury convicted Brent Ann and all charges in the first trial. In June, by a surprise move, pleaded guilty Ann Cheekeye-Dunsmuir and Litton.
Brent brought to Toronto for a trial on Litton and eventually pleaded guilty. Recognizing our own weakness, he said that little could be achieved politically in Toronto if the trial went ahead. In our relative isolation was difficult imagine what would have been assumed to be a major effort to introduce policies that were behind the attack by a hostile media. But not doing so meant that there was never a long-term nor a sense of direction for those who can who were willing to come forward with more active support. It was not our greatest moment of glory.
To summarize this part, let me quote the statement of Ann Case, "When I was arrested at the beginning, I was intimidated and surrounded by the court and prison. This fear gave me the basis for believing that if he participated in legal gambling, I could get my absolution or a reduced sentence. This fear obscured my vision and I am mistaken in thinking that the judiciary could give me a chance. But those six months in the courts sharpened my perceptions and strengthened my political beliefs to see that the legal game is rigged and political prisoners marked cards dealt them. "
Doug Stewart was sentenced to six years, and served a maximum of four. Gerry Hannah to ten years, but I am free at five years. Julie, with only twenty years at the time of sentencing, to twenty years. He appealed and the reduced five years when he turned against Ann and Brent, effectively sabotaging their appeals. Many people got angry enough at this betrayal of Julie, but his testimony was not the reason why Ann and Brent were convicted. If Julie really wanted to make a deal could have involved other people lying. But he did this.
Brent was sentenced to twenty years to life imprisonment Ann. The sentences, especially those of Ann and Brent, were considered too harsh. But the state wanted to quell any incipient guerrilla activity. The prison system, however, is that really determines how long will it take people convicted. Ann and Brent took to the streets within eight years. Compared to what happened with other American guerrillas, was something almost indulgent.
Doug Stewart wrote in Open Road following his conviction that the size of the bombs was problematic. Suggested that mid-level attacks such as fire and mechanical sabotage were easier to carry out the attacks, noting that demand large-scale actions go into hiding. Direct Action to be understood by breaking contact with other people about politics, that to act in a city, should live elsewhere. But this required enormous personal sacrifices and emotional. Completely cut ties with friends and lovers was the mistake that left a trail for the local police. Small actions are technically simpler and allow, as Stewart said "a group together easily and quickly around a particular issue. " Mid-level activities also "have a less intense impact on one's personal life. If you're not in hiding, these less emotionally isolated, and the overall stress level is much lower. Being stopped by a middle-level action would be much less devastating in every way. A conviction of two or three years is no joke, but it is substantially easier to deal with it than a ten or twenty years. "
To summarize, let me quote an article that appeared in the News Prison Service ten years after the Litton:
"It becomes clear that policy actions such as're attacks, propaganda by deed, as they are known, are not covered by a non-political. Even though few people understand the motivations that lie behind the attack, the positive side is that you should not have to be necessarily a major backlash. It's a mistake to think that something like the Litton bombing could be a wake up call to people and encourage them to do something about the critical situation they face. But properly explained can make a difference for people who are already aware of the situation and who are frustrated with other methods of struggle. "
"guerrilla actions are not an end in themselves; That is, a singular action, or even a coordinated series of actions, are unlikely to get more than an immediate goal. Such actions are problematic assuming they can get to replace the non-clandestine political work. But if they could be located within the wider political work, one tactic among many, then movement could provide more space with which to maneuver, making them both more visible and credible. At the same time, activists give a psychological boost, a feeling of victory, despite the ephemeral, so that they could take their own political work with renewed enthusiasm ... "
" For most American activists, armed struggle is reduced to a moral question: 'Should or should not use violent means to advance the fight? " Although this is relevant on a personal level, only creates confusion about what really is a political issue. Most of the radicals, this time in history, will not be directly involved in armed attacks. But as they develop resistance movements in North America is inevitable that some may come to take armed action. The question would focus on whether these actions would be armed accepted as part of the spectrum of activities required. Much would depend on whether people were suffering attacks or threats. Far from being a "terrorist," the story of armed struggle in North America shows that the guerrilla was careful enough in selecting their targets. There is a difference between attacking military targets or corporations, or even kill police officers in response to his use of violence, and placing bombs in crowded streets. The left in America has never carried out random acts of terror against the population as a whole. Report anyone who had chosen to act outside of the restrictive and defined limits of "peaceful protest" to simulate a higher morality, or to theoretically avoid alienating people is to give the State the right to determine what the allowable limits of protest. "
repression is most effective when it is able to prevent radical ideas are transmitted to a new generation of activists. If ideas can be transmitted, then the new wave of activists develop their policies from the base that had been created. Fortunately, an otherwise relatively small but very active young activists adopted many policies around Direct Action and developed through projects such as Reality Now, Anarchist Black Cross and Ecomedia. His work as the pacifist movement, punk or indigenous support helped ensure that those policies do not die when the five came in prison.
Jim Campbell
This text transcript of a talk by Jim Campbell in Toronto, was published as a pamphlet in English several times since 2000.
0 comments:
Post a Comment