A Bounty for Blair’s Arrest
Today I am launching a new fund – www.arrestblair.org – to reward people who attempt to arrest the former prime minister
by George Monbiot: journalist, author, academic and environmental and political activist, United Kingdom
The only question that counts is the one that the Chilcot inquiry won’t address: was the war with Iraq illegal? If the answer is yes, everything changes. The war is no longer a political matter, but a criminal one, and those who commissioned it should be committed for trial for what the Nuremberg Tribunal called “the supreme international crime”(1): the crime of aggression.
But there’s a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury. As a senior judge told the Guardian in November, “Looking into the legality of the war is the last thing the government wants. And actually, it’s the last thing the opposition wants either because they voted for the war. There simply is not the political pressure to explore the question of legality – they have not asked because they don’t want the answer.”(2)
Others have explored it, however. Two weeks ago a Dutch inquiry, led by a former supreme court judge, found that the invasion had “no sound mandate in international law”(3). Last month the former law lord, Lord Steyn, said that “in the absence of a second UN resolution authorising invasion, it was illegal.”(4) In November Lord Bingham, the former lord chief justice, stated that, without the blessing of the UN, the Iraq war was “a serious violation of international law and the rule of law.”(5)
Under the UN Charter, two conditions must be met before a war can legally be waged(6). The parties to a dispute must first “seek a solution by negotiation” (Article 33). They can take up arms without an explicit mandate from the UN Security Council only “if an armed attack occurs against [them]” (Article 51). Neither of these conditions applied. The US and UK governments rejected Iraq’s attempts to negotiate(7). At one point the US State Department even announced that it would “go into thwart mode” to prevent the Iraqis from resuming talks on weapons inspection(8). Iraq had launched no armed attack against either nation.
We also know that the UK government was aware that the war it intended to launch was illegal. In March 2002, the Cabinet Office explained that “a legal justification for invasion would be needed. Subject to Law Officers’ advice, none currently exists.”(9) In July 2002, Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, told the prime minister that there were only “three possible legal bases” for launching a war: “self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC [Security Council] authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.”(10) Bush and Blair later failed to obtain Security Council authorisation.
As the resignation letter on the eve of the war from Elizabeth Wilmshurst, then deputy legal advisor to the Foreign Office, revealed, her office had “consistently” advised that an invasion would be unlawful without a new UN resolution. She explained that “an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression”(11). Both Wilmshurst and her former boss, Sir Michael Wood, will testify before the Chilcot Inquiry today (Tuesday). Expect fireworks.
Without legal justification, the war with Iraq was an act of mass murder: those who died were unlawfully killed by the people who commissioned it. Crimes of aggression (also known as crimes against peace) are defined by the Nuremberg Principles as “planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties”(12). They have been recognised in international law since 1945. The Rome Statute, which established the International Criminal Court (ICC) and which was ratified by Blair’s government in 2001(13), provides for the Court to “exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression”, once it has decided how the crime should be defined and prosecuted(14).
There are two problems. The first is that neither the government nor the opposition has any interest in pursuing these crimes, for the obvious reason that in doing so they would expose themselves to prosecution. The second is that the required legal mechanisms don’t yet exist. The governments which ratified the Rome Statute have been filibustering furiously to delay the point at which the crime can be prosecuted by the ICC: after eight years of discussions, the necessary provision still hasn’t been adopted.
Some countries, mostly in eastern Europe and central Asia, have incorporated the crime of aggression into their own laws(15), though it is not yet clear which of them would be willing to try a foreign national for acts committed abroad. In the UK, where it remains illegal to wear an offensive T-shirt, you cannot yet be prosecuted for mass murder commissioned overseas.
All those who believe in justice should campaign for their governments to stop messing about and allow the International Criminal Court to start prosecuting the crime of aggression. We should also press for its adoption into national law. But I believe that the people of this nation, who re-elected a government which had launched an illegal war, have a duty to do more than that. We must show that we have not, as Blair requested, “moved on” from Iraq, that we are not prepared to allow his crime to remain unpunished, or to allow future leaders to believe that they can safely repeat it.
But how? As I found when I tried to apprehend John Bolton, one of the architects of the war in George Bush’s government, at the Hay festival in 2008(16), and as Peter Tatchell found when he tried to detain Robert Mugabe(17), nothing focuses attention on these issues more than an attempted citizen’s arrest. In October I mooted the idea of a bounty to which the public could contribute, payable to anyone who tried to arrest Tony Blair if he became president of the EU(18). He didn’t of course, but I asked those who had pledged money whether we should go ahead anyway. The response was overwhelmingly positive.
So today I am launching a website, www.arrestblair.org, whose purpose is to raise money as a reward for people attempting a peaceful citizen’s arrest of the former prime minister. I have put up the first £100, and I encourage you to match it. Anyone meeting the rules I’ve laid down will be entitled to one quarter of the total pot: the bounties will remain available for as long as Blair lives. The higher the reward, the greater the number of people who are likely to try.
At this stage the arrests will be largely symbolic, though they are likely to have great political resonance. But I hope that as pressure builds up and the crime of aggression is adopted by the courts, these attempts will help to press governments to prosecute. There must be no hiding place for those who have committed crimes against peace. No civilised country can allow mass murderers to move on.
References:
- https://books.google.com/books…
- https://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/nov/23/chilcot-inquiry-iraq-war
- https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/12/iraq-invasion-violated-interational-law-dutch-inquiry-finds
- https://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/dec/01/iraq-inquiry-interim-finding-illegal-law-lord
- https://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/nov/18/iraq-us-foreign-policy
- https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml
- https://www.monbiot.com/archives/2003/11/11/dreamers-and-idiots/
- https://www.monbiot.com/archives/2002/10/08/thwart-mode/
- https://downingstreetmemo.com/iraqoptions.html
- https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article387374.ece
- https://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4377605.stm
- https://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/390
- https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XVIII-10&chapter=18&lang=en
- Article 5.2, https://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
- Astrid Reisinger Coracini, 2010. National Legislation on Individual Responsibility for Conduct Amounting to Aggression, in: Roberto Bellelli (ed.), International Criminal Justice. Lessons Learned and the Challenges Ahead (forthcoming).
- https://www.monbiot.com/archives/2008/06/03/justice-undone/
- https://www.petertatchell.net/direct%20action/mugabe.htm
- https://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/10/26/arresting-blair/
Just out of curiosity, isn’t there any way to be a bit creative with the legal system here? There is one German Law Professor who stopped paying his radio licence fees on the grounds that, due to a highly questionable political decision, the independence (required by German law) of public broadcasting services from political parties no longer would be given.
This is not at all about his personal broadcasting fees. It is about forcing the court to look into this issue and decide whether there actually has been illegal interference.
See e.g.: https://www.faz.net/s/Rub510A2EDA82CA4A8482E6C38BC79C4911/Doc~EF661F8EF700742C58F6D9535A24ECFEA~ATpl~Ecommon~Scontent.html
I’d expect that there must be *some* British soldiers who disobeyed orders on the grounds that they considered this war as illegal, and went to court for that. It then would be very interesting to find out what happened in court in these cases.
Hi Thomas. This should interest you, from 2006 (about a man who stopped paying taxes because he recognised that by doing so he was funding an illegal war).
And here’s a campaign that helps people understand the legal issues behind the wars, and also shows that people who pay taxes in the UK are actually breaking the law, since they’re essentially accomplices to the crime.
Imagine if everyone just up and decided to stop paying taxes until justice was done? It seems to me things would get sorted out pretty darn quickly.
Found some names:
https://www.redress.cc/global/cking20090803
Lance-Corporal Joe Glenton; Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith
That’s something to be checked: did Judge Bayliss really decide like this on that case? What was his reasoning? If there is a conflict between this decision and the Nuremberg (Nürnberg, actually) Principles, the public should be made aware of this. After all, *if* these principles are made to only hold for German war criminals, may not German nationalists then actually have a strong point in claiming these trials to have been “victor’s justice”? I’m not a lawyer, but still, this reasoning seems so compelling to me, I don’t see how one could come to a different conclusion.
===>
What is disturbing is the attitude of our armed forces to the Nuremberg Principles. Flight-Lieutenant Malcolm Kendall-Smith defended his refusal to redeploy to Iraq on the basis that the war was illegal. Judge-Advocate Jack Bayliss refused to accept that argument. The services’ ruling in such cases is that only persons who have the ability to shape strategy and make executive decisions may be held responsible for war crimes.
That must necessarily be a false interpretation of the Nuremberg principles. Since it is governments that engage in war it would only be government and armed services leaders who would be potentially responsible for war crimes. If war crimes should occur, then according to Jack Bayliss’s interpretation, those ordered to carry out such crimes have no right to refuse nor judge whether or not their acts are legal.
<===
Craig,
From the legal perspective, I don’t think not paying one’s taxes is in any way comparable to refusing an illegal order.
If orders were refused on the grounds of being considered illegel (and as we have seen, some soldiers did this), the court is forced to closely look into this issue, for there certainly *are* cases where illegal orders have been given and one certainly would not want military personell to carry them out no matter what. (Or is it just that I arrived at this conclusion because, being German, I did spend quite some time pondering such questions?) If the judge ruled as claimed above, in quite clear disagreement with the prevailing interpretation of the Nuremberg Principle, then this would be quite a scandal.
I don’t know Thomas – whether a soldier is forced to fight in an illegal war, or a citizen is forced to finance the illegal war, they’re both issues that need addressing. If millions of taxpayers ceased contributing, this would arguably address the issue faster than any other way. And there are, it appears, legal grounds for such an action.
George wrote: “But there’s a problem with official inquiries in the United Kingdom: the government appoints their members and sets their terms of reference. It’s the equivalent of a criminal suspect being allowed to choose what the charges should be, who should judge his case and who should sit on the jury.”
At the end of the day, it’s about accountability – industry, and the politicians that are in their pockets, should not be allowed to make up their own rules as they go along.
The video is recommended viewing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wKNc6pIWhc
Attack the illegal war on both sides I say (i.e. refuse to fight, and refuse to fund).
Then we might get a government run by the people, for the people….
Ah, an interesting twist:
https://www.gazetteherald.co.uk/news/4835974.Lance_Corporal_Joe_Glenton_diagnosed_with_post_traumatic_stress_disorder/
Seems someone is playing the legal system like a game of chess here. Assuming Glenton is psychologically allright, at least concerning the decision he is in court for, this might be quite a seductive offer to him personally: you get your freedom, state can avoid facing the crucial question. He might have disobeyed orders purely on personal grounds, as he could not reconcile them with his own conscience, or to force a court decision about the legality of this war. Should the latter be the case, he should receive support to stick with that decision…
Craig,
morally, you are certainly right. Legally, things seem a bit different to me. Now it would be just so nice if there were a tax X which were specifically to fund the military – so that one could make a clear statement by refusing to pay that. But it’s not like this. (Historically, there might have been something that came somewhat close, the Prussian “Schaumweinsteuer” introduced in 1902 under Emperor Wilhelm II.)
Yes, a ‘tax X’ would simplify things, but of course they’re not going to make it THAT easy for us. :)
If I was living in the UK, I’d probably chase this issue (of tax) further. I imagine a kind of ‘night of the long knives’ scenario, where you accumulate thousands of committed individuals who all agree to cease paying tax from a certain date until the legality of the war has been properly addressed and resolved. If many thousands of people do it simultaneously, it becomes: a) impossible for the government or even non-participating citizens to ignore it, and b) extremely difficult for government to prosecute for non-payment, due to the logistics of a legal battle with so many people.
It becomes somewhat of a class action suit against perpetrators of the war.
I like this kind of civil obedience tactic (‘obedience’ rather than ‘disobedience’, as by non-payment of taxes they’re not responsible for financing an illegal law), as opposed to the constant news I see on the net where direct action or protest groups are pitting themselves against an ever-more-aggressive/fascist police force, creating social divisions that end up costing lives and where the mainstream media manages to put a spin on things to make peaceful protestors look like terrorists.
This doesn’t seem related to soil reconditioning. It really brings down the credibility of this site.
Funny, but what has all of that to do with Permaculture? Or is this here becoming more ad more a platform for extreme leftwing ideas, which have nothing to do with Permaculture?
Or is Permaculture more and more going in this direction?
Please advise?
Hi Judson and FanOfWhackyVorlon.
Ah, Permaculture is only about ‘soil reconditioning’! I am sooo very sorry. I wasn’t aware. Profuse apologies.
I would suggest we bring this to the attention of Bill Mollison, so subsequent editions of The Designers’ Manual can be printed without Chapter 14 (‘Strategies for an alternative nation’).
Hopefully Bill will see the error of his ways, so we can just concentrate on soil reconditioning. Then we can all forget about the bigger picture aspects of the system that has created centralised control to such an extent that most people who would like to be studying soil reconditioning cannot, because they don’t have the time, land, or resources to do so.
I am personally very relieved. Now I don’t have to concern myself with all the millions who don’t have opportunity to practice the gardening aspects of permaculture. By trying to influence thought on the political and economical aspects of a PERMAnant CULTURE, I, obviously mistakenly, thought I could stimulate thought on how to make social transition that might enable a great many more to be relocalising and practicing ‘soil reconditioning’. Now, however, I see the light – and realise that permaculture should be kept for only an elite minority of land-holders – people who, when the world finally topples into the abyss born of political and economic mayhem, will manage to fend off the starving, angry millions by spraying neem and garlic juices around the prickly bramble bushes that border their oases of creativity.
I had the (now also gratefully corrected) view that ‘People Care’ was an important aspect of Permaculture. When the leaders of nations made illegal decisions resulting in the torture and death of hundreds of thousands of men, women and children, I mistakenly thought that Permaculturists would give a damn, and would consider what could be done, in non-violent ways, to address this injustice. Now it’s clear to me that I was getting distracted by things of non-importance to the permaculture movement, and that we should, as Tony Blair would dearly like us to do, just ‘move on’. When a foreign nation that is running low on what it perceives as essential resources (for the USA it was oil, but for countries like, say, China, that might be oil, water and soil, etc.) comes to your door with soldiers, takes your land by force and kills your family members, then I trust you’ll accept that other people outside of your now not-so-comfortable situation must ignore your pleas for justice, and your calls for non-repetition of such aggression, because they are, rightfully, busy concentrating on soil reconditioning.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention.
Oh, I might leave you with a bit of poetry to brighten your day:
The Fence or The Ambulance
‘Twas a dangerous cliff, as they freely confessed,
Though to walk near its crest was so pleasant:
But over its terrible edge there had slipped
A duke and many a peasant;
So the people said something would have to be done.
But their projects did not at all tally:
Some said, “Put a fence around the edge of the cliff”
Some, “An ambulance down in the valley.”
But the cry for the ambulance carried the day.
For it spread to the neighboring city:
A fence may be useful or not, it is true,
But each heart became brimful of pity
For those who had slipped o’er that dangerous cliff,
And the dwellers in highway and alley
Gave pounds or gave pence, not to put up a fence,
But an ambulance down in the valley.
“For the cliff is alright if your careful,” they said,
“and if folks even slip or are dropping,
it isn’t the slipping that hurts them so much
as the shock down below-when they’re stopping,”
So day after day when these mishaps occurred,
Quick forth would the rescuers sally
To pick up the victims who fell off the cliff,
With their ambulance down in the valley.
Then an old man remarked, “it’s a marvel to me
that people give far more attention
to repairing results than to stopping the cause,
when they’d much better aim at prevention.
Let us stop at its source all this mischief, cried he.
“Come neighbors and freinds, let us rally :
If the cliff we will fence, we might almost dispense
with the ambulance down in the valley.”
“Oh, he’s a fanatic.” the others rejoined:
“dispense with the ambulance Never!
He’d dispense with all charities, too, if he could:
no, no! We’ll support them forever.
Aren’t we picking up folks just as fast as they fall?
And shall this man dictate to us? Shall he?
Why would people of sense stop to put up a fence?
While their ambulance works in the valley?”
But a sensible few who are practical too,
Will not bear with such nonsense much longer
They believe that prevention is better than cure
And their party will soon be the stronger
Encourage them, then with your purse, voice and pen
And (while other philanthropists dally)
They will scorn all pretense, and put up a stout fence
On the cliff that hangs over the valley.
– by Joseph Malines
Putting cynicism aside now. I would ask if you are both able to live completely self-sufficient and separate from ‘the system’? If not, you’re contributing to it – through taxes, credit card purchases, actual labour, etc. We all finance death and misery. Please tell me how such involvement is consistent with the ethics of permaculture, if we’re not trying to rebuild society in tandem with building soil?
Final note: As I always express, please send the kind of articles you would like to see in the world. I don’t believe I’ve ever had contributing articles from either of you. This site is continually open to contributions that are aligned with the ethics of earth care (articles about the environment, biology, biodiversity, plant systems and economic and political changes that would create/incentivise a framework to improve these), people care (articles about family, community, economic and political aspects that provide a framework that enables people systems to flourish in a way that they don’t adversely impact on earth care), and fair share (articles about justice – economic and political aspects that would provide the framework within which communities can flourish in a way that doesn’t adversely impact on the former two principles).
Brilliant poem Craig, it adds so perfectly to your explanation. I can’t help wondering if Judson and Fanofwacky have ever done a PDC. They need to round out there education a bit more. Growing things and soil conditioning are just techniques. When, where and why are part of the design process, and very importantly, Strategies for an Alternative Nation gives us a place to live. I know myself Invisible structures can be a little hard to grasp but Craig you work so hard at helping everyone to get “It”. Thank you
Thanks Carolyn – your input is always appreciated.
I am one of those without the luxury of much of a garden to be a ‘permy’ in. However, I agree wholeheartedly with the principles of permaculture and am trying to care for the planet in the best way I can (…reducing my carbon footprint etc). I find the articles by contributors here very informative and helpful, as do the friends that I have told about this site. You are all doing a great job…love the human/world interest stuff…keep it up!
“We need to set about…a system of replacing power-centred politics and political hierarchies… And we need to do this in an ethical and non-threatening way, so that the transition to a cooperative (versus conflicting) global society is creative (not destructive). – The Designers’ Manual, p. 508.
Yet the approach outlined in the article is threatening and isn’t about replacing the current power-centered approach, but rather continuing that approach, but under different management.
So what replacements for politics and political hierarchies are being worked on?
The http://www.arrestblair.org website’s paypal account is blocked. This is far from the first time paypal has pulled such a stunt. I’d suggest you all abandon paypal for these guys:
https://tipit.to/
Hi Pete.
You said:
>>”Yet the approach outlined in the article is threatening…”
But, the approach is not at all threatening. Please read the site concerned for details on how to arrest Mr. Blair:
https://www.arrestblair.org/performing-a-citizens-arrest
>>and isn’t about replacing the current power-centered approach, but rather continuing that approach, but under different management.”
I don’t see that this approach as anything to do with any kind of management continuation, but rather a call for justice for past acts (by simply ensuring existing international laws of aggression are enforced and applied to Tony Blair as equally as they would be to Joe Average on the street).
And the approaches Thomas and I were discussing involved non-participation in the illegal war by two potential options: 1) the soldiers refusing to fight, and 2) citizens removing their contribution by ceasing to pay taxes, and thus completely make the (expensive) war impossible.
Both of these possible approaches are non-violent as well.
>So what replacements for politics and political hierarchies are being worked on?
People will not begin, as they used to a century ago, to start to get involved in Wednesday night committee hall meetings to change their communities from the ground up if they think everything in the world of centralised politics/economy/environment is just peachy. A key issue is education to make people aware of the need to replace current structures, and aware that if we don’t work on this now, change will come but in a fashion we won’t enjoy (sudden social shifts with great suffering). Educating people about this need is something we do incrementally as we observe and write about current affairs.
There are many people waking up to what is going on in the world, and many of the commenters on this site are amongst them. Through articles we try to build an outline of where we should be heading and attracting people’s interest in contributing to this (in both thought and action).
One big thing that is of concern to me is that I see society getting increasingly divided between citizens and police forces who work to protect the interests of industry and government. This division is of great concern to me, as it’s becoming a ‘them and us’ scenario, rather than a ‘we’re all in it together’ scenario. Examining peaceful alternatives to provocative street protests that increasingly seem to end in police forces using taxpayer funds to buy tasers and bean-bag guns, etc. for use against their own citizenry, is important I think.
Protest are increasingly being spun by mainstream media to leave the average couch potato feeling that concerned or outraged citizens are terrorists and enemies of the state, when they’re often just enemies of the status quo.
Avoiding these kind of aggressive confrontations whilst still getting the point across necessitates a lot of education so we can get a critical mass that cannot be stifled by propaganda or shield-clad taxpayer funded street soldiers/police.
Craig,
you write:
===
One big thing that is of concern to me is that I see society getting increasingly divided between citizens and police forces who work to protect the interests of industry and government. This division is of great concern to me, as it’s becoming a ‘them and us’ scenario, rather than a ‘we’re all in it together’ scenario. Examining peaceful alternatives to provocative street protests that increasingly seem to end in police forces using taxpayer funds to buy tasers and bean-bag guns, etc. for use against their own citizenry, is important I think.
===
Guess what some of the hot topics in research are at present? “Crowd control” is one of them.
still funny and has nothing to do with Permaculure
This belongs on a leftwing extreme website
just my two cents
FanOfWhackyVorlon – on this site you make negative comments only. And when I try to make conversation, you ignore what I say. You didn’t answer the question, for example:
Your two cents is worth nothing if you can’t converse/respond. It’s like talking to a wall. I see you made the same comment just now on another post. I won’t moderate it through, as without some intelligent discussion from you it’s just trolling. I have the decency to take time to answer your question, despite the fact that historically your comments on this site have always only been negative and not in any way constructive, and you reply back with nothing of substance at all. You don’t even use a real name or email address.
I am also curious how seeking justice for war crimes can be labelled ‘left wing’? I don’t see this as having anything to do with socialism. It’s simply about justice and trying to do the little we can to avoid repetition of such aggression-with-an-agenda events.
The arrestblair website currently reads on the sidebar:
For myself, I am only pleased to assist this cause for justice, even if largely only symbolic. The response shows that not all people have hearts of stone, and that people won’t just ‘move on’. It shows people won’t just quietly stand by and accept it when leaders think they can do whatever they want and get away with it. This action is helping to ensure our ‘leaders’ realise they cannot expect immunity if they break the law, particularly laws that are protecting many thousands of innocents.
This is the ethic of People Care in action – working for people on the ground in hundreds of countries who could potentially become subject to future military invasions under the guise of ‘liberation’ as the world descends into resource grabbing chaos.
I would politely request you take the time to read this post – Can Permaculture Save the World?, and then please respond back here with your thoughts on how discussions on politics and economics cannot be part of the conversation on this site. For me it would be a gross dereliction of duty if I didn’t provide space for these things. If you can’t read and respond to the aforementioned article and provide at least a half decent explanation as to why we shouldn’t also be talking about politics and economics in tandem with swales, snow peas and sheep dung, then there really is no point in your commenting here at all.
The reality is that the permaculture movement hasn’t achieved nearly as much as it should have, purely because it has largely remained aloof from the mechanics that are shaping our world.
I must say though, Tony Blair would certainly be proud of you.
Make some reasoned response or don’t waste energy on commenting at all. Thank you.
“The reality is that the permaculture movement hasn’t achieved nearly as much as it should have, purely because it has largely remained aloof from the mechanics that are shaping our world.”
I’m surprised about this statement of yours. Especially reading it on this site comes a bit as a shock to me.
I truly belief that Permaculture has achieved exactly what it was designed for. “Permanent Agriculture”, Systems that interact with each other and feed on each other. You will find fine working, successful examples for that all over the world. Don’t waste your talent on people like Blair. “Show us the Gardens!” (Not the Money!)
I personally was never happy when Geoff Lawton tried to give Permaculture a political meaning by referring to it as Permanent Culture and moving it in the “active resisting the existing political system” corner. I was not impressed when he announced on the PDC I took on his farm that his property, phone line, internet, etc. is under constant surveillance by the Australian Federal Police.
However I strongly believe that Permaculture by itself has the power to change the systems. It will sooner or later become the predominate technology to feed this planets population. I strongly believe that the existing social structure is about to fail. I give it 15 – 30 years.
Wy also even bother to politicise this site with ridiculous calls for arresting a former state leader? That does help anybody to become more sustainable. You should publish at least 5 permaculture related articles a day and create a database people can refer to when they are in need of real information.
What do you want to achieve by writing this “political activism” stuff? Getting more Tomatoes, more Lettuce out of your garden. Helping you chickens to lay more eggs?
You are so busy in your little world, criticising the existing system you can not change, that you forget Permaculture will change all of it totally by itself. From my point of view you are wasting energy on an obsolete subject.
Political activism helps noone. Quiet contrary. Just look at Cuba. It was not the political opposition who saved the day when Russia pulled out. It was Permaculture related technology who helped to avoid a humanitarian disaster on this Caribbean Island.
I fogot: War criminals is a term falsely used by the winning side of a war. I thought higher of you as to use this term so lightly. I guess I was wrong.
A WAR IS A CRIME BY ITSELF. EVERYBODY INVOLVED IS A CRIMINAL! EVERY SOLDIER IS A MURDERER AND THAT INCLUDES THE ONES WHO SENDS THE SOLDIER TO THE BATTLEFIELD!
It is probably a waste of time to bother commenting further on Fanofwackyvorlon but here is a thought or two. If I had something as unproductive as fanofwacky growing in my garden, taking up space and using up resorces better spent on other things, I would consider composting it or feeding it to the chooks. The ironic thing is fanofwacky seems to be content to bait the hook and pretend to fish, but when something does bite, they throw the rod and reel into the water and bugger off.
FanOfWhackyVorlon. You still didn’t answer my questions.
“I would ask if you are both able to live completely self-sufficient and separate from ‘the system’? If not, you’re contributing to it – through taxes, credit card purchases, actual labour, etc. We all finance death and misery. Please tell me how such involvement is consistent with the ethics of permaculture, if we’re not trying to rebuild society in tandem with building soil?”
Can I ask what you do in your day job? Can I ask your real name? The reason I ask, is if you’re growing lettuces and eggs in your back yard, but are working/trading/participating in the system (via your day job and your consumption habits), a system that is itself preying on the poor and people in lands where environmental and social protections are lax or non-existent, then how (again) can you reconcile this with permaculture ethics if you’re not trying to change the system into something more transparent, accountable and ethical?
Did you read the article I asked you to read and comment on? I think the article makes the point quite clear that gardening on its own is like a man walking on one leg – it won’t get very far.
I don’t disagree with you on the need to produce eggs and vegetables, but if it stops only there, we’ll fail to make the massive social transition that is needed (and already way overdue/late). You give it 15 – 30 years. I give it a lot less.
You say: “I’m surprised about this statement of yours. Especially reading it on this site comes a bit as a shock to me. I truly belief that Permaculture has achieved exactly what it was designed for. “Permanent Agriculture”, Systems that interact with each other and feed on each other.”
But it hasn’t acheived this, and won’t have until it is the predominant system on the planet. The only way for it to become the predominant system on the planet is if our society changes in profound ways – at an economic and political level as well as grass roots.
Permaculture uptake is growing fast, but it is precisely because people are seeing the urgency more and more – due to being educated on where we’re heading economically and politically.
You say: “Political activism helps noone. Quiet contrary. Just look at Cuba. It was not the political opposition who saved the day when Russia pulled out. It was Permaculture related technology who helped to avoid a humanitarian disaster on this Caribbean Island.”
You seem to have a very limited/narrow understanding of what took place in Cuba. Consider what it took to enable that transition to happen? It took government policy decisions in Cuba that opened up and incentivised the use of vacant or unused land everywhere for urban farming, etc. These were land distribution policies. Sustainability had to be legalised. If government had endeavoured to continue with their large scale agriculture, their ‘special period’ would have ended in starvation and bloodshed. It was government policies that enabled the transition in combination with Permaculture/organic knowledge. The two must go hand in hand.
Now consider what is happening in Cuba now? Well, since 1997 its dependence on food imports has spiralled upwards, until it is today about 60% dependent on imports (much of it from the USA).
https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE4B18V620081202
This is despite almost half of Cuba’s agricultural land being unused:
https://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_18482.cfm
It seems clear that Cuba is now once again taking the lazy/short-term-profitable route of ‘coming back to the fold’ of centralised agriculture – including GMOs – and globalised trade. Globalised trade is increasing in the country, with TVs, mobile phones, computers, and other gadgets all streaming into the country now.
All these things are occuring due to policy decisions of centralised government. The lives of people on the ground are profoundly impacted by these policy decisions. If the people of Cuba don’t pay attention, learn where they’re heading, and seek to have their voice heard in its regard, then the Pied Piper of government will simply play whatever tune it wants and lead them back into a very dark cave.
Consider the Great Chinese Famine. Millions and millions of people died as a result of policy decisions made by centralised government. These people had their own gardens, but where forbidden to use them. It was forced collectivisation of all agriculture.
You don’t seem to understand that if there is an increasing lucid consensus on what needs to be done, then change that is well overdue can happen much faster if facilitated through changes in political and economic policy.
Wake up and smell the roses.
You say: “A WAR IS A CRIME BY ITSELF. EVERYBODY INVOLVED IS A CRIMINAL! EVERY SOLDIER IS A MURDERER AND THAT INCLUDES THE ONES WHO SENDS THE SOLDIER TO THE BATTLEFIELD!”
I don’t agree with you at all. I don’t regard a drafted soldier as a murderer. He does what he has to do, and he also does what he’s been programmed to believe is the right thing to do by leaders and a whole profitable industrial war machine. In this sense, I think we as consumers are more guilty for murder than the soldier who has no choice. If we sit by, working in our gardens on the weekend but in every other way contributing to the present status quo of consumer society, then we’re financing war and injustice continually.
FanOfWhackyVorlon – you are very welcome to your opinions. But in this area we clearly disagree. How about you stay in your garden, send us articles about your learning curve in this regard (you ask for five per day – so why don’t you commit to supplying one per week??), and ignore the posts I put up from time to time on political and economic issues? Again, without contributions from you, you have absolutely no right to complain.
You are taking up way too much of my time. But perhaps that’s all you intended to do?
I’m not learning anything from this dialog about permaculture, other than that (certain verbally diahreic) people have trouble segmenting their thinking in general. All is not all. Repeat three times. Waiting for more technical discussion of permaculture and less ideology.
“They need to round out there education a bit more.”
Here’s a bit of education I do know. That’s the difference between ‘there’ and ‘their’. Did you miss this part in second grade?
Judson – we are so very proud of you for attacking Carolyn over a typo. Well done.
I would actually find this conversation quite amusing if it wasn’t for the fact that it’s so sad. You mention we have trouble segmenting our thoughts. But, the point is our thinking is too segmented. People are failing to join the dots and see the ‘patterns’ in the bigger picture. You’re failing to see the connection between your garden and other elements in ‘the system’.
For example, FanOfWhacky commented on another post just yesterday to say how much he appreciated that post. It was his(her?) first positive comment I think on this site. He(she?) said “Thats exactly the kind of information I am expecting on a site like this!”
Now, look at the topic of the post. It is about the triumph of local knowledge and observational skills over corporate interests (chemical companies).
Now, I did a post some time back that takes this thought a bit further, to show how economic and political policies are effectively destroying this local knowledge and systems-thinking with nature in a blanket, wholesale country by country fashion:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/08/28/melting-borders-melting-icecaps/
So if I understand correctly, you’d like to read about how a few people manage to overcome an industrial mindset, but you don’t want to consider or do anything about the political and corporate machine that makes that battle necessary in the first place?
Take Haiti for example. Permaculturists are going in there to try to do what they can to help in practical ways. Some time ago I wrote an in depth post on how Haiti and other nations have ended up in such dire straits – because have fallen prey to western political and economic policies:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2008/08/09/orchestrating-famine-a-must-read-backgrounder-on-the-food-crisis/
These post are about ideologies. But, they address root causes of why the world is in such an unsustainable state. Despite the earthquake, the situation in Haiti would have been far better today, and the country would heal far more rapidly, if it wasn’t for the fact the country has been the subject of aggressive economic colonialism. Unless we address these root causes (see the Fence or the Ambulance poem above) then permaculture will always be one step forwards and four steps backwards, as you’re working against policies that are directly opposed to permaculture thinking. Worse, these policies and this thinking is so ingrained in people’s lives and culture that you can’t even see the need to do something about it.
Take the topic of the post above. It’s about bringing someone to justice for his role in an illegal war against Iraq. Aside from the oil grab, this illegal invasion also had significant impact on Iraqi agriculture. Read about Paul Bremer’s Order 81 and you’ll see that this political action is a direct affront and attack on permaculture. It is pulling many thousands of Iraqi farmers into the industrial agriculture machine and financing the growth of mega-corporations who won’t be happy until they get a royalty on every mouthful of food we eat.
We ignore these things at our peril. The longer we ignore them, the bigger the machine gets and the more difficult it is to combat. Educating people on this, in tandem with showing the positive alternatives, is a dire need.
Again, quit complaining. You might not appreciate certain posts, but others do. Ignore the posts you don’t like. Contribute posts on topics you want to see on the site.
“I don’t regard a drafted soldier as a murderer.”
I was with you on the whole illegal war thing until that. The government made me do it has not been a justification since Nuremberg.
“We need to set about…a system of replacing power-centred politics and political hierarchies…– The Designers’ Manual, p. 508.
Arrest Blaire is a PR ploy to attempt to gain traction in the media and from that more power within the current political system.
But it does nothing to replace the present system. And I wouldn’t fall back on education either. It does not educate about alternatives and at this point it is little likely to open peoples eyes to what is going on. And it doesn’t “to make people aware of the need to replace current structures” because the call to prosecute a former leader in the states court system is all about working within that system.
What are the replacement systems? That is what I want to know and haven’t seen talked about here.
I don’t see why some people make such a fuss about efforts to put Blair on trial. As I see it, this is not about “getting him convicted of high crimes” – that is, after all, for the court to find out!
As things are, there is evidence that the Iraq war could have been an illegal (under UN law) war of aggression – motivated by resource considerations (hence, by the way, indeed quite on-topic on a permaculture blog). If this is true or not – that is for the courts to find out.
Come on, folks. Politicians are being put on trial all the time. That’s not a big thing. The vice-chancellor of Germany’s last government was put on trial for lying in court. He eventually was cleared of all charges, the verdict was “not guilty”.
What’s the problem with bringing an issue to court where indications are that the charge might be valid? Should Blair stand trial and be cleared of all charges – fine. That gives us assurance that this issue has been looked into by the judicative branch and has been sorted out. Should he be found guilty – fine. That gives us assurance that this issue has been looked into by the judicative branch and has been sorted out.
I just don’t get it why bringing something to court is considered
such a big issue.
Craig,
I think some of what you’re seeing here is this: It is simple divide and conquer. The system co-oped the people by breaking us into simplistic ideologies such as left vs. right. When you make an appeal that seems left wing (e.g. anti-war), you get a Pavlovian reaction from those who self identify right. Now, you may wake up some on the left. But if we are going to replace the current systems and not be just another progressive subculture then we need to transcend these political groupings.
Blatently left-wing/progressive/anti-war appeals won’t do that.
[I speak from a USofA perspective, I’m not sure how left vs. right nomenclature plays out across the English speaking world.]
The question of how you educate (i.e. wake up) people is difficult. You can’t force people into paradigm shifts. It is more of a path to follow than a single decision and the in your face approach doesn’t always work. (Yes, indicting the former leader of the winning side is an in your face approach).
“I just don’t get it why bringing something to court is considered
such a big issue.”
The winners of war aren’t put on trial, the losers are. And in ruling western countries former leaders are almost never put on trial as sitting leaders don’t want to set a precedent to be used against themselves. So what is being proposed is a non-starter, it won’t happen.
There is a similar movement in the US, but it is stuck in the bowels of the progressive movement and given zero play in either the mainstream left or the right. The Iraq war was illegal under US law, but for more people here that is water under the bridge years ago, even if they agree with you.
Pete, in regards to my comment “I don’t regard a drafted soldier as a murderer.” you said: “I was with you on the whole illegal war thing until that. The government made me do it has not been a justification since Nuremberg.”
For me, calling a soldier a murderer is a very strong accusation. And, context seriously comes into play here. Would you call a U.S. or U.K. soldier fighting against Hitler’s armies a ‘murderer’??
I just can’t make such a statement in the way FanOfWhackyVorlon has. To make such a comment on this site is as good as greeting soldiers with those words when they come back from Iraq and Afghanistan – often severely traumatised – to the U.S. or the U.K. It ignores the fact that these people are led to believe they are doing their duty, and that they even risk making the ultimate sacrifice to ‘preserve freedom’. Do we blame the soldier or the war-marketing machine that sells them the idea that they’re doing something to make the world a better place? There is a whole industry that has vested interests in selling their destructive wares and services – and the ‘grunt’ in the trenches ends up becoming a pawn in the game, essentially brainwashed into thinking that not making war is unpatriotic.
To call a soldier a murderer for doing what the system demands of him is, in my opinion, extremely callous and narrow-minded. Again, it’s the Fence or the Ambulance scenario. I’m fascinated with this conversation. People are railing against a post that seeks to see Tony Blair on trial for decisions that appear to be breaking international law (these decisions form the root cause of the war), yet those very same people will attack the soldier on the ground who is doing what he’s ordered to do (a symptom of the decision to go to war).
Are you sure you’re not confused? This seems totally ass-backwards. This is a clear example of the band-aid mentality I’m trying to expose.
As Thomas says, wanting to see Blair in the courts for decisions that have cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, most of them completely innocent of any wrongdoing, is not an unreasonable ask, and it’s just the kind of People Care justice that permaculturists should be demanding.
You ask: “What are the replacement systems? That is what I want to know and haven’t seen talked about here.”
Not every post can cover every angle. George’s article is aimed at one particular issue. But this site has many other posts that seek to stimulate discussion on how we can replace the system. A few of many examples:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/09/13/letters-from-sri-lanka-does-sarvodaya-hold-the-secrets-to-systemic-change/
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2009/02/19/rediscovering-democracy/
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/1/8/money-literacy-part-i/
And you’re welcome to send your own article(s) sharing your own thoughts on the world we need to build, or at the very least to comment on such posts.
You say: “When you make an appeal that seems left wing (e.g. anti-war), you get a Pavlovian reaction from those who self identify right.”
Again, as I said above, I really don’t understand how wanting to see someone in court to answer to international laws of aggression has anything to do with left and right. If you or others make such a connection, how can that be my fault?
I’m tired of this conversation thread. Let’s just agree that you guys (Pete, Judson, and FanOfWhacky) are all happy for world leaders to be free to do whatever they want, and to be immune to prosecution. I disagree, but that’s just me.
Strangely enough from your and FanOfWhacky’s comment re soldiers, I think you agree with me but don’t even realise it. If you can’t call a US or UK war veteran of World War II a murderer (would you?) but are willing to call a soldier in the Iraq war a murderer, then you’re saying that the ’cause’ of these two soldiers is different. You’re saying that the cause of the soldier in Iraq is not right – that he’s there for the wrong reasons. If he’s there for the wrong reasons, then we must ask why he’s there. Then we discover high level decisions were made that brought that soldier to Iraq in the first place. Who made those decisions? Oh, Bush and Blair. Was it a legal decision according to current international law? It appears not.
I’m perplexed. You guys just want to attack symptoms, not root causes. Really doesn’t make sense to me.
“Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it.” – Mark Twain
Craig,
Ad “Would you call a U.S. or U.K. soldier fighting against Hitler’s armies a ‘murderer’??”
I would say that this actually depends a lot on his conduct during war. Yes, there is something like “illegal orders”, which must not be obeyed. It all boils down to the question: Did the soldier commit crimes during war, either on his own, or by executing orders which were illegal, and where it can be reasonably expected that he should have been able to see them for what they are? (Here, things are complicated by the military’s “need to know” principle. And this, precisely, is the reason why I personally won’t work with them: If they, for strategic reasons, withhold part of the information from me I would need in order to find out whether a particular job may, in the bigger scheme of things, be in conflict with my ethical principles, I simply cannot make that decision whether or not to do it.)
The German army is somewhat aware of these tricky issues. Soldiers learn (or at least: in theory should learn) during their training when to *not* follow orders.
It is, however, somewhat interesting to note that even in the Third Reich, the Nazis respected individual soldiers’ decisions not to take part in their extermination programs.
The tricky issue is that there is a world of a difference between two concepts of “disobedience”: We generally associate the term with “misbehaving”. In my view, this is seriously wrong, and actually a major problem of our “western culture”, as there is a second concept of “disobedience”, which is rooted in good conduct. This “I will, with all due respect, choose not obey this order, for I cannot reconcile it with my own principles and my conscience” is an extremely powerful position. I sometimes get the impression that in the so-called “civilized” world, authorities have a strong interest in obfuscating this immensely important point. It is just so much easier to stigmatize anyone who won’t obey your orders as a “misbehaving troublemaker”. That way, those in power can so easily avoid having to enter dialogue with those who actually may have a very valid point.
Maybe I should write up a few notes about Gandhi…?
Oh, Thomas – be careful! You risk delving even deeper into root causes, and will attract even more ire than we already have on this post! ;) We have to stick to band-aid treatment of symptoms only, it seems.
Most of the people in this comment thread sound like they could care less, but for those that do, the first attempt at a citizen’s arrest of Blair has been made:
https://www.arrestblair.org/war-crimes-reports
Not to labour the point, but this is a perfect example of how NOT getting political impacts on permaculturists:
https://www.permaculturenews.org/2010/02/02/democracy-for-sale-by-the-corporate-citizen/
Although the presidency seems to be little more than a figurehead, it seems sure that there is now next to no chance for anyone to become president who intends to do the right thing. If a candidate intends to work against the corporate, globalised model, billions of dollars to finance the campaign of a more corporate-friendly industry puppet (like oily Bush duo were) will put a stop to it.
If we stand by and do nothing, and just ‘talk garden’, we will watch (are watching) sytems get put into place which directly impact our ability to be self-sufficient and to live in harmony with natural systems. There is a systematic corporate/political/economic war on permaculture that we cannot ignore. Political activism and discussing/finding alternatives must be part of our work or ultimately our gardens will do little to save us from ourselves.
I love the Bill Mollison quote that Thomas recently emailed me:
“If you think you can be just a gardener, you’ve got your head in the sand and your arse up in the air waiting to have it kicked by the seed companies.”
Economic and political systems are just as much part of permaculture design as chicken tractors and trellises. And getting wars OUT of our design is more than worthy of our efforts.
Same goes for our need to change the focus of educational institutions. These need to begin real education – practical education appropriate for our present circumstances, which includes teaching people not only about on-the-ground work, but also educating people in economic and political aspects so we can learn to create a framework that fosters the growth of on-the-ground permaculture systems, rather than undermining it every step of the way as it does now.
Do I need to apologise for having dyslexia? Will I fail as a Permaculturist because of this terrible flaw? Will I hide behind a nickname? No, no and no!
People reading this post and participating in this thread may want to watch this:
https://vimeo.com/5341482
Another video that is worth watching: “The power of nightmares” by Adam Curtis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=skudTktwnQE
Provides some quite interesting – and, checkable – background data.
Subscribers to this thread might want to take a peek at this:
https://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23817037-revealed-tony-blairs-secret-oil-links-to-middle-east.do
To FanOfWhackyVorlon!
I had not time now to read all comments here, but I see you have missed the whole point. Permaculture has NOTHING to do with ideologies, it has developed to a higher level, and is the system needed for a new millenium. For me I grew up in a highly conservative family, everybody running small or medium size business for themselves. Personally I hated communism and all aspects of it from I were 6 months old, it is just after going through a terrorlike building project two years ago I started hateng capitalism equal. Actually, it started with hating entrepreners, first later I realized that a system that could come up with such terrible systems, this I did not wanted to be a part of anymore. And finally I found Permaculture, and I fell in love with what I saw, because I saw here an alternate to both socialism and capitalism as well as all other kinds of ideologies. Because I see no other system or movement that can truly contribute to make our world whole again! See this link: https://www.natureoforder.com/library/a-new-kind-of-world.htm
To To FanOfWhackyVorlon again!
Of course, not all ideas at this site necessarily need to be good ideas. This is the way a global Permaculture pattern language must be made up, we must discuss, try, adapt and adjust the patterns, slowly building our new global pattern language. Or rather many global pattern languages, because even this language has a core shared by everyone, there must be cultural and climatic differencies. But it is only with re-creating such a language we can re-create the nature of order, and ultimately reaching Alexander’s vision of a new world.
For me I see this prosess as a process of crushing “the invisible hand” created by Adam Smith, by using “the visible hand” created by Bill Mollison. This means replacing competition with cooperition. Some narrowminded people think this means replacing competition with communism. But NO, it means replacing ALL ideologies with a functional pattern language, a language that brings people in peace with themselves, with each other and with nature. And even we reach this goal one day, we must constantly continue maintaining and always improving this SHARED pattern language.
This site is a VERY important tool in the process for the creation of this language for the NEW millenium!