[Gipfelsoli Newsletter] Heiligendamm -- Hokkaido -- Seattle

[International Newsletter]

- Statement of three of the accused
- Open letter to the Generalbundesanwaltschaft
- Richard Sennett/ Saskia Sassen: Guantánamo in Germany
- CampAG: Proposal for a cross-spectral big strategy congress
- radical left perspective on the g8
- Report of the Anti-sexist Contact and Awareness Group: Call for witnesses
- Japan, German police discuss security for G-8 summit in Hokkaido
- Japan, German police cooperate on security for G-8 summit in Hokkaido
- Seattle 1999: Was anyone at Westlake on Dec 1, 1999? Please forward.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Statement of three of the accused in one of the § 129a proceedings against the
militant group (mg)

On the morning of July 31, 2007, our apartments were searched by officers of the
Federal Criminal Police (BKA) at the directive of the Federal Prosecutor
(Bundesanwaltschaft). The charge put forth is membership in a terrorist
association, the so-called militant group, on the basis of to § 129a StGB.

Only through this incident did we learn that the authorities have been
investigating us for almost a year. These preliminary proceedings have allowed
the Federal Office of Criminal Investigation (BKA) and other federal agencies
to surveil and invade our private sphere all the way into its most intimate
realms. Our partners, friends, families and colleagues have all been affected
by these surveillance measures. Our longtime friend and colleague Andrej H. has
been arrested. The father of three children has since been detained in preterial
confinement in Berlin-Moabit.

The Federal Prosecutor (BAW) justifies these massive attacks on our civil
liberties in the arrest warrant with an array of outrageous constructs.

We gather the following allegations against us from the few documents available
to us as yet:

* Two of us are said to have authored scholarly publications allegedly
containing "key words and phrases that have also been used in writings of the
›militant group(s)‹". The BAW also attests that we possess the "intellectual
capabilities" required for composing the mg statements claiming responsibility
for their attacks. Furthermore, the BAW claims that we have access to libraries
which we can use for research. Andrej is also said to have been involved in
organizing protests against the G8 summit, concentrating on topics that the mg,
too, has used as rationale for their attacks.

* One of us is also accused of having authored a journalistic article about a
public conference where speakers discussed a 1972 militant attack. The mg
allegedly also wrote about this attack some months earlier. This provides
evidence, according to the BAW, that the author is a member of the mg.

* In two cases, the BAW accuses us of having contacts with individuals who are
suspects in another - so far inconclusive - criminal investigation against the
mg. Both contacts are primarily job-related. Furthermore, all of us are charged
with "having multiple contacts to the extreme left-wing scene in Berlin". It is
not mentioned that we also maintain countless contacts to political parties,
community organizations, trade unions and social movements.

What we conclude from these charges:

Any scholar or journalist who writes on specific topics and uses libraries
arouses suspicion. Anyone who has contacts to people deemed suspicious by the
BAW may become a suspect herself. Anyone who seeks to protect his/her right to
privacy and anonymity may also become a suspect. In case all three moments of
suspicion converge, it must be - in this logic - a terrorist association.

Notwithstanding the absurdity of all this, the consequences for our everyday
life have been devastating: For a year now, our phone conversations have been
listened to, our emails surveilled, our internet use monitored, our flats have
been kept under surveillance, and all our moves have been followed by means of
mobile phone data. Possibly undercover informants have been spying on us.
Partners, friends, colleagues and family members have also become targets of
the investigations. Right now, we cannot surmise the extent of this spying
operation.

While we are still at large, our friend and colleague Andrej H. is detained on
the basis of the same allegations. He is held under very strict conditions in
solitary confinement, he can see his family only for an hour every two weeks,
and communication with visitors is allowed only through separation panes.

In Germany, this form of investigation of particular political attitudes has a
long and dark history. As former citizens of the German Democratic Republic
(GDR) we are particularly sensitized to this.

We demand the immediate suspension of the § 129a proceedings, the return and
deletion of all the data gathered on us, and the release of all the indicted
from jail, including the three accused of attempted arson. In accordance with
the rule of law they should not even be in pre-trial confinement, as there is
no danger of their fleeing. Their arrest became possible only via the dubious
construct of "forming a terrorist alliance".

The whole proceedings are an utter scandal. They make very clear that the
investigation paragraph 129a needs to be abolished.

For the accused in this proceeding:

RA Wolfgang Kaleck Immanuelkirchstr. 3-4 10405 Berlin - Prenzlauer Berg fon:
+49-(0)30-44679218

Three of the accused, 12.08.2007


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Open letter to the Generalbundesanwaltschaft against the criminalization of
critical academic research and political engagement

On 31st July 2007 the flats and workplaces of Dr. Andrej Holm and Dr. Matthias
B., as well as of two other persons, were searched by the police. Dr. Andrej
Holm was arrested, flown by helicopter to the German Federal Court in Karlsruhe
and brought before the custodial judge. Since then he has been held in pretrial
confinement in a Berlin jail. All four people have been charged with
"membership in a terrorist association according to § 129a StGB" (German Penal
Code, section 7 on 'Crimes against Public Order'). They are alleged to be
members of a so-called 'militante gruppe' (mg). The text of the search warrant
revealed that preliminary proceedings against these four people have been going
on since September 2006 and that the four had since been under constant
surveillance.

A few hours before the house searches, Florian L., Oliver R. und Axel H. were
arrested in the Brandenburg region and accused of attempted arson on four
vehicles of the German Federal Army. Andrej Holm is alleged to have met one of
these three persons on two occasions in the first half of 2007 in supposedly
"conspiratorial circumstances". The Federal Prosecutor (Bundesanwaltschaft)
therefore assumes that the four above mentioned persons as well as the three
individuals arrested in Brandenburg are members of a "militant group," and is
thus investigating all seven on account of suspected "membership in a terrorist
association" according to §129a StGB.

According to the arrest warrant against Andrej Holm, the charge made against the
above mentioned four individuals is presently justified on the following
grounds, in the order that the federal prosecutor has listed them:

* Dr. Matthias B. is alleged to have used, in his academic publications,
"phrases and key words" which are also used by the 'militante gruppe';

* As political scientist holding a PhD, Matthias B. is seen to be intellectually
capable to "author the sophisticated texts of the 'militante gruppe' (mg)".
Additionally, "as employee in a research institute he has access to libraries
which he can use inconspicuously in order to do the research necessary to the
drafting of texts of the 'militante gruppe'";

* Another accused individual is said to have met with suspects in a
conspiratorial manner: "meetings were regularly arranged without, however,
mentioning place, time and content of the meetings"; furthermore, he is said to
have been active in the "extreme left-wing scene";

* In the case of a third accused individual, an address book was found which
included the names and addresses of the other three accused;

* Dr. Andrej H., who works as urban sociologist, is claimed to have close
contacts with all three individuals who have been charged but still remain
free;

* Dr. Andrej H. is alleged to have been active in the "resistance mounted by the
extreme left-wing scene against the World Economic Summit of 2007 in
Heiligendamm";

* The fact that he - allegedly intentionally-did not take his mobile phone with
him to a meeting is considered as "conspiratorial behavior".

Andrej H., as well as Florian L., Oliver R. und Axel H., are detained since 1st
August 2007 in Berlin-Moabit under very strict conditions: they are locked in
solitary confinement 23 hours a day and are allowed only one hour of courtyard
walk. Visits are limited to a total of half an hour every two weeks. Contacts,
including contacts with lawyers, are allowed only through separation panes,
including contact with their lawyers. The mail of the defense is checked. The
charges described in the arrest warrants reveal a construct based on very
dubious reasoning by analogy. The reasoning involves four basic hypotheses,
none of which the Federal High Court could substantiate with any concrete
evidence, but through their combination they are to leave the impression of a
"terrorist association". The social scientists, because of their academic
research activity, their intellectual capacities and their access to libraries,
are said to be the brains of the alleged "terrorist organization". For,
according to the Federal prosecutor, an association called "militante gruppe"
is said to use the same concepts as the accused social scientists. As evidence
for this reasoning, the concept of "gentrification" is named - one of the key
research themes of Andrej Holm und Matthias B. in past years, about which they
have published internationally. They have not limited their research findings
to an ivory tower, but have made their expertise available to citizens'
initiatives and tenants' organizations. This is how critical social scientists
are constructed as intellectual gang leaders. Since Andrej Holm has friends,
relatives and colleagues, they now also are suspect to be "terrorists", because
they know Andrej. Another accused individual was blamed for having the names of
Andrej Holm and of two others charged (but not jailed) in his address book.
Since the latter are also deemed to be "terrorists" - this is how "guilt by
association" is established.

Paragraph § 129a, introduced in Germany in 1976, makes it possible for our
colleagues to be criminalized as "terrorists". This is how, through § 129a, the
existence of a "terrorist group" is claimed.

Through these constructs, every academic research activity and political work is
presented as potentially criminal - in particular when politically engaged
colleagues who intervene in social struggles are concerned. This is how
critical research, in particular research linked with political engagement, is
turned into ideological ring leadership and "terrorism".

We demand that the Federal Prosecutor (Bundesanwaltschaft) immediately suspend
the § 129a-proceedings against all parties concerned and to release Andrej Holm
and the other imprisoned from jail at once. We strongly reject the outrageous
accusation that the academic research activities and the political engagement
of Andrej Holm are to be viewed as complicity in an alleged "terrorist
association". No arrest warrant can be deduced from the academic research and
political work of Andrej Holm. The Federal Prosecutor, through applying Article
§ 129, is threatening the freedom of research and teaching as well as
social-political engagement.

Initial signatures by:
* Prof. Dr. Alan Harding (University of Salford, UK), Prof. Dr. Michael Harloe
(University of Salford, Vice-President),
* Prof. Dr. Andreas Huyssen (Villard Professor of German and Comparative
Literature at Columbia University),
* Prof. Dr. Andrew Ross (New York University, New York),
* Prof. Dr. Andrew Sayer (Lancaster University, Sociology),
* Prof. Dr. Craig Calhoun (President, Social Science Research Council, and
University Professor, Sociology, NYU),
* Prof. Dr. David Harvey (Distinguished Professor of Anthropology, Graduate
Center of the City University of New York, New York),
* Prof. Dr. Dieter Rucht (Wissenschaftszentrum für Sozialforschung Berlin)
* Prof. Dr. Elmar Altvater (Freie Universität Berlin),
* Prof. Dr. Frances Fox Piven (President of the American Sociological
Association, Distinguished Professor of Political Science and Sociology, City
University New York),
* Prof. Dr. Frank Deppe (Universität Bremen),
* Prof. Dr. Geoff Ely (University of Michigan, Karl Pohrt Distinguished
University Professor),
* Prof. Dr. Jennifer Wolch (Professor of Geography at the University of Southern
California/Los Angeles).
* Prof. Dr. Joachim Hirsch (Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität, Frankfurt/M.),
* Prof. Dr. John Friedmann (University of California, Los Angeles), Prof. Dr.
Herbert Gans (Columbia University, New York),
* Prof. Dr. Lawrence D. Berg (Canada Research Chair in Human Rights, Diversity &
Identity, University of British Columbia),
* Prof. Dr. Manuel Aalbers (Universiteit van Amsterdam),
* Prof. Dr. Margit Mayer (Freie Universität Berlin),
* Prof. Dr. Martin Jay (Sidney Hellman Ehrman Professor of History, University
of California Berkeley), Prof. Dr. Bob Jessop (Lancaster Universtiy),
* Prof. Dr. Michael Dear (Professor of Geography at the University of Southern
California/Los Angeles),
* Prof. Dr. Michael Edwards (The Bartlett Centre for Architecture and Planning,
UCL, London),
* Prof. Dr. Michael Storper (Centennial Professor of Economic Geography, London
School of Economics, and Professor of Economic Sociology, Science Po, Paris),
Prof. Dr. Erik Swyngedouw (University of Manchester, UK),
* Prof. Dr. Mike Davis (Prof. of Urban History, Irvine/USA),
* Prof. Dr. Neil Brenner (New York University, Sociology),
* Prof. Dr. Neil Smith (Distinguished Professor of Anthropology and Geography,
Director of the Center for Place Culture and Politics, Graduate Center of the
City University of New York),
* Prof. Dr. Peter J. Taylor (Loughborough University, UK), Prof. Dr. John Urry
(Lancaster University, Sociology),
* Prof. Dr. Peter Marcuse (Columbia University, New York),
* Prof. Dr. Philipp Oswalt (Universität Kassel),
* Prof. Dr. Rianne Mahon (Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada),
* Prof. Dr. Richard Sennett (Professor of Sociology at the London School of
Economics, Bemis Professor of Social Sciences at MIT, Professor of the
Humanities at New York University),
* Prof. Dr. Roger Keil (York University, Toronto, Canada),
* Prof. Dr. Roland Roth (Hochschule Magdeburg/Stendal),
* Prof. Dr. Rowland Atkinson (University of Tasmania, Australien),
* Prof. Dr. Saskia Sassen (Columbia University, New York, and London School of
Economics)
* Prof. Dr. William Sewell (The Frank P. Hixon Distinguished Service Professor
of Political Science and History Emeritus, University of Chicago),

Media contact to solidarity group in Berlin: einstellung at so36.net

German lawyer and media contact for Germany: Wolfgang Kaleck
Immanuelkirchstrasse 3-4 D-10405 Berlin Germany fon: +49-(0)30-4467-9218 fax:
+49-(0)30-4467-9220

Media contact for international affairs: Prof. Dr. Neil Brenner (New York
University, fon: USA-212-998 8349) Prof. Dr. Margit Mayer (Freie Universität
Berlin, fon: 030-8385-2875)


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Sennett/ Saskia Sassen: Guantánamo in Germany

In the name of the war on terror, our colleagues are being persecuted - for the
crime of sociology. By Richard Sennett and Saskia Sassen

'Terrorism" has two faces. There are real threats and real terrorists, and then
again there is a realm of nameless fears, vague forebodings and irrational
responses. The German federal police seem to have succumbed to the latter: on
July 31 they raided the flats and workplaces of Dr Andrej Holm and Dr Matthias
B, as well as of two other people, all of them engaged in that most suspicious
pursuit - committing sociology.

Dr Holm was arrested and flown to the German federal court in Karlsruhe; he has
since been put in (pre-trial) solitary confinement in a Berlin jail. Of course
the police may have solid, rational knowledge they are withholding, but their
public statements belong to the realm of farce. Dr B is alleged to have used,
in his academic publications, "phrases and key words" also used by a militant
group, among them "inequality" and "gentrification". The police found it
suspicious that meetings occurred with German activists in which the
sociologists did not bring their mobile phones; the police deemed this a sign
of "conspiratorial behaviour".

Thirty years ago Germany had a terrible time with indisputably violent militant
groups, and that leaden memory hangs over the police. And it may well be that
"gentrification" is a truly terrifying word. But this police action in a
liberal democracy seems to fall more into Guantánamo mode than genuine
counter-espionage.

Consider the hapless Dr B a little further. He's not actually accused of writing
anything inflammatory, but seen rather to be intellectually capable of
"authoring the sophisticated texts" a militant group might require; further,
our scholar, "as employee in a research institute has access to libraries which
he can use inconspicuously in order to do the research necessary to the drafting
of texts" of militant groups, though he hasn't writtten any. The one solid fact
the cops have on Dr Holm is that he was at the scene of the "resistance mounted
by the extreme leftwing scene against the World Economic Summit of 2007 in
Heiligendamm", perhaps mistakenly believing he is studying this scene rather
than stage-managing it.

These are not reasons for Brits, any more than Americans, to cluck in righteous
disapproval; in the long, sad history of the IRA, reality and fantasy entwined
in an ever tighter cord. But, apart from hoping that our colleague Dr Holm will
be freed if only he promises to carry his mobile phone at all times, we are
struck by the grey zones of fragile civil liberties and confused state power
that this case reveals.

The liberal state is changing. In the 60s, Germany had the most enlightened
rules for refugees and asylum seekers in Europe; the US passed the most
sensible laws on immigration in its history; France granted automatic
citizenship to all those born on its territory, including all Muslims. Today
all these countries have, in the name of the war on terror, revised their rules
- the state of emergency prevails. The laws meant for real threats are invoked
to counter shapeless fear; in place of real police work, the authorities want
to put a name - any name - to what they should dread. States of emergency are
dangerous to the legitimacy of states. In cases conducted like this one, a
government stands to lose its authority and so its ability to root out actual
terrorists.

If our colleagues are indeed dangerous sociologists, they should be prosecuted
rationally. But, as in Guantánamo, persecution seems to have taken the place of
prosecution.

Richard Sennett is a sociologist at the London School of Economics; Saskia
Sassen is a sociologist at Columbia University

r.sennett [at] lse.ac.uk

[The Guardian, 21.08.2007]


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CampAG: Proposal for a cross-spectral big strategy congress

Hello, since its last meeting, the camp working group had thought a bit about
how to continue protest and resistance. This is what came out of it:

Proposal for a cross-spectral big strategy congress in Autumn/Winter 2007

Like no other event in the recent past the actions before and during the summit
in Heiligendamm will whirl around the strategic coordinates ofour struggles for
a different society. At least for the parts of this movement that are acting in
Germany there is no way to avoid new evaluations and analysis about how to
develop sustainable protest. Before the summit the mass run to the fence and
the bypassing of a strongly armed police phalanx with mainly unconventional and
peaceful methods were judged as skeptical as the possibility to use mass
militancy or to use it at a threat potential in the balancing of powers. We
will have to critically evaluate in how far this Mix of forms of protest and
resistance

* only functions singularly at summit protests
* have lasting effects at all
* if the comparably strong international mobilization contributed to that
* in how far the cross-spectral character made possible a lot of things
* if on the other hand too many forces were bound to install the alliance in
form of the Hanover circle.
* and we will have to discuss why some of the desired protest forms, like Plan B
and decentralized actions, did not function in the wanted extent.

As CampAG we do not want and we can answer these questions as a collective, but
during our work one aspect has been of special importance to us: The
categorical insistence on the cross-spectral character of the camps and thus
the protests, not bringing into line or purely instrumentalizing the
respectively other spectrums for strategical reasons, but to be open to
diversity, to acknowledge this character as a form necessary at the moment and
as a strength. We want to see in this character a means of transmission to
realize and newly develop the social forces against the existing conditions in
the future as well. Therefore we think it essential for the next struggles to
have a joint assessment of the G8 protests and to decide about the direction to
take now together. At the moment there are discussions going on in many modules
and spectrums, analyzing the events of Heiligendamm and developing a strategy
from it for the left and radical left movement. As far as it is known Attac is
meeting right now on its summer academy and the IL at the river Mosel, the
dissent network will meet in September and from the 18th to the 21st of October
the [german] Social Forum will take place in Cottbus. Of all these and other
local and internal meetings we have expectations: We hope that first proposals
will be resulting from the assessment process in the respective spectrums by
autumn - which strategic elements shall form the basis of our struggle in 2008
and 2009, for example.

* which partial struggles in society have our special attention?
* or are there ideas how to create a superordinate ensemble of the protests?
* Do the summit protests in Japan 2008 and in Sardinia 2009 have a special
significance for us?

If strategic proposals and results of analysis will be thrown into debate by the
different spectrums - relating to our questions or answering others - we would
really like to do our share and support the debate infra structurally. Which
means that we propose to have a very huge cross-spectral meeting of debate,
strategy and network for some days in the end of autumn or the beginning of
winter 2007. First talk about rooms for a congress like that are already under
way in Berlin, if Berlin would be a desirable place for that congress. We want
to be significantly involved in the setting up of the congress, contentwise as
well as organizationaly. We got positive feedback from a lot of participants of
the camps, and we believe to have collected quite some reputation to guarantee
the cross-spectral character in the preparation of such a meeting. As the
preparation of a congress like that has to start early, we ask the different
spectrums for a quick feedback on the proposal announced here. Part of this
feedback should be if you think that a weekend will be enough or if we should
give ourselves more time, using extended weekends or winter holidays.

greetings full of expectations from the CampAG


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
radical left perspective on the g8

translation of a text written by german comrades - published in the hamburg
autonomous magazine zeck some weeks ago. reflections about the demos in hamburg
and rostock, challenges of the radical left and miltant strategies.

Reflexions on the mobilization of the radical left against the G8 in
Heiligendamm

"In danger and real trouble stearing a middle course is death"

This was the motto of a longer text the Revolutionären Zellen wrote about the
peace movement in Germany and the worldwide economical and political changes
understood as globalization today. Concerning the strategy of the radical left
they said amongst other things, that "we have to get out of the fatal
dependency on the peace alliance, we need to open up our own fronts. The
following and orientation on topics and proceedings of the protest against
deployment means a political and practical narrowing, that could lead to the
reversal of the aims declared... As long as there is no radical mass movement
in sight, which in their resistance to imperialist strategies of annihilation
pose the question of power as well, we don´t have any alternative: Our policy
has to carry on aiming at strengthening the Left, at radicalizing them and
widening their militancy... The transformation of the "civil democracies", that
is resulting from the politico-economic changes, will further restrict the legal
room for manoeuvre of the Left, especially by the time the conditions themselves
will demand a radicalization of resistance. The peace movement sufficiently
proved that the new social movements are not a protective shield under which
militancy can be organized. A radical left that has the self-concept of making
possible resistance time and time again has to create its own structures of
subversion an illegality, to stay incalculable, incognizable, unconquerable."

24 years later this analysis seems near and far at once. On the one hand the
changes in global power relations had created completely new starting
conditions for emancipatory and radical left politics in the FRG as well. On
the other hand the course of protests against the G8 had shown that the radical
and militant left is more than ever on the defensive. And one would only have to
substitute "peace alliance" and "deployment" for "anti-globalization-alliance"
and "G8" to render the analysis up-to-date.

In the beginning of the year diverse radical left groups took the ASEM summit
(assembly of the ministers of exterior from Europe and Asia) that was going to
take place in Hamburg immediately before the G8 as an occasion to organize a
supra-regional demonstration, that was as well meant to be the upbeat of
protests against the G8. Unlike the mass demonstration in Rostock the goal was
a radical left mobilization, open to participation to others but not to form a
broad alliance at the prize of abandoning content. The mobilization for this
demo was successful only to some extent. Namely there has been a relatively
large radical left block, that was bigger than those on other demos in the
lasts years but smaller than the one on the last huge radical left demo 1995 in
Hamburg against the proceeding against the Radikal [underground journal]. All in
all the left radical block largely remained amongst itself, it didn´t really
work to mobilize beyond the scene. While the political spectrum up to the Left
party could be found in the second half of the demo, this part stayed way
behind their capacities in broadness and numbers. The Interventionist Left had
already refused to participate in the demo-alliance and rather backed the
cooperation with Attac, other reformists and NGOs in Heiligendamm.

While the strength of the first half of the demo had the result that the cops
didn´t launch bigger attacks until its dissolution, their Wanderkessel [moving
encirclement] proved successful in so far as we did not take the offensive as
well. But the demo was not strong enough to reach the political aim to "attack"
the meeting in the Hamburg city hall. Hence it was the right decision to
dissolve the demo at Rödingsmarkt, the point most closely to city hall. By this
we kept a moment of incalculability. But then we did not manage, neither
directly nor later on, to get into the inner city. Instead we shifted
confrontation - as many times in recent years - to the Schanzenviertel and in
front of the Flora [neighborhood of the political scene & autonomous center].
So a real questioning or disturbance of the summit was not possible. The usual
small riots in front of the Flora didn´t only show that we are not able to
carry the confrontation to the place of events. They showed as well that there
are no successful concepts for a scenario of dissolution, and that there are no
sustainable structures who could take matters in their hands and realize the
political aims of the demo, despite its dissolution.
Besides its function as a (radical left) starter of the G8 the ASEM-demo
additionally got the character of an anti-repression demo by the police raids
of the 9th of may, directed against the "militant campaign" and targeting many
places in the north of Germany. While there had been disputes in the
anti-G8-alliances in springtime about declarations of Attac for example, who
then dissociated themselves from several arson attacks in connection with the
mobilization to Heiligendamm, the razzias and 129a-proceedings were now
unanimously disapproved as criminalization and intimidation of the resistance
critical of globalization.

However, after the demo of the 2nd of June in Rostock the dispute reached a new
dimension, when spokesmen of Attac compared militants to Nazis and championed
for the exclusion of militants, and to hand them over to the cops. While the
Interventionist Left did not dissociate themselves from militant actions in
their declarations, they did not leave the alliance of Attac and other
reactionary forces. After the demo of Rostock the actions in front of the fence
that surrounded Heiligendamm were characterized by political self-disarming.
Militants were often hindered or even excluded. For the majority of opponents
of globalization it is appropriate to encounter evicting police standing or
sitting there with hands up high. This spectrum mainly consists of a young
student middle class milieu, which like the peace movement 25 years ago has no
idea of the boundaries of formal democracy, system enmity, or the repressive
assertion of capitalist interests. In the struggle against the Castor
transports to the Wendland the fragile comprehension of next-to-one-another in
the alliance was still prevailing, which means that the militant left
contributes in her own way to the struggle against Castor, while the more civic
groups practice strategies of civil disobedience without offensively
dissociating from the militants. Even if the spectrum critical of globalization
is not identical with the anti-nukes, for the first time in years an ideological
and practical cooperation of the majority of a protest movement with the cops
against militant attempts became apparent here. Those groups of the radical
left counting on the concept of broad alliances did not counter that. The
militant Left after the demo in Rostock didn´t manage to reveal to the wider
Left their terms of system enmity against a murderous world regime and the
means they accordingly chose. Thereby it is completely irrelevant whether the
clashes were also, or even predominantly sustained by agents provocateurs
fulfilling orders of the cops. There was nearly no immediacy of contents from
our side, why system enmity will not accept dictated limitations of the choice
of means, that what we talk about is power relations in conflicts, the building
of countervailing power and our aim of social liberation. As well it didn´t work
out to explain the action out of itself. As the demo was organized by a very
heterogeneous alliance and was further on characterized by a mostly
de-escalative concept of the cops until the demo reached its final destination,
the question arises whether is was politically clever to attack a van of the
cops standing all by itself at the roadside. There is quiet a lot of rage piled
up if you on demos walk for years in Wanderkessel encirclements of the cops. But
this would have had to be transported in an offensive way politically
afterwards. Instead the political field of demo organization and post
processing was left to the spectrum reaching from Attac to the Interventionist
Left.
In contrast the relaying of contents worked relatively well after the Anti-G8
Grazia's as well as before and after the ASEM demo. Besides spontaneous demos
and militant solidarity actions there were press declarations, Interviews and
press conferences and parts of our contents were to be found in the corporate
media. In TV and newspapers the juridical basis and also the tactical
reasonability of the repressive measures were questioned, as it was feared to
heat up things. After the ASEM-demo the social democratic, green and
conservative parties argued about the legitimacy of demo-Wanderkessel, even if
they did so in a weird way. Taking place immiediately after the police raids,
the relatively big demo in Hamburg also showed the potential of radical left
mobilization. It has not been evanescent, but also not very strong.

Comparing the demo situations in Hamburg and Rostock, due to the masses of
people it has been objectively possible in Rostock to offensively act against
the cops, which was not the case on the ASEM-demo in Hamburg. In Hamburg we
could not create these prerequisites. The few activists and groups concentrated
their capacities and power on realizing a more or less organized demo and action
week against the ASEM and the G8 in Hamburg. Following the political aim it
would have made sense - as it would have been communicable - to go to the inner
city of Hamburg and to stage militant actions at the fence in Heiligendamm,
respectively to materially disturb the summit in other ways. Both could hardly
be realized. Against the backdrop of these experiences we should realistically
evaluate our forces. They are strong enough for symbolic militant propaganda,
currently we do not seem to be able to do more.
A partly comparable political isolation can be seen in recent years in example
of the "militant campaign". The Hamburg secret service Verfassungsschutz (VS)
under its head Lochte and now his successor Uhrlau always were a bit ahead of
the other organs of repression. But after the arson attack on the car of the
boss of the Bild-newspaper Diekmann the present head of VS Vahldieck asked the
militants to consider whether their strategy is politically sustainable.
One thing that can be read out of this statement is that the organs of
repression do not have many ideas of how to clarify the assaults committed or
how to prevent further attacks. Although they started their apparatus on a big
scale: Within the framework of 129a proceedings, which usually involves large
scale observations of those suspicious and their personal environment, phone
tapping and house searches, also special methods of cross-referencing dragnet
investigations [Rasterfahndung] got known: In several districts of Hamburg the
whole physical mail coming in was surveilled to find out where letters claiming
responsibility were coming from, to then observe the respective letter boxes.
Likewise the Hamburg branches of a pharmacy chain store were monitored, which
could have provided materials for the arson attacs. The same time the security
agents of companies thought relevant for possible assaults were commissioned to
enhance their own person and object protection. The cops themselves tried to
improve their concept of cordon searches after assaults took place. So the
security apparatus booted up quiet some of the methods available since the
tracing of RZ and RAF (and this is "only" because of arson attacs...), but
seemingly they are in the dark with their proceedings, as there apparently are
no results that would justify a warrant against any one of the suspects.

On the other hand the Hamburg VS discovered a grain of truth. Within the radical
left the assaults against the state secretary of finances Thomas Mirow from
Hamburg, the boss of the newspaper Bild and the head of an advertising agency
of the campaign "We are Germany" [Wir sind Deutschland] content wise speak for
themselves. But politically they mainly have the character of punishment- and
propaganda-actions: Following the Motto, that this and that person is
responsible for this and that rascality. Like our current demos the actions
remain symbolic, they express contradictions, but are unable to contribute to a
shift in direction of society or to build up spaces of social countervailing
power. As the radical left and also the social grassroots movements are as weak
as they are, there are not even starting points for common campaigns emerging,
that could create or execute material pressure. Outside the militant left the
political relevance of the attacks neither lies in their explanatory statements
nor in a certain quantity, but mainly in that they could not yet be clarified or
hindered by the investigating agencies. Insofar the attacks bear some
politically randomness. In contrast the expropriatory actions of the
"Superheroes" and "Superfluous" at least initiated some social fantasies. Their
public actions of appropriation and distribution in delicatessen shops and
luxury restaurants in themselves are as well nothing but symbolic, but the same
time they relate their critique to a general conscience of growing inequality
and pauperisation processes. In the beginning of the 90s the RZ dissolved
because they saw no possibilities anymore to militantly intervene into social
(mass)struggles, respectively to support them. Meanwhile we reached a point
where we do not even succeed to use street militancy to politically intervene
and communicate politics critical of the system. The RZ were right in 1983
saying that "as long as the mass movements do not pose the question of power,
our policy has to aim at strengthening the Left, at radicalizing them and
widening their militancy." So from our point of view there are following
questions to be asked for the clarification of content and for the practice of
the radical left:

- How can we strengthen the practical cooperation of the remaining rests of the
radical left?

- How can it be possible to agree on certain forms of action or fields of
content, to make it possible that we reach a critical mass, resp. that we can
build a political counterweight?

- How can we better communicate our contents and approaches to the left and the
broader public independent of our actions in a continuous way?

- How can we make sure that our militant actions starting from mass situations
(from demos, at fences or railroad tracks) get as much consent as possible, or
at least acceptance before, during and after the actions?

- How can we avoid that after militant actions like the demo in Rostock (which
could not be planned, but were not surprising either) nearly no political
statements came from our side?

It is important for us to get a discussion going about these points within the
radical and militant left. As militancy we consider forms of action that elude
themselves from the regnant frame of action, and concerning content, how they
contribute to come closer to a society free of rule and coercion.

The debates of the "militant group" about their militant platform did not really
help in that. There abstract lectures about historical deductions of forms of
politics and resistance were given without pointing out in a concrete way, how
militant and radical politics could contribute today to a strengthening of
contradictions towards a breakage of the system. At the same time we assume
that the militant and radical left has to continuously consider these
questions. This doesn´t have to always happen in public. Possibly it could make
more sense to discuss during the preparation of actions and campaigns properly
in small circles, how contents and forms of action could contribute to
strengthen social contradictions, resp. the radical left. It won´t help just to
keep it up. This would be the deadly middle course for the radical left today.

Die rosa roten Panterchen


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report of the Anti-sexist Contact and Awareness Group: Call for witnesses

antisexist_awareness_group at riseup.net

Sexual police violence during the protests against the G8 in Heiligendamm 2007

During the protests against the G8 in the area around Heiligendamm, sexism,
sexual police violence and the threats of sexual police violence repeatedly
occurred. We are looking for witnesses, on the one hand for an internal
exchange and a strengthening amongst the affected persons, on the other hand so
that a group of affected persons, in an anonymous form, is able to act. This is
important, so that this theme will be out in the public politically, since
sexual police violence is mostly not addressed, especially not in the public.
It is also important for this to come to the expected commission of inquiry.
For us it's also important to point out, that there was also sexism and sexual
violence within the protest movement against the G8. Even though we are
focusing on the police, it is important that the sexual violence within the
movement isn't forgotten.

But first about the classification of sexism and sexual violence in general,
before becoming more concrete. The division of people in two sexes and the
hierarchization of sexes is the creation of a system of force, on which base
our society is built. With that, inclusions and exclusions are made, specific
attributions and duties are assigned, from division of work until for example
speech style. In order to maintain this system of force, it has to be actively
created anew over and over again. In this societal process, sexism and sexual
violence is an instrument of power in order to create and maintain these
relations of power and to create and maintain hierarchies and dependencies. So
this is a common practice to create hierarchical gender ratios.

Now about sexism and sexual violence as practices of state-run institutions of
force, like the police and the army:
Sexism and sexual violence and especially rape are used and sometimes
recommended, among other things, in situations of war as an instrument of
destruction, exercise of power and humiliation of the so-called enemy. But also
in so-called times of peace, structural violence is created through sexism and
sexual violence. In the ongoing discourse it's again and again suggested that
sexual violence and rape are exceptions and exposed individual cases. Reality
is however, that sexism and sexual violence are daily life conditions,
therefore the rule. Sexism and sexual violence operate like a weapon and are a
purposeful directed instrument for use of violence and repression. This has
continuity, for example after the raid on the Diaz school in Geneva,several
women were threatened with rape.

Sexual violence completely ignores the right of self-determination of the
affected persons. It attacks the physical and psychic integrity and acts in a
traumatizing way.
In addition to the terrible experiences of violence, powerlessness and
humiliation for the victims of sexual violence there is also the burden with
feelings of shame and guilt with which the affected persons often have to
struggle. Moreover it is an incredible stigma to identify yourself as a
survivor of sexual violence and to take the step into this process, to
formulate the experience of violence, to politicize it, to name and accuse the
perpetrator. Because of all these reasons, sexual violence mostly can't be
named as such in public. Huge resources are needed, such as support through
friends, counseling or supporter-groups, to place yourself in this position.
But even if the survivor finds strength enough to speak about the experience,
mostly there's a second victimization, thus more injuries in succession. In
addition with the burden of repeatedly having to talk about traumatizing
experiences, there are mostly disastrous reactions from the outside: Either the
woman's story is not believed, detailed information is demanded, it's said she's
also partly guilty for what happened, or she is being defamed as being ill,
crazy or hysterical.

These are, amongst others, reasons why survivors don't dare to take legitimate
steps. It maybe that their belief in the legal system is shattered, or they
don't feel strong enough to be able and walk this path or try to escape the
stigmatization from others. The bigger part of the incidences is not being
reported, and we as a support group for survivors also advise against filing
charges in most of the cases.

On the other hand, affected people act based on a strength, which comes from the
knowledge beforehand, that repression might happen and that sexism and sexual
violence is a part in that. They don't let it get to them and don't let it
terrorize them. They are prepared inside and shield themselves against what
might come. The strength and decisiveness of the movement was used by them to
not let the experiences of violence get to close to them and to face all this
full of self confidence.

The incidents with which people came and talked to us about, go for example from
the denial of tampons, police controls where people were grabbed in the crotch
and their breasts, sometimes accompanied with lewd noises, police controls or
ID treatments during which people had to undress fully or partly before their
picture was taken, to the point of threats of rape in jails (GeSa).

All this happened in a context, in which police arbitrarily demonstrated and
enforced their entitlement of force and sovereignty through coercion and
violence. Activists saw themselves confronted with partial masked and armored
police forces in black. An arbitrary control and search or even worse,
preventative arrest to "prevent danger", speaks a very clear language: WE HAVE
THE POWER - YOU DON'T.

Sexism and sexual violence, like shown in these examples, always stand in this
context. They are used knowingly and purposefully, to intensify the already
staged practice of humiliation and repression.

antisexist_awareness_group at riseup.net


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan, German police discuss security for G-8 summit in Hokkaido

Jorg Ziercke (L), president of Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office, shakes
hands with Japan's National Police Agency head Iwao Uruma(r) at the agency in
Tokyo on Aug. 13. Ziercke paid a courtesy call on Uruma after senior officials
of the German police office and their Japanese counterparts discussed security
measures for the Group of Eight summit to be held in July next year at the Lake
Toya hot-spa resort area in Hokkaido. (Kyodo Aug. 13 TOKYO, Japan)





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Japan, German police cooperate on security for G-8 summit in Hokkaido

Aug 13 12:37 AM US/Eastern
Officials of Germany's Federal Criminal Police Office and Japan's National
Police Agency met Monday in Tokyo and agreed to cooperate over the security of
the Group of Eight summit to be held in July next year at the Lake Toya hot-spa
resort area in Hokkaido, NPA officials said.
The Japanese and German police agreed to exchange information on the latest
trends regarding anti-globalization organizations and other extremists groups
in Europe, the officials said.
Japan's NPA and Hokkaido prefectural police officials in charge of summit
security will be sent to Germany to step up the information exchanges, they
said.
Germany hosted this year's G-8 summit in June in the Baltic resort of
Heiligendamm. Protestors from anti-globalization and other groups staged
rallies during the summit, with some turning violent and clashing with police
causing many injuries.
Jorg Ziercke, president of the Bundeskriminalamt, or BKA, and other senior
officials plan to visit Tuesday the venue of the G-8 summit, Windsor Hotel Toya
Resort & Spa, which stands atop a 600-meter mountain overlooking Lake Toya.
Senior officials of the NPA Security Bureau had discussions with officials
Monday about the location of the venue and their security plans, as well as how
to best guard the G-8 leaders against any intrusions by such anti-globalization
groups.
The Japan-hosted summit, to be held on July 7-9 next year, will be attended by
leaders from Britain, Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia and the
United States.
After the meeting, Ziercke had talks with NPA Commissioner General Iwao Uruma.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seattle 1999: Was anyone at Westlake on Dec 1, 1999? Please forward.

We need to find ~ 175 individuals who were in Seattle during the WTO protests in
1999.

We won an important lawsuit against the city of Seattle which violated our
rights and these folks need to contact the attorneys by AUGUST 28, 2007 if they
want their portion of the settlement $$ (see below to download claim forms.)

Sooo.... WHO DO YOU KNOW who might have been in Seattle at the WTO protests in
1999? Please pass this along to them and to others who might have some
connections to those events. (Consider sending to your lists or specific
people, adding info to your blog, website or announcement lists, and
especially, talking to folks.)

Westlake, Dec 1, 1999? Nov 30, 1999:

We're specifically trying to be sure all 175 people who were arrested at
Westlake on December 1, 1999 get this info IMMEDIATELY since they have only two
weeks left to return their claim (due August 28th, 2007.)

We settled with the city of Seattle for $1,000,000 and each person arrested at
that location is entitled to a portion of those funds. (Hopefully it's clear
that ONLY folks arrested at this particular time and place are part of this
suit and eligible to make these claims.)

A jury found that our 4th amendment rights were violated. See press release
about the case: http://www.witheylaw.com/TLPJ-WTOVerdictNewsRelease.pdf and
some news about the settlement: www.witheylaw.com/WTO%20Trial.htm
www.witheylaw.com/news.htm

The problem is that after nearly 8 years (and not knowing who was actually
arrested there), almost everyone has moved or gotten a new phone or email. We
need to use our networks to reach folks so PLEASE HELP get this to them by
forwarding on to reduce those degrees of separation.

Again, apologies to folks who may not understand why I'm sending this to you or
who get this multiple times. Mostly I tried to think of people who might have
some connection to the issues, the tactics or the regions that brought people
to Seattle in 1999. The hope is that you will know how to reach folks that were
involved so we can use our networks to reach these 175 people.

As an aside, let me note that many of the 175 folks we've already found are
still committed to their activism and are planning to put the funds they
receive BACK INTO their respective MOVEMENTS. Many of us recognize that though
~175 of us will receive a portion of this settlement, the victory of this case
is a victory for us all. The work happening in the streets in 1999 is
ongoing...and I personally hope to support that work by funneling my portion of
the settlement money into groups still doing that work. Though these arrests
violated our rights, many of us of are people of relative privilege which is
another reason to give collectively with these funds. That said, most activists
I know rarely have large financial means so this will be a rare opportunity for
some of us to support financially the causes we work so hard on with our other
resources. (My personal view of the money I'll be receiving is that it isn't
really mine...it belongs to all the people (50,000) who were in the streets in
1999 opposing the WTO and, even more, to all the people affected by the WTO's
policies. In 1999, I was arrested (wrongly, the jury decided) speaking out for
what I believed in and trying to create change. In 2007, I hope to see the
funds I'll be getting used to continue that work.)

Thanks and solidarity, Erica K, Jane WTO #890, can at drizzle.com, 206-568-7110
(still in Seattle)

P.S. You may have heard that director Stuart Townsend has made a movie about the
protests called "The Battle in Seattle." It's supposed to be based on true
events...but we'll see how true it really is...

Taken in Seattle12-09-07 during the filming of the film: I just saw that it will
premiere at the Toronto International Film Festival (Sept. 6-15) and I've heard
that it will be released broadly around....November 30th, 2007. Many folks
recognize that this means our little piece of history will be spotlighted again
for a brief moment in time, depending on how well the film does. I've heard of
some great plans to reclaim the voices of those actually here to tell the true
history of those days and to bring the multitude of globalization issues back
into our discussions. Hopefully the arrestees will be announcing our collective
donations at about the same time.

INFO for ARRESTEES (those arrested mid-morning on December 1, 1999 at Seattle's
Westlake Park)

If you are one of the 175 arrested in this situation and you haven't already
turned in your forms, please download the two files below and send the claim
form in by AUGUST 28th, 2007.

*Notice of the lawsuit: www.zoopla.net/viewFile.php?fid=4044 Claim form:
www.zoopla.net/viewFile.php?fid=4045

NOT DELAY!



ALSO, let me make a pitch to Westlake arrestees: Let's join together and put
some or all of our settlement money back into our movements.

A small group of arrestees has put together a preliminary proposal that we'd
like you to consider about how we can magnify the impact of our giving
(including hooking up some matching funds.) From conversations with other
arrestees, I know many of us do plan to donate most or all of our settlement
money (after taxes) to our communities and to further the work we that brought
us to Seattle in the first place in 1999. This proposal provides a forum for us
to figure out how to collaborate on that. I invite those who receive settlement
funds to consider participating.

We'll try to send the proposal to anyone who makes a valid claim to the
settlement dough but, in case we miss you, please email me (can at drizzle.com) or
wtosettlement at gmail.com if you are interested in this initiative. Look for this
in your email soon. (If you got this first email from someone besides me, we
probably don't have your email so be sure to drop us your current email address
so we can include you.)

Again, let's use these funds to continue the work we began in 1999! Even if you
don't plan to pool your funds with us, we'd love to know what other initiatives
you use the settlement to support.

In solidarity, Erica Jane WTO #890 can at drizzle.com 206-568-7110

PS. WESTLAKE ARRESTEES: DON'T FORGET to DOWNLOAD and FILL OUT the PAPERWORK by
August 28th!!!!

FYI: Sent by attorney Tyler Weaver on May 30, 2007 to a listserve of arrestees
(but only a few folks are still on it after 8 years):

Only Westlake arrestees have access to this list. If forwarding this to others
in the community, please make sure the message contains no sensitive legal
communications.

Attention all-

I am pleased to finally be able to send you the official, court-approved notice
of the settlement and the claim form for the recent settlement on behalf of
those arrested on December 1, 1999, in Westlake Park. These documents are being
sent to every person for whom we have a street address, and are also attached in
.pdf format. [see download links above]

The notice describes in detail the settlement, the process for any objections
and submitting claims, and the various deadlines. Hopefully all of your
questions are answered there. If not, there are several avenues, as listed in
the notice of the settlement, for you to ask questions and receive answers. If
you were arrested at Westlake Park on December 1, 1999, the deadline for
returning your claim form is August 28, 2007. There's no reason to wait that
long, however.

I should also note that the settlement does not provide for any funding of
non-profits or future protest or educational activities. However, if anyone
wants to pool all or a portion of their settlement funds for a collective
action, you can email either wtosettlement at gmail.com, or can at drizzle.net for
more information, and to express your interest and/or participate in the
planning process. This is completely and totally voluntary and is not part of
the settlement, nor a condition to anyone's participation in the settlement. I
merely include this information in the event anyone is interested in banding
together.

If you know of anyone else who was arrested at Westlake Park, please forward
this message and the attachments to them as soon as possible.

Tyler Weaver Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro LLP.