Re: [OPE-L] Net Consequences and Praxis

From: glevy@PRATT.EDU
Date: Tue Feb 28 2006 - 12:35:16 EST

Pauls B & Z,

I don't think we're really in disagreement, although I can see why
Paul B objected to the formulation that "we have to ignore the issue."
On the one hand, we need to defend our rights when we have cause
to believe that they are being violated.  On the other hand, even when
we are _aware_ that the state is violating our rights, we can not let
them intimidate us into non-activism.

This was the same conclusion which my Al-Awda friend drew.  S/he had
reason to believe that agents had repeatedly searched her/his space,
harassed her/his friends, and otherwise attempted to spy on and
intimidate her/him.  Part of their mission, it seems to me, was to
scare her/him into withdrawal from political activism.  Obviously they
didn't know who they were dealing with! -- my friend is a hardcore,
life-long activist and (while s/he watches her/his back more now) s/he's
not going to let the state win by retreating into a private,
non-activist life.  I don't think they recognize sometimes how
their harassment can often have the exact opposite consequence of
what they intended.

In solidarity, Jerry

[Paul B wrote]
> The point is surely that we must all exeret to the very maximum all of our
> legal rights and defend and extend them at all times. Those who live only
> vicarious existences cannot be allowed to affect this one iota.
[Paul Z wrote]
>Your expectations of surveillance are reasonable. But I also remember a
>talk many years ago by David Halberstom (sp?) how he was so surprised
>that his letters into and out of the Soviet Union was being monitored by
> the CIA in a manner he could not detect at the time.  Mainly, I think we
> have to ignore the issue of being monitored or we'll get nothing
> accomplished.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu Mar 02 2006 - 00:00:03 EST