Not anti-violence.
As part of a diverse, inclusive movement it seems inappropriate to condemn users and the use of violence as a political tool. Violence is not 'wrong'. Such moral absolutism will only serve to alienate us from the very people we are trying to reach, slamming the doors of communication behind us. As 'Amusing Pseudonym' pointed out in Keep It Up, Don't Let Violence Divide Us published in 'Reflections on June 18': "the media concentration on violence is a deliberate attempt to discredit our movement and try to divide us along lines of whether we agree that violence is a legitimate tactic or not."

Not only must we resist this potential split, we must reject the conventional definition of violence. Many people have pointed out that the G8 countries only maintain their global hegemony because they can quickly mobilise the tools of war and weapons of mass destruction. Therefore, far from narrowing the definition of violence to exclude property damage and economic sabotage etc. we could move to broaden its meaning. Included in our definition of violence must be the violence of our exploitative economic system, the violence of GM foods and automobile pollution, the violence of the consumer society against nature... Using bourgeois concepts of violence to condemn people who join us in attacking the state only illustrates how much we dance to their tune. Allowing our movement to be split along our opposition's lines is to throw away the power we derive from our diversity and inclusiveness.

However, our diversity and inclusiveness themselves are at stake if we fail to show that there is still a belief in the methods and principles of nonviolence. If all those who prefer nonviolence, but are prepared to live with the violence allowed, themselves to be shouted down by those who espouse this new orthodoxy and pedal the 'anarchical correctness' of defending violence, this too would allow the movement to be split along the same lines. Furthermore, if we remain uncritical of the use of violence there is a risk that it will be used increasingly arbitrarily. Those left out will be those who don't want to be associated or caught up with the perceived violence of recent demonstrations of resistance so overstated by the press.

As those who actually use violence seem to be in the tiny minority amongst those attending RTS! type demonstrations, for example the 'Carnival against Capital' on June 18 1999, the need to appeal to those averse to violence seems all the greater. Similarly at the Euston event on November 30 of the same year a large exodus of the majority of participants occurred as soon as the fighting kicked off. Some peaceful attendants were less fortunate, failing to escape the police encirclement.

Reclaim The Streets! and other anti-capitalist networks cannot afford to alienate large numbers of supporters. On the contrary the aim must be to reach a critical mass able to make some real differences. A successful street party, march or any mass action relies on large numbers of people being present.

There is a need, therefore, to show that there are those who are prepared to stand up for nonviolent methods of political action within the movement. There is a need to develop ways of demonstrating our resistance using nonviolent methods that cannot be hijacked by violent demonstrators, without resorting to the questionable practice of using 'peace police'. There is a need to empower people to prevent violent situations where possible and dissolve excess tension in confrontations with antagonistic police, the state and their supporters. This network of activists aims to help move us in these directions.