Specious Argumments: Meaning points that initially sound good, but don't make sense when you really think about them. Actually, most of the DoT rhetoric is specious, but some of the worst examples are:

   The DoT'ers might be right, you can't be certain:
            The nonviolent activists might be right, the World Bank might be right, the Jehovah Witnesses might be right, even George Bush might be right. Anyone 'might' be right.

            Unless there is considerable doubt, the possibility that someone else might be right is not an argument not to take action. Equally, they might be wrong. We all have to make the best decisions we can based on the evidence we have, and take action accordingly.

      Interestingly, the "they might be right" is an argument for nonviolence. Because it is possible that you are wrong and the other might be right, one should never deprive someone else of their health or life as part of political struggle.

      The DoT'ers are sincere:
                So are the nonviolent activists. Even Jean Chretein might be sincere. It applies to most people on all sides of the issue, and is not an argument for supporting one over the other. It is a reason to treat all concerned with respect.

    They aren't going to go away:
            The nonviolent activists aren't either; nor the World Bank for that matter. This is an argument for taking effective action with regards to either the DoT or the World Bank - it is certainly NOT an argument for simply accepting them as they are.

Reciprocity

            A good way for testing any of  the arguments for DoT  is "are they reciprocal"?  does it work for both parties if the roles were reversed?  For example, if we agree to respect one another (and actually do it), then it is reciprocal.

            Many of the "DoT" arguments can not be reciprocal. "Respect for a diversity of Tactics" demands that we support and  not publicly critisize the actions of other 'activists'. A nonviolent activist cannot agreee not to criticise violence anymore than an anti-corporate activist could agree not to criticize corporations, or an anti-racism activist could agree not to criticize racism.

            Some of  the DoT arguments are potentially reciprocal, but  to date no effort has been made to work them out. For example, there is no reason nonviolent activists could not be in solidarity with DoT activists that have had their rights violated or subjected to any injustices. Equally there is no reason that there cannot be solidarity on the issues of anti-corportization, anti-oppression, and so on. But this is an solidarity  that must be worked out in a spirit of  respect and open dialogue until a true consensus is reached..

            Instead, the DoT advocates have unilaterally and arbitrarily declared that everyone else must be in solidarity with them in accepting violence as part of the anti-corporatization movement. There was no attempt to negotiate a real consensus for real solidarity. The self-rightous demands for solidarity as defined by the DoT advocates are authoritarian, heirarchical, anti-democratic, hypocritical and meaningless.

Where DoT get's it (almost) right!
    Implicit and explicit in DoT culture is a critique of

            Further, experience has shown that many DoT activists are willing to criticize non-DoT activists. Indeed the principles for organizing various consulta and the G8 actions specifically criticize activists who lobby and carry out similar activities ("- distrust and skepticism of lobbying efforts" - from The organizing and political principles of the "Take the Capital!" campaign).

        Reciprocity means we must be willing to have done to us and our friends what we do to others. Are we willing to let young people who are angry with us throw stones at us? smash our windows? spray paint our homes? If we do not allow others the same rights as us, then we are inconsistent, even hypocrits and frauds. Are these rights we are willing to grant groups who do not like our politic?

Divisive

             It is said that critisizing DoT is "divisive" (ie divides the movement).

            i) Taking any stand on any issue is potentially divisive. Choosing to oppose capitalism is divisive to society as a whole. The decision by some to undertake DoT was divisive. That  is not sufficient argument for not doing something. "Divisive" should properly only be used when making the distinction between two groups is trivial. (see 'we're all on the same side')

            ii) The movement already is deeply divided along the violence/nonviolence issue. Not talking about it is the traditional dysfunctional family way of trying to make it go away. Acknowledging the problem openly is the first step towards potential resolution and healing.

            iii) "Solidarity" is not something that defaults to the first group that demands it. Why should nonviolent activists be in solidarity by accepting DoT? If solidarity is  so critically important to movement success, why not have all activists be in solidarity with strict nonviolence? Apparently solidarity is so important everyone else should change their politic, but not the DoT advocates. This is another example of the lack of reciprocity being demanded,

            Solidarity is something groups negotiate. Given similar goals or objectives, they seek to work together whenever possible - but similar goals does not mean that they can always work together.

            Equally, being in solidarity around some issues does not mean that they cannot comment on areas where they do not share similarities.

Minimalizing/Rationalizing

      Not so much justifying as excusing the DoT is the  rationalization or minimalizing of the actions of the DoT practioners. One hears various  things like "they're just young" or "it was only a little paint", or "smashing a couple of windows is not violence"

      All of which may true, but! Is this what we say when a mosque or synagogue is vandalized? Do we make these same rationalizations when a group parades through an ethnic neighbourhood chanting "Fuck the...", spray painting slogans, and doing 'minor' property damage?

      Rhetorical question - of course we don't. We denounce the ugly violence in the strongest possible terms (and we call it violence). Further, when others attempt to rationalize or minimalize these types of actions we are outraged.

      Are they different? and if so, how? and why? As it is, what we are doing is commonly known as having double standards, being inconsistent, being seen as liars and/or hypocrites by the public.

      So what do we believe? If "they're young, angry", "it's just a few windows" etc are legitimet excuses - then lets say that loud and clear the next time a synagogue or mosque is vandalized. And if these are not valid, let's say it when it occurs at our own demonstrations and protests. And if they're different - lets be clear on how and why.

"We're all on the same side..."

            Are we? Is it sufficient that we are all opposed to the World Bank, IMF, WTO, etc? The truth is that much of the radical right is also opposed to these same intistitutions. Does that mean we're all on the same side as them? Obviously not.

            Implicit in this argument is a lack of analysis about why different people oppose institutions like the World Bank and WTO. Many are opposed to them because they are opposed to violence and these institutions are violent.

            If one is opposed to to violence, then one  can not be on the same side as those who use violence. It may be possible to cooperate with them in some or many instances. It is always possible to dialogue with them. But you're not "on the same side".

Redefining Violence

        There are two concerns with how the word 'violence' is being misused. Most people  in the social justice movement are redefining violence - which is OK as long as you are open with others about what your definition is. However, when we use a definition that is very different from the commonly understood definition and do not make our definition explicit, then it is a lie when we say that "we do not support violence".

        The bigger  problem is that we have different definitions of violence depending on whether we are talking about 'us' or 'them'.

        Whenever a person of colour receives a hate letter, someone tells a crude sexist joke, swastika's are painted on a synagogue, or a stone is thrown through the window of a Womyns Centre, many in the movement are quick to denounce any and all of these as 'violence'. We may not equate them with one another or physical atacks, but we usually do use the word "violence".

        With the popularization of DoT many in the movement has suddenly gotten very soft and vague on just what is violence, at least when applied to police and the rest of society. Things that are considered "violence" when done to someone we see as an "our side" suddenly doesn't count as violence when done to a police officer or Starbucks. This is a double standard and hypocritical.

        Making a distinction between violence against people and vandalism is fine, as long as the distinction is applied consistently. An act that is 'mere vandalism' against a Starbucks is also 'mere vandalism' against an abortion clinic.

        We can choose any definition we want, as long as we are clear what it is, and consistent in using it. Anythng else is inconsistent, hypocritical and destroys our credibility.

Nothing happened...

        At the June 2002 DoT G8 protests  in Ottawa and Calgary there was minimal vandalism and almost zero violence. Some suggest we can now accept DoT because even with DoT "nothing happened".

        Although "nothing happened" DoT is fundamentally unchanged by these events. Were these events relatively peaceful because of or despite DoT?  We could speculate as to why nothing happened, but the fact remains that DoT itself remains open to vandlism and some levels of violence.  That nothing happened is no guarentee that nothing will happen next time, or the time after.

        If at the next DoT event there is considerable vandalism or violence, will we then flip back to objecting to DoT? Will we flip flop after every demonstration depending on what happens?

        If an event is organized as nonviolent and  for some reason becomes violent, will we then reject nonviolence?  It  begs the question as to why DoT is unacceptable.  Is it the intent, or merely the consequences, intended or unintended? The willingingness to accept vandalism and/or violence is the problem, just as we would continue to work against a group that was willing to engage in racial, ethinic, gender or homophobic violence - whether they ever actualy did so or not.

        Obviously it is better when there is no violence or vandalism for whatever reason, but regardless DoT remains a problem. Whether it occurs or not, the likelihood of protester violence will continue to alienate the public and keep people away from protests.

Rewriting History

            A number of the arguments for "DoT" are based on gross oversimplifications or outright rewriting of history. Some examples include:

    The Zapatistas
            Also known as the "what about the Zapatistas?" argument. Well, what about the Zapatistas? Or more to the point, why the Zapatistas?

            If one is going to hold up armed resistance movements from Latin America as an example, why not the Ejército Popular Revolucionario (EPR) ), the National Liberation Army (ELN), the Partido Communista Brasileiro, The Acao Livertadora Nacional, The Vanguarda Popular Revolucionara, the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement (MRTA), the Movimento Revolucionario Tiradentes, The Movimento Revolucionario do Outubro 8, the Communista Brasileiro Revolcionario, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), the Sendero Luminoso (SL), or the Mexica Movement (Indigenous Movement of the People of Anahuac)? to name a few.

            And that’s only a few from Latin America - never mind groups and movements from the rest of the world....

            So why have the DoT crowd choosen the Zapatista National  Liberation Army (EZLN), and the Zapatista National Liberation Front (FZLN).as their icons? Several reasons:

             Probably the biggest single reason for choosing the Zapatistas is their visibility and their apparent reletive success. But that begs the question, why are the Zapatistas relatively so successful?

            There isn't the time to go into it fully just now, but paradoxically a large degree of the Zapatista success is their relative nonviolence. Their guns notwithstanding, the Zapatistas behave in many ways that are classical strategic Gandhian nonviolence. That is not to say that they are nonviolent, they're not. They use violence in 'self-defence', but  they have not committed the kinds of excesses and abuses that typically happen when groups take up violence. In fact, on a scale from the FARC to Gandhi, the Zapatistas are more Gandhian than they are a violent, armed resistance movement.  [more on this later]

            Thus the Zapatistas used to justify the use of violence by the DoT, and they were chosen because of their relative nonviolence.

            Regardless, if one is defending violence then one has to look at all armed revolutionary movements. If one is going to select one as an example, then it is ecessary to be clear why that one and not the others.

    Another reason the Zapatistas were chosen is quite simply that many of those currently active in the anti-globalization have not heard of many other armed resistance groups. The mythology of DoT culture started to rise following the WTO protests in Seattle. At the time Che and the ANC was seen as ancient history, the Intifada was pretty quiet, and Osama hadn’t yet exploded on to TV screens.

    The Civil Rights Movement

    ANC

    Tienanmen Square

    The Nazis Card

Nonviolence is Ineffective

Radical times call for radical actions