[Omd] apology/statement

Fri Dec 10 21:36:54 PST 2010

Hey all,

Someone in OMD sent out an email a couple days ago, the one about the 'suing
the cops' workshop, and mistakenly put our contacts in the To line rather
than the BCC line. A simple slip up, I'm sure, and not that big a deal.

Matt, you're response to Jane is bang on. Having just read her reply, I can
say I'm not surprised that she didn't listen to a thing you said. But I'm
really glad you gave it a shot. Not sure what you think next steps might be,
but I suggest the best thing is to just not respond any further.

I think we should send out a quick apology over the email list as soon as we
can.

D.

On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 4:01 PM, <john.hollingsworth at sympatico.ca> wrote:

>  i support what you're proposing, matt. i don't think anyone wants an email
> war, but there's a few things that need clarification.
>
> it would still be helpful in hearing from somebody (dan?) about how it is
> that jane was able to send an email to the announcements group.
>
>
> "We who do not seek power, only want the consciences of [the masses]; only
> those who wish to dominate prefer sheep, the better to lead them. We prefer
> intelligent workers, even if they are our opponents, to anarchists who are
> such only in order to follow us like sheep. We want freedom for everybody;
> we want the masses to make the revolution for the masses. The person who
> thinks with [their] own brain is to be preferred to the one who blindly
> approves everything.... Better an error consciously committed and in good
> faith, than a good action performed in a servile manner."--Errico Malatesta
>
>
>
> > Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 12:37:49 -0800
> > From: mattm-b at resist.ca
> > To: omd at lists.resist.ca
> > Subject: [Omd] apology/statement
>
> >
> > i also think we should stay out of a flame war over the "list". i agree
> > that we should apologize/comment very briefly on jane's e-mail, in
> > particular to reiterate that she doesn't speak for roger, claude or i,
> and
> > that she doesn't have her facts right on a number of issues, including
> the
> > role that francois played in infiltrating the activist community.
> > specifically, that as far as we know from the disclosure and from roger's
> > own statements or lack thereof neither he, nor any police officers were
> > involved in the firebombing.
> >
> > maybe folks feel that this is tangential to the matter at hand, but i'd
> > rather that francois' actual role in infiltrating the community not be
> > confused any more than it already has been by jane and others.
> >
> > already sent jane my e-mail - so that ship has sailed...i did sign of
> > "matt for ottawa movement defense" which may have been premature...in
> > which case i apologize.
> >
> > p.s. thanks for the feedback.
> >
> >
> > > hey folks,
> > >
> > > i think we should really send an apology. perhaps we can add that Jane
> is
> > > full of shit, but i think we should not include her in the email. that
> > > will
> > > only provoke another fuckin stupid response and i think that would make
> > > our
> > > apology kinda lame since they'd be subjected to another round of
> bullshit.
> > >
> > > if we want to email jane separately, we should do that. and of course
> > > Matt
> > > should send his personal response.
> > >
> > > but ultimately, i think we should try to stay out of an email war.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Dec 10, 2010 at 2:07 PM, <john.hollingsworth at sympatico.ca>
> wrote:
> > >
> > >> yeah, i agree - both that all your versions were/are great, matt, and
> > >> also
> > >> with your additional comments.
> > >>
> > >> i tend to think that this should go out to the list, though, as well
> as
> > >> an
> > >> apology to all on it for their individual emails getting into the
> public
> > >> domain / jane's hands. how exactly did that happen, anyhow? if people
> > >> think
> > >> that a public response is worth doing (and so far i'm the only one who
> > >> thinks so who's spoken up), we'll need a strategy to deal with people
> > >> not
> > >> wanting to be spammed by jane, at least in terms of a back-and-forth
> > >> waste
> > >> of bandwidth thing that we don't want to get into. but i think a
> public
> > >> response is necessary for reasons of holdng jane accountable for her
> > >> actions. ultimately, matt, it's up to you where you send your email of
> > >> course.
> > >>
> > >> "We who do not seek power, only want the consciences of [the masses];
> > >> only
> > >> those who wish to dominate prefer sheep, the better to lead them. We
> > >> prefer
> > >> intelligent workers, even if they are our opponents, to anarchists who
> > >> are
> > >> such only in order to follow us like sheep. We want freedom for
> > >> everybody;
> > >> we want the masses to make the revolution for the masses. The person
> who
> > >> thinks with [their] own brain is to be preferred to the one who
> blindly
> > >> approves everything.... Better an error consciously committed and in
> > >> good
> > >> faith, than a good action performed in a servile manner."--Errico
> > >> Malatesta
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ------------------------------
> > >> Date: Fri, 10 Dec 2010 10:09:17 -0500
> > >> From: joeli.htc at gmail.com
> > >> To: mattm-b at resist.ca
> > >> CC: omd at lists.resist.ca
> > >> Subject: Re: [Omd] 2nd draft, response
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> I liked your 1st one as well, but this is really good too.
> > >> FFJane,
> > >> Joeli
> > >>
> > >> On Dec 10, 2010 10:02 AM, <mattm-b at resist.ca> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> hey,
> > >>
> > >> ok a little calmer now, time for the 2nd draft.
> > >>
> > >> i think this response is just to jane, but that we should send a brief
> > >> note reiterating that jane is not and has never been involved with
> doing
> > >> support work for the J18 defendants and that here opinions about the
> > >> case
> > >> are ill-informed, baseless and generally ignorant. also, we should
> make
> > >> sure not to include her in future e-mails.
> > >>
> > >> 2nd draft:
> > >>
> > >> hi jane,
> > >>
> > >> we would appreciate it if you would keep your opinions to yourself,
> or,
> > >> if
> > >> you can't do that, that you, at the very least, refrain from spamming
> > >> our
> > >> e-mail list.
> > >>
> > >> as always, being forced to deal with your antics remains a distraction
> > >> from the real and important work of supporting the J18 defendants in
> the
> > >> ways that they have all requested.
> > >>
> > >> you can be sure that any actions that we do take in the future will
> not
> > >> include you and that your opinion will not be solicited. once again,
> we
> > >> would prefer that you simply keep your opinions to yourself, or
> failing
> > >> that, to at least not bother telling us as a group or as individuals
> as
> > >> your opinions about which course of action we should take are
> > >> ill-informed, frivolous and generally ignorant.
> > >>
> > >> as one of the J18 defendants who you "claim" to have been supporting,
> i
> > >> want you to know that i never felt supported by you and that, in fact,
> > >> your "support" was not only a distraction but was, in fact, entirely
> > >> counter-productive. your ongoing attempts to comment upon and/or
> > >> influence decisions which - i thank god - you had no say in, is not
> > >> wanted, and continues to be offensive and a deep waste of our time.
> > >>
> > >> as for some of the specific points and/or allegations that you made:
> > >>
> > >> 1) i don't know where you get off calling me a "follower" but i would
> be
> > >> happy, once again, if you keep your opinions to yourself. i had
> nothing
> > >> to do with the firebombing. i am, however, entirely capable of
> reaching
> > >> my own conclusions about subjects, issues and so on, and am capable of
> > >> deciding for myself how i want(ed) to be supported regarding the
> attempt
> > >> to charge me with arson, and, more generally, what i will do with my
> > >> activist time. i believe that your characterization of em as a
> > >> "follower"
> > >> comes from a) the fact that i have been diagnosed as "schizoaffective"
> > >> (which would be a very ableist opinion to hold) and 2) the fact that i
> > >> don't agree with you about many subjects.
> > >>
> > >> 2) to date, there has never been any evidence that any police officer
> > >> was
> > >> involved with the arson. there was never any statement or evidence
> that
> > >> a
> > >> police officer was involved in any of the disclosure, nor did roger
> ever
> > >> say or imply that a police officer was involved in the action.
> > >>
> > >> 3) your understanding of the bail proceeding is clearly extremely
> > >> limited
> > >> and based far more on opinion than on fact.
> > >>
> > >> 4) a trial would have resulted in roger receiving a much more severe
> > >> sentence than he did receive. so, basically, your plan would have
> meant
> > >> that our friend and comrade roger would be spending something like 5 -
> 7
> > >> years in prison instead of 3 1/2.
> > >>
> > >> finally, as a more general point, sensible people choose not to talk
> > >> about
> > >> things which they know nothing about. we hope that you will see the
> > >> wisdom in this and refrain from opining further about the legal
> > >> situations
> > >> of the J18 defendants.
> > >>
> > >> matt for ottawa movement defense
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Omd mailing list
> > >> Omd at lists.resist.ca
> > >> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________ Omd mailing list
> > >> Omd at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Omd mailing list
> > >> Omd at lists.resist.ca
> > >> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Omd mailing list
> > Omd at lists.resist.ca
> > https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd
>
> _______________________________________________
> Omd mailing list
> Omd at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/omd
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/omd/attachments/20101211/d3f70a3d/attachment.html>