The Age today reports that a Federal Court judge has ruled that RMIT done wrogn when it fired a professor, Judith Bessant, breaking workplace laws intended to prevent employers from silencing critics (RMIT professor unfairly sacked, Clay Lucas, May 20, 2013). Bessant was fired after she raised criticisms of David Hayward, currently the Dean of Global, Urban and Social Studies at RMIT. You may remember Hayward from when he presided over the dismantling of the Youth Work degree at RMIT; he also had the unfortunate task of defending his former deputy, Julian Bondy, when Bondy was stripped of his doctorate for plagiarism. A life member of the Victorian Council of Social Service, when he’s not trying to silence dissent, Hayward may be found pontificating about economics at The Conversation.
Speaking of industrialised, mass bullying, this week (Thursday, May 23) students and staff at the University of Sydney will be again rallying against police being used to break legs and pickets. The rally comes after the Vice Chancellor, Michael Spence, authorised the use of police to break the picket of May 14:
One student has a broken leg, other students and staff have cracked ribs, another internal bleeding, one protestor has a broken nose. At least several students were trampled badly. Many students suffered severe psychological distress and at least one came very near to an epileptic fit. One student was choked and deprived of oxygen for a minute and [a] half.
All of this could have been avoided if Michael Spence hadn’t welcomed the riot squad onto campus in order to try and break the pickets and undermine wages and conditions.
In many universities around the world police aren’t allowed on campus, and until recently at Sydney University it was the same. It’s time to say no to cops on campus, and yes to a fair enterprise bargaining agreement.
Michael Spence, MUST take responsibility for the violence of the riot police and stop allowing them on campus.
As elsewhere, the limits of police violence will be determined by the endurance and solidarity of picketers.
Around Australia, thousands of students (seemingly concentrated in Melbourne and Sydney) went on strike and rallied and marched today, in protest at the cuts ($2.3 billion) by the Federal government to the tertiary education sector.
Their protests will of course be ignored — but may constitute a step in the right direction.
In any event, at the University of Sydney, police attacked a picket, breaking one man’s leg in the process.
Some folks have issued the following statement on Facebook in response.
No doubt there will be further accounts and reflections in the days and weeks ahead.
(Note that the University inter alia appears to have become a focus for recent ASIO snooping.)
An Open Letter to and from the USYD community
One student had his leg broken. Another was choked and went limp. Several students were trampled. Many others were shoved, grabbed, bruised or struck. These attacks on peaceful protestors were nothing less than outrageous.
All of these assaults and indignities could have been avoided if Spence did not allow the riot police on campus. The university has the right to exclude police from campus, and in the past it was very rare for the cops to come on campus for this very reason.
We condemn Spence. If the university allows riot police onto campus, it is complicit in their violence. The argument that they bring order to the campus is transparently absurd, all footage and testimony shows that the police have been a force for violence and disruption (there is an old quip: the riot police are aptly named).
Copy and paste this as your status in solidarity with those injured.
Updaterer : Mia Freedman (The boy who cried ‘racist’, mamamia, May 16) reckons:
“Blackface IS racist, no question. But to me (admittedly, a white girl so I welcome comments from those with a different perspective, please leave them below), there is a huge difference between painting your face black to mock an entire race and painting yourself black to respectfully dress up as someone who has black skin.”
Precisely how Mia arrived at the conclusion that the bloke in the photo was respectful rather than mocking is unknown, but necessarily, according to her logic, any person who dresses in blackface but claims to be doing so respectfully must be hugely different – ie, not-racist – to someone who does so simply in order to engage in (racist) mockery. What her case seems to boil down to, in other words, is intent: if someone using blackface does so without intending to mock blacks, it’s a kosher activity (possibly one even fit to reappear on our TV screens, who knows?).
I thought that this passage from Terry Eagleton’s bookReason, Faith & Revolution (2009) — summarising Susan Faludi’s observations on 9/11 and US culture — was neat. It also helps to explain, I think, the mentality of many on the far right in Australia, their vicious hatred of feminism and feminists, and its particular expression as a paranoia regarding vulnerabilities to foreign invasion.
*
That many in the United States learned absolutely nothing from the onslaughts of 9/11 is clear enough from Susan Faludi’s brave study The Terror Dream: What 9/11 Revealed About America. 9/11, Faludi argues, was a crisis of American virility from which the nation very quickly recovered. Only weeks after the attack, George Bush called on a clutch of Hollywood moguls to help market the war on terror; and part of the project was to herald the return of traditional American manliness after what one writer quoted by Faludi called the ‘‘pussification of the American man.’’ Under the emasculating influence of feminism, American males had grown flabby and gelded, shaved-and-waxed male bimbos whose limp-wristed lifestyle had laid the nation open to the Islamicist assault. The phallic symbol of America had been cut off, one blogger fantasized, and at its base was a large, smoldering vagina. ‘‘Well, this sure pushes feminism off the map!’’ was one U.S. reporter’s response to the loss of three thousand lives. A Band of Brothers ethic, so one news magazine put it, could not take root in a female-obsessed Sex and the City culture. The U.S. had lost its balls along with its immunity to foreign invasion. A nation that had traditionally had some difficulty in distinguishing fantasy from reality was now busy conflating the two at every turn.
The aftermath of 9/11, so Faludi reports, witnessed a vicious lampooning of U.S. feminists. The Taliban’s oppression of women, much touted for a while, began to evaporate as a cause for concern as the bombs fell on Afghanistan. Meanwhile, squint-eyed Donald Rumsfeld was being celebrated as ‘‘the Stud,’’ ‘‘a babe magnet,’’ and—such are the egregious illusions of ideology—‘‘the sexiest man alive.’’ Square-jawed, short-haired, gun-toting America, thrust into neurotic self-doubt by an army of castrating bitches, had finally come out of hiding, beating its collective chest. Not long after the attack, men’s fashions began to favor hard-hat, military chic and firefighters’ jackets. The wide-eyed United States, unlike endemically cynical Europe, has always felt a hunger for heroes, and having an aircraft slam into your office somehow turned you into one.
Or if that was a hard one to argue, there were always the New York firefighters. The grim truth about 9/11, Faludi claims, is that the death toll would have been considerably lower had the firefighters not been sent into the World Trade Center. About three times more firefighters than office workers died on the floors below the impact of the aircraft. But in they were sent anyway, and the media response was to make Sir Galahads of them all. One demented U.S. journal raved that the New York Fire Department were heroes in possession of godlike prowess, beneficence, and divinity. Many of the firefighters themselves begged leave to demur. The fact that they died partly because their radios were not working was swept decorously under the carpet.
It was not long before the firefighters were erotic figures as well as heroic ones. A lust-for-firemen trend was launched. ‘‘Firefighters Are a Hot Commodity in the Dating Game!’’ shrieked one newspaper headline. Women painted their toe-nails fire-engine red. All this was seen less as kinkiness or hysteria than as a welcome return to sexual normality. The presence of women helping at Ground Zero was coolly ignored. Instead, there was a morbid cult of 9/11 widows, glossily packaged victims who were required to stick submissively to a script written for them by the media. Those who rebelled against their all-American-housewife image were instantly suppressed. A non-victim called Jessica Lynch was non-saved by U.S. soldiers in a non-heroic non-event. Terrorism and domesticity were closely twined: the point of killing Iraqis was to protect your kids. ‘‘Goodbye, Soccer Mom, Hello, Security Mom,’’ announced Time magazine, maintaining that the terrorist offensive had shocked Americans into a new faith in their oldest values. Everywhere you looked, people were trying to scramble their way back into the womb. A neurotic desire for security gripped a nation newly conscious of its mortality. Women who had ranked their careers over marriage were said bitterly to regret their blunder. The cozy and connubial were in vogue once again. Who, after all, was going to hold your hand when the next blast came?
Some of the actual victims of 9/11, including firefighters, spoke not in the hubristic language of their leaders, but of bonds forged by the shared experience of weakness, fear, and vulnerability. Meanwhile, the Babel-like response of their masters was to consider building an edifice at Ground Zero even higher than the Twin Towers. The grim news was that the United States’s moment of tragic crisis was in no way a spiritual conversion. On the contrary, it was business as usual, only a good deal more so.
The leadership of the Christian Brothers in Oceania appeared before the Victorian state government inquiry into child abuseyesterday on Friday, May 3. Given before a packed audience, their testimony was enlightening in some respects, contradictory in others, but otherwise proceeded as I expected it to, attempting but I think ultimately failing to strike the delicate balance between, on the one hand, expressing regret and remorse for the rape and abuse of children in the Order’s care and, on the other hand, refraining from admitting any collective — and especially criminal or lawful — responsibility for these horrors.
The media coverage of the Brothers’ appearance (especially that provided by Hamish Fitzsimmons) seems to have captured the most salient points: the concentration of child rapists at St Alipius was an “accident of history” according to the Brothers; the Brothers have spent approximately $1.5 million (“including GST”) defending its members from allegations of child rape and sexual assault — $1.171 million on Robert Charles Best’s defence alone — and paid something in the order of $10.5 million in ex gratia payments to well over 250 victims; the Order paid $8,000 for a private investigator to spy on a victim in an attempt to gather evidence to be used against him in court.
Fitzsimmons’ reports ends by noting that “[l]ate this afternoon, the committee heard from the head of the Church’s compensation panel that deals with abuse victims. He says he believes no amount of money can compensate for the abuse people have suffered.” This is true, although not quite in the sense that the spokesperson intended: the Church has fought tooth-and-nail to limit the amount of financial compensation victims may receive. Indeed, as noted at an earlier hearing, Anthony Foster estimates that Cardinal Pell’s Melbourne Response may have saved the Church more than $280 million in payouts.
Two further points: the Brothers’ admitted to just two reported instances (in 1950 and 1970) of child sex abuse prior to the 1990s. The pair responsible were reprimanded but not reported to police: a ‘mistake’ attributable, according to the Brothers, to the fact that this was regarded as a moral failing rather than a criminal offence (a categorisation which has been used in a systematic fashion as part of an overall policy in criminal avoidance by the Church). In the early 1990s the Order established a helpline for victims, which functioned as a referral service — though not to police. At this time, the number of victims and offences mounted rapidly, as they and police began to seek justice not through the Order but rather the criminal and civil courts: a process which is ongoing.
***
The principal problem with the Order’s protestations of innocence — and the claim that the abuse of many hundreds of the children placed in its care was a terrible ‘mistake’ of some kind — is the fact that the abuse was actively facilitated by the policies adopted by the organisation. To begin with, the abuse was regarded not as a criminal offence but a moral failing, for which the only penalty was repentance. Thus, while claiming that ‘society’ did not understand or acknowledge the existence of child sex abuse or paedophilia — and thus this perspective, while mistaken, was understandable — the claim falls down given the Order’s knowledge of the law, then and now. In other words, if ‘society’ was ignorant of the facts of child sex abuse, this was partly the results of the efforts of the Christian Brothers.
Broken Rites, referring to the 1996 case of Brother Edward Vernon Dowlan:
According to submissions made in court, Dowlan was openly molesting boys (in the presence of other boys) at his first two schools, so the Brothers’ Victoria-Tasmania administration moved him from his second school to a boarding school (St Patrick’s College, Ballarat), where Dowlan assaulted more boys. The parents of at least one St Patrick’s victim confronted St Patrick’s head Christian Brother about Dowlan’s offence. The Christian Brothers’ headquarters then kept transferring Dowlan to more schools, where he found yet more victims — until the police finally caught up with him in 1993.
A final note. The Brothers claimed that their principal concern has been for victims. This is correct if one considers they believe that the chief victim has been themselves.
Credit where it’s due. In a publicity coup, a mob called Clitoraid [ClitorAid.org] have launched ‘International Clitoris Awareness Week’ (May 6–May 14), asking the public to donate money to the charity in order for it to conduct reparative surgery on women in Africa who have damaged clitorises. Leaving aside the worthiness of the project — critically discussed by Kudzai Makombe here — I was a little surprised to learn that the originators of the Week and the organisation is the Raelian religious cult. (The ClitorAid website is on the RAEL.ORG server and is registered at the address 6120 W Tropicana Ave #A16-200, Las Vegas, Nevada, USA; this is also the registered address of R.a.e.labs, Inc., the trading name of the Raelians, for which Bridgette Roehr aka Brigitte Boisselier of ClonAid fame serves as President. Note that the same address houses the superbly named STOP KILLING PALESTINIAN JEWS INC.)
Yeah. I thought I might as well throw this up. It’s kinda wEiRd. I mean, who and what is Teh Left? Apparently, “people who like rainbow crossings, petitions at change.org, and People with a Disability”. Liberals, in other words. Has there been some kinda shift in Left thinking? Sorta. But mostly in the sense that leftism has become another form of managerialism, and managerialism doesn’t usually produce too many exciting thinkers…
The Left has lost its way through symbolism and stupidity
Helen Razer
Crikey
May 3, 2013
The Left is dead—hopelessly lost in the minutiae of gestures, rainbow crossings, political correctness and confected outrage about the latest Geoffrey Barker piece. It’s time for the Left to think about material conditions and macroeconomics.
Andrew Bolt is to David Marr as a Kraft Single is to raw milk chèvre. This is to say, these big cheeses long typified the differences between popular Right and Left thinking. Marr was, and remains, an acidic shock whose difficult charms reward the body politic when it takes the time to savour.
And to me, Bolt is just a nasty piece of work.
This has been the usual division: public thinkers of the Left offer us data and difficulty and demand our participation in understanding. Public thinkers of the Right offer us comfort. Eva Cox, for example, has long argued with numbers for tax and labour reform, whereas Piers Akerman draws hilarious crayon pictures of c0ck-and-balls.
But, recognising the traditional split between leftist wankers and conservative yobbos is nothing novel. What is new, however, is the conspicuous stupidity of the Left. If by “Left” we mean people who like rainbow crossings, petitions at change.org, and People with a Disability, then our gestures made in colourful chalk have beg[u]n to rival Akerman’s for numb impermanence.
It is, of course, easy to decry the lack of an emerging Rundle, and rage about the “dumbing down” of the culture and fetishise a golden age of debate. But it is stupid to simply call people stupid and explain the Left’s growing Kraft Single problem in the terms of things being Better in My Day.
Things, however, were certainly less individually sliced and wrapped in my day. Or, rather, they were less wrapped up in the cheesy idea of individuality.
Let me tell you what I mean by taking you through just the last week in the life of the “Left”.
With her budget taste-test speech served on Monday, Gillard had given the old Left food for thought. The Prime Minister told low-to-middle income earners that Keynes would want them to share the burden. By Tuesday, she had announced a levy for the National Disability Insurance Scheme. By lunchtime, News Limited had published this folly which is—to save you the displeasure of bad cheese—a sort of rom-com approach to analysis wherein a young, under-informed man says that HE doesn’t want to give up $300 a year and would rather drink his flavoured coffee, and a young, under-informed lady says that SHE ruddy well does.
But it was this piece by Tory Shepherd that drove the tone of debate on social and news media for much of the week. The NDIS and its revenue model drew wide and uncritical support and this is nice for the ALP this week, but not so good over time. We had a chance, for example, to talk about a government that has been quietly committed to progressive tax reform being pushed by a perverse opposition into serving Clive and Gina. Instead, the “Left” made do with crowing about its deep, deep love for the Disabled and never, for a moment, bothered to discuss, say, the idea of quantitatively easing Twiggy’s arse off the ground to pay for services that any reasonable human agrees are essential.
“It’s nice that you would happily relinquish your Wine of the Month Club subscription to buy a happy cripple but it is also deeply irrelevant …”
The debate, though, comes down not to macroeconomics and not even to the NDIS itself, but to the role of the individual in paying for it. You know, it’s nice that you would happily relinquish your Wine of the Month Club subscription to buy a happy cripple but it is also deeply irrelevant and even, I suggest, damaging.
The personification of this debate continued when Myer CEO Bernie Brookes did what any retail sector CEO would do and complained about the introduction of a new tax. Just like the old Left, Brookes, at least, is able to see that a tax is a tax and not the ethical responsibility of the individual from which it is secured. But, whatever. Let a dozen barely literate tits secure their freelance stipend from Fairfax and the ABC this week as they rage about the injustice of a CEO behaving exactly like a CEO.
That is, of course, if they’re not engaged with the matter of Geoffrey Barker who yesterday suggested female newsreaders should not wear cocktail frocks to work. In an inelegant and contorted act of onanism, Fairfax maintained the “rage” at its women’s interest site and offered an ad hominem attack on a man, its author claimed, some were calling Mr Misogynist.
For contemporary thinkers, this is not a polity but the sum of individual will. Brookes and people who want to drink flavoured coffees are responsible for delays to the NDIS. If Barker has not been charged with responsibility for all rape, he probably will be by the afternoon. Because the “Left”, such as it is, is not able to think about systems; about social and economic class. It has not only borrowed the cheesy stupidity of Andrew Bolt; it has borrowed the idea of his “individual” as well.
The “Left” now hungers for symbols of cultural identity and spurns the idea of class. Or, indeed, of material conditions.
Nowhere, for mine, is this more starkly drawn than in plaintive chalk on sidewalks as queer activism gives up its campaign for mental health reform and supplants it with the symbolic fight for an equality that already exists in law. Nowhere was this in sharper contrast than on the day of Gillard’s misogyny speech wherein many single parents (chiefly women) were consigned to Newstart.
The “Left” loved Sorry Day and, indeed, can’t get ENOUGH of Aboriginal Australia. They’re a very spiritual people, don’t you know. But on the day of the Closing the Gap report, the “Left” was far more interested in misogynists who had dared chasten Chrissie Swan for smoking while pregnant than to give a fuck that the mortality age-range between indigenous and non-indigenous Australians had widened.
But data no longer matters when we have stories about individuals. The economy is irrelevant in the face of cheese. By dividing us into individual slices of stupid, the Left serves up a convenience food from which the Right will profit.
So, you know, keep raging about marriage and newsreaders and “rape culture” and the number of flavoured coffees it would take to buy a cripple. And in September, do enjoy your new treasurer, Joe Hockey, who will borrow Akerman’s crayons to draw a picture of Milton Friedman’s cock-and-balls all over Keynes’ General Theory.
[A post prompted by some disco elsewhere on the Internets...]
May Day in Melbourne this year (2012) was a small affair — tiny even. Perhaps 30 or 40 people (overwhelmingly male) attended the 8 Hour Monument at midday, and sometime around 1pm decided to go on a march. At the same time as this group was meeting at the Monument, another, presumably smaller group gathered at Her Majesty’s Theatre, site of the historical Melbourne Anarchist Club (the first such group to form in this part of the world — on this date, in 1886).
From memory, the largest May Day rally I’ve witnessed took place in 2001, almost eight months after the very large anti-WEF protests in September 2000 (S11), and immediately following an anarchist (and autonomist) conference. The event attracted participation not only from radicals but also a handful of unions — the first time any mass labour organisation had taken part in a May Day rally for many years. Their participation, it seems, was prompted partly by the success of the protests in September (and determination to capitalise on public sentiment in opposition to ‘globalisation’) and a certain internal logic.
Throughout this period, and for many decades prior, the trades union movement has largely confined its celebrations — and certainly its public rallies — to the Sunday immediately following May 1; so too in 2013.
In summary: the fact that the May Day rally was tiny may be explained primarily by way of its obscurity: a product of its long historical neglect, absence of any institutional support, and general passivity. Further, unlike in many other parts of the world, where May Day rallies are often very sizeable, even huge, May Day is not a public holiday in Victoria, and participation by workers obviously rendered very difficult by that fact.
(For a superb account of the tumultuous events in Istanbul, Turkey, seeDave K’s account on his wonderful blog Citizen K.)
Is May Day worth celebrating? I think so. It links past struggles to the present, Melbourne to the world and provides an opportunity for community, reflection and celebration. But if more are to participate in future years, more organisation is going to be required, and the nature of the event itself transformed into something more exciting, inclusive and inspiring. Thankfully, anarchists have a long history of successfully creating such moments, and given the anarchist origins of May Day, doing so would be paying our long-dead comrades a fitting tribute.
[...written in acknowledgement of the efforts of those who contributed to its success.]
If you think that by hanging us you can stamp out the labor movement – the movement from which the downtrodden millions, the millions who toil and live in want and misery, the wage slaves, expect salvation — if this is your opinion, then hang us!
Here you will tread upon a spark, but here, and there, and behind you, and in front of you, and everywhere, flames will blaze up. It is a subterranean fire. You cannot put it out. The ground is on fire upon which you stand. You can’t understand it. You don’t believe in magical arts, as your grandfathers did, who burned witches at the stake, but you do believe in conspiracies; you believe that all these occurrences of late are the work of conspirators!
You resemble the child that is looking for his picture behind the mirror. What you see, and what you try to grasp is nothing but the deceptive reflex of the stings of your bad conscience.
You want to ‘stamp out the conspirators’ – the ‘agitators’? Ah, stamp out every factory lord who has grown wealthy upon the unpaid labor of his employees. Stamp out every landlord who has amassed fortunes from the rent of overburdened workingmen and farmers. Stamp out every machine that is revolutionizing industry and agriculture, that intensifies the production, ruins the producer, that increases the national wealth, while the creator of all these things stands amidst them tantalized with hunger! Stamp out the railroads, the telegraph, the telephone, steam and yourselves — for everything breathes the revolutionary spirit.
Lest we forget . . . on The Day, ANZAC Day, we remember the beginnings of a disastrous military campaign, and The Black & White Army (extra-parliamentary movement of the oppressed) looks forward to the dismantling of The Bombers (military-industrial-sporting complex):
“Opponents to conscription came from many quarters. Catholics, republicans, the Irish, socialists, unionists and pacifists all had reason to be anti-war and anti-conscription. And they came together as a united force.
Nowhere does the myth as it stands acknowledge that at the time of the Gallipoli landing many Collingwood supporters (and supporters from many of the Catholic inner-city football clubs in Melbourne and Sydney) would have been very strongly against what they saw as the British imperialist war. Nor does the myth reveal the fact that the Australian Imperial Force was largely made up of Protestant soldiers. The embarkation lists in 1914-15 indicate that a small percentage were Catholic. In the three nominal rolls I looked at, about 12 per cent of the initial enlistments were Catholics.”
Footy Fans Against Mass Murder call on all supporters to…
TACKLE GLOBAL POVERTY AND BOOT OUT THE WEF!
END THE CORPORATE CONTROL OF SPORT!
JOIN THE S11 PROTESTS!
SHOW YOUR COLOURS SEPTEMBER 11-13 AT CROWN CASINO!
THE SEASON IS OVER, BUT THE STRUGGLE CONTINUES!
Numbered amongst the multi billionaires and faceless technocrats attending the WEF will be many of the people who have also come to control Australian Rules Football. Clowns and sleazebags like McGuire, Jackson, Gutnick and Elliot. People whose true interest in football stems not from a love of the game itself, but from a hunger for the power and prestige that comes from controlling its future.
The term “globalisation” is just a cover for a process that increases corporate control over our daily lives. The detrimental effects of such control can be seen as much in what has happened to football in recent years as anywhere else. Over the past decade we have seen the smaller leagues and teams bankrupted, relocated or forcibly merged as part
of what we are told is an inevitable evolution towards the “modern” game. Long loved grounds such as Waverly and those belonging to North Melbourne and Collingwood have been phased out in favour of monuments to advertisers like the disastrous Colonial Stadium.
With club managements increasingly reliant on the patronage of big business we have seen stadiums and players renamed on a short and long term basis after sponsors. Collingwood management indicated this year that they would not even be adverse to renaming whole teams. Advertising at grounds is ever present, whether on scoreboards, jumpers, the turf, fan banners, the ball, trainers, little league players, tickets, water bottles, etc. Wherever you may look whilst at a game you cannot escape it.
So where do the fans and members fit into all of this? Only as passive sheep to be sold merchandising and herded into whichever expensive, crap ground the AFL decides is good to make a buck off. Did we at any stage request that our beloved teams and grounds be destroyed? That entrance costs and food and drinks at games become ever more expensive? That our new ground should be more like a TV studio that a footy field? That news about AFL financial double dealing and arguments over TV rights take equal place in the sports pages with that about the actual games and players? That club boards vote themselves ever higher salaries? That the 2000 season be rescheduled to suit the needs of the Olympics and Channel 7? Has the game really improved as a result of all this?
Supporters have not taken all of this lying down, but resistance has largely been passive. The response of the AFL and club managements to declining memberships and game attendances has been predictable- ignore the views of the fans and instead scramble for a bigger share of television royalities and the corporate dollar. The problem for management is that at some point the majority of fans will finally give up and just switch off altogether.
However all is not yet lost. The rare exceptions in which supporters and players have really voiced their anger have seen managements make concessions or back down. This was seen earlier this year when Colonial Stadium was forced to allow general admission to empty seating originally allocated for corporate sponsors and in the Fremantle Dockers opting to retain training at South Fremantle Oval after 1000s demonstrated against a proposed move in 1999.
In the spirit of such protest and in the knowledge that corporate control of our lives, be it over football or the workplace, does no one any good we call on all concerned footy fans to join the S11 protests around the country. Wear your team colours and let your best barracking voice be heard!
For more info and a history of troublemaking within footy check out our website at www.geocities.com/footyfans2000
Two Greek anarchists are making molotov cocktails. One says to the other: "So who will we throw these at then?" The other replies: "What are you, some kind of fucking intellectual?"
