One more time, we’re gonna celebrate
Oh yeah, alright, don’t stop dancing
Oh yeah, alright, don’t stop dancing
Oh yeah, alright, don’t stop dancing
One more time, we’re gonna celebrate, oh yeah
One more time
Since installing haloscan, I’ve received a handful of rather silly messages from Darrin and Ben, the Jewish-Plot Men. Ben writes:
Hey “@ndy”, [i]f you have so much to say that you are [so] obviously proud of[,] then why don’t you want to associate your identity with what you write? Got something to hide mate? Nah, just another “anti-fascist” COWARD.
Ben plays ‘bad fascist’ to Darrin’s (or someone writing on Darrin’s behalf) ‘good’. For the second (or perhaps third) time, Darrin has requested that I remove “Darrin Hodges’ personal details, photographic images and accompanying information” from this blog. (Actually, Darrin has shifted from “insisting” to “requesting”.) Further, Darrin feels constrained to point out that: “The procurement, copying, and broadcasting of these p[h]otographic images may be in breach of the Copyright [A]ct. [S]ource: Guide to the Copyright Amendment (Digital Agenda) Act 2000”. Darrin’s even provided me with a link to a Departmental discussion document. In addition, Darrin requests that I provide him with a mailing address so that he can write a letter to me inre to this matter. Finally, Darrin expresses the tremendous loss he felt upon reading of Timur Kacharava’s murder by his Russian comrades: “I wish you well with your organisation of the benefit gig for your friend and mate. I agree with you, it was a dreadful outrage. Why can’t people just love one another and accept them as they are? We are all precious in his sight. It wasn’t fair, where is the justice? We were all made for something better than this.”
Indeed.
Unfortunately, Darrin fails to inform me whose rights he alleges I’ve violated, or why he believes that information inre to his neo-Nazi activism ahould be easily, and publically, available for anyone who cares to search for it, but that this information should not be published on my blog. Further, Darrin disputes the accuracy of none of the information I or others have published. Until such time as he does, I see no reason why I should censor my posts in the manner he suggests. Finally, given Darrin’s obvious predilection for changing his mind inre to seemingly substantial matters at the drop of a white hood (first pride, then a fall, followed by another attempt to mount a fascist platform), I think I can be forgiven for regarding his latest position as subject-to-change-without-notice.
Elsewhere, Hodges continues to publish misleading information. According to Hodges, on the Australian Anarchy Bulletin Board, I have provided “interesting links… in relation to wrecking social structures and authority”, viz:
1) Randy BORUM and Chuck TILBY, “Anarchist Direct Actions : A Challenge for Law Enforcement“, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Volume 28, Number 3 / May-June 2005, pp.201-223;
ABSTRACT:
This article provides a descriptive, operational analysis of the modern anarchist movement, emphasizing the actions of the criminal anarchists and implications for US law enforcement. It begins by explaining some core tenets of anarchist “theory,” and its relationship to violence, then describes the structure, tactics and tradecraft of militant anarchist activists. It concludes that Anarchism is a revolutionary movement, not just a “protest group.” Clearly not all anarchists advocate or engage in violence, but some do. Those individuals and factions pose a particular concern to law enforcement. This article offers some practical recommendations to law enforcement for preventing and managing those direct action attacks that may compromise public safety.
2) Gary ACKERMAN, Beyond Arson? A Threat Assessment of the Earth Liberation Front, Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 15, Number 4 / Winter 2003, pp.143 – 170;
ABSTRACT:
The Earth Liberation Front (ELF) is [a] radical environmentalist group that has in the past engaged in profile acts of arson, thus far without causing casualties. In order to determine the correct level of official response, it is necessary to examine the potential for the ELF and other radical environmentalist groups to engage in various levels of violence against human beings. Using empirically-based threat assessment, this study investigates the motivational and capability-related attributes of the ELF and concludes that there is a moderate-high threat of an escalation to internationally targeting people, a moderate probability that its members will at some point seek to inflict mass casualties and a low potential for ELF attacks using unconventional weapons. The assessment also identifies several factors indicating that the threat of all three types of violence is increasing, although determining the magnitude of this increase requires further study. Recommendations are given for law enforcement strategies with respect to the ELF and similarly-oriented radical groups.
3) Bron TAYLOR, Threat Assessments and Radical Environmentalism, Terrorism and Political Violence, Volume 15, Number 4 / Winter 2003, pp.173-182 and finally;
ABSTRACT:
Recent claims that Radical Environmentalists are becoming increasingly likely to deploy weapons of mass death are characterized by a selective reading of the facts, a failure to apprehend significant differences among radical groups, and injudicious speculation. A more careful analysis of the likelihood of violence emerging from radical environmentalist, animal rights, and green anarchist groups requires an analysis of the differences that characterize these groups as well as their intersections. Such an analysis suggests that among these three groups, only green anarchism can provide a possible ideological rationale for the use of weapons of mass death, but even in this case, there are many reasons to doubt they will utilize such tactics.
4) An anonymously authored pamphlet called Bodyhammer: Tactics and Self-Defence For the Modern Protester; and described as “a booklet detailing means by which protesters can reclaim the freedom of movement and assembly through self-defence and protection… not something promoting or endorsing street violence… its for information purposes only”.
I wonder how many of these ‘papers’ contravene the anti-terror laws?
asks Darrin. The answer? None.
The last word on this subject belongs to the AAP:
Accused rioter’s reprisal terror
January 9, 2006 – 3:42PMA man charged over the Cronulla race riot was “petrified” of deadly reprisals in prison, a Sydney court has been told.
Danny Glen Shanahan, 20, was one of three men refused bail in Sutherland Local Court today, charged with riot and affray.
Shanahan, Daniel Paul Kelly, 20, and 19-year-old Samuel Murray were allegedly part of a mob targeting people of Middle Eastern appearance in the violent incidents at Cronulla beach on December 11 last year.
Prosecutor Paul Upsall tendered media photographs of the riot showing Shanahan striking alleged victim Safi Merhi, who was “cowering” with his arms over his head in an effort to protect himself.
But defence lawyer Lionel Rattenbury argued that his client, an apprentice carpenter from Picton, should be granted bail.
Shanahan was in protective custody while on remand and feared violence from Middle Eastern inmates, he said.
Another prisoner, with no involvement in the riot, had been bashed because he was from Cronulla, Mr Rattenbury told the court, and Shanahan was “petrified of being in jail … living in fear that he may be killed”.
Shanahan acknowledged that “this is a cowardly act and deserves punishment”, he said.
“But at the end of the day it is … a punch to the back of the head. Sure, it was in the middle of a riot … [but] that does not call for a period in prison necessarily,” Mr Rattenbury said.
He added that Shanahan had learned his lesson and “wants to warn other people not to get involved in these mass rallies”.
Kelly also applied for bail, his barrister Linda McSpedden telling the court he was “quite frankly terrified” in jail.
She said it was “an isolated event, a product of the tensions on the particular day” in which alcohol played a part, and Kelly did not appear to be “the prime mover in the events”.
But Magistrate Ross Clugston refused both men bail, saying photographs showed them at “the very forefront of those persons who allegedly assaulted a male of Middle Eastern appearance”.
“It is necessary to refuse bail for the protection of the community,” he said.
He remanded Kelly, an apprentice plumber from Engadine, and Shanahan in custody, to face the same court on January 27 and 31 respectively.
Kelly cried when he was refused bail.
Murray, of Barden Ridge, did not seek bail today and will return to court on January 23.
He faces two counts each of riot and affray, accused of using unlawful violence against Mr Merhi and the occupants of a car during the December 11 melee.
Greens MP Lee Rhiannon today condemned legislative changes removing the presumption in favour of bail for those charged with riot and affray.
She said the changes, rushed through by the NSW Parliament in the wake of the riot, were “more of a PR stunt than a genuine attempt to tackle the root causes of racism and violence”.
“The Government should be using the justice system to foster co-operation and understanding between different communities,” Ms Rhiannon said.
AAP
