kia ora helen,

i saw your post on a blog which read "There was a vigil against violence in Palmerston North last night, too! (Somehow we always don't make the political radar...)". There is heaps of people out there, particularly people who visit indymedia, who'd love to know what's happening in Palmerston North. Just publish an article on indymedia if you wanna.

smush - one of the AIMC editors

Unauthorised Graffiti can not be described as an act of bravery. If you start thinking that way then killing a police officer must be the utmost in daring. Of course, if you start thinking that way you have no place in society do you?

if you also want to explain the connection between killing a policeman and "unthorised graffiti" that would probuably help to understand what you are trying to bring accross. No offend, but as you wrote it here it's simply ridicolous.

If ways of expression like graffities are no longer part of our political work because it's illigal, then we can't strike any more (apart from demanding "higher wages"), any kind of protest that is not officially registered at the police is no longer part of our movement (the march in auckland was not officially registered) and even a sticker that we stick somewhere in the public shouldn't be a way of communicating.

I can only ask you, how do you really make a difference if direct action ("illigal!") is not right to your opinion?

and if we can have our message in every mass media, then I really want to have your contacts, because mass media is usually not very interested in activism against capitalism, since they have to earn money and the people who give them money are not keen on anticapitalism.
Free speech? Yeah, righ!

I have no problem explaining myself. The breaking of one law and then glorifying it certainly makes breaking the next one easier does it not? Everyone who ends up committing capital crimes started off small and progressed further and further as they become more confident with their current action. One day you'll decide grafitti is no longer generating the impact that you believe it should and so you progress. If you justify one illegal action, you can justify any illegal action. It is that simple.

I am quite sure if the organisers had registered the march it would have been accepted within the guidelines required to organise a safe protest. So there was no need to make this your first illegal action.

Placing stickers or graffiti requires someone to clean it up. What right does anyone have to expect other people to clean up after them for no reward? Or do you propose going around and cleaning up all of the grafitti and stickers etc that were used to promote your message? If you do, then well done.

Is this website not an example of mass media? If there are not enough visitors to the site for your needs then it is up to you to do the hard yards and promote the site to everyone you know. Networking is a fantastic and powerful tool.

The Media will notice when you have a single coherent message. They certainly notice you now because of the rabble rousers with their slogans of "Police Rapists". Sure, that generates interest, but it is short lived and detrimental to your cause. Taking the time to organise will get you noticed. Look at what Nelson Mandela acheived with peaceful protest where he did not advocate breaking any laws. He worked within them to produce results and what a powerful result it was. Are you saying you can not do the same or are you saying you don't have enough time? If that is the case, then you do not believe in your cause.

"the breaking of one law and then glorifying it vertainly makes breaking the next one easier does it not?"
You entirely missed the point. Just because someone sees it as ok to spraypaint a building it doesn't mean that this person sees it ok to kill a human being. So I think that spraypainting and smoking mariuhanna is ok, but killing someone and taking heroin is to my values not ok. Still a law against it won't help people to understand why it's nothing they should consider.
Ergo - activists usually have values that replace laws and that makes it possible to also question laws that don't make sence.

"Placing stickers or graffiti requires someone to clean up"
I don't spraypaint a building or place a sticker somewhere that someone else takes it off or cleans it away. I want these messages to stay there as long as possible. If people clean it up they act in the name of the state, who tries to repress these messages.

The reason why this page is not "mass media" but a rather small media is because 1) we do not have the ressources that mass media has and 2) indymedia requires partisipation not only consupmtion since this is the idea behind it

yes it is powerful, but not powerful enough - so far. and you don't have to tell me to promote a side I'm actively involved with

No I don't believe in letting the laws restrict our activism. This is because I don't believe in doing activism to change a little within the system, I work to abolish the whole system and biult a new one.

I believe you missed my point. If everyone did what they wanted based on their individual values then we would have a problem wouldn't we?

Street cleaners are repressing your message as part of a state sanctioned program? I had no idea.

Your comments seem to revolve around "I want something and I want it now." My message is the same, put the time in and don't bemoan what you haven't got. Talk about what you do have and how to make it work for you.

You're to abolish the whole system? I assume you have a well thought out, developed document that others can read that explains the system you will replace it with? It is something I for one would love to read. Convince me and I will commit everything I have to what you propose as I would to anything I truly believed in.