I agree with your points on this one. Direct action is excellent, but we need to start getting people involved, interested and active; and the only way to do that is to tackle bread and butter issues. And for that we need space, to show people what a sustainable future looks and feels like; and to get space we need to consider direct action to take it back. Good work, Climate Camp.

First and foremost congrats on the climate camp, I'm very sad I couldn't come, it sounds fantastic.

However, as ever with an indymedia comment(!), I have a little niggle. I hope it comes across as the constructive criticism it is intended to be.

You say that climate camps have a commitment to nonviolent direct action. While I am unaware of any violent acts ever perpetrated on behalf of the climate camp, and am pretty damn sure there are none (even at the G20 we all just sat there and took it), it was a constant source of frustration to me during my involvement in the network that people kept talking about how climate camp is nonviolent, it has a commitment to nonviolence etc.

I am pretty sure, as I did a lot of digging, that there has NEVER been a climate camp consensus on nonviolence - that is, the climate camp has never condemned violence. Had this not been the case I would have left the movement - not out of spite but purely because I don't wish to work with groups that condemn violence. This is not to say the camp endorses violence - as far as I'm aware there's never been any agreement (perhaps even discussion?) of the matter.

But my point is that I've always felt that, as long as the network/movement/whatever avoids the matter, so should press releases, statements etc. Just because everyone I'm aware of happens to have gone the nonviolent route doesn't change the fact that had anyone petrol bombed RBS last summer, I'd fully expect the camp to stand by those people, just as they stand by every nonviolent action. And every time someone mentions nonviolence on behalf of the climate camp I feel firstly ashamed of my beliefs, and secondly like my actions are being hijacked for a cause I don't believe in.

There is a tradition of nonviolence, I'm with you on that. Even a culture. But unless I've really missed something pretty big, there has NEVER been an agreement, a statement or a commitment. I hate violence as much as anyone, but I also hate the climate crisis and believe that it is simply not feasible, given the vested interests in this world, to achieve climate justice without violence.

Seriously, the camp sounds amazing and that really is THE most important thing. I fully support your call for localisation and challenging, shall we say, 'elite professional' direct action. But just had to get that one thing off my chest!

The nonviolence vs. violence debate has been going on for many years in wider anarchist circles.
I first became aware of it after J18 and there was a workshop presented at the Mayday 2000 conference by a group called Reclaim the Satyagraha.
It is intrinsic in circles I move in that actions should be nonviolent in that they do not put lives at risk - that is any lives, not only human.
However, property damage and self-defence are not necessarily classed as violence - but there are very fine lines.
For instance, I remember at J18 someone (a male) approaching a (closed) corner cafe and starting to smash the windows and door - a fellow protestor (a female) then remonstrated with him because the business was obviously locally owned and not in any way the subject of the demonstration, but also a victim of capitalism (as any individually owned business can be). He ran off. I did wonder afterwards if the male was actually there for the right reasons .....
Finally, don't forget that violence begets violence - I know that's a well-worn cliche but it's also true. Look at the ever repressive laws enacted with the excuse that they are there to prevent violent disorder caused by 'anarchists' rioting. Whether those 'anarchists' are true to the 'cause' or agents provocateur is a moot point.
Nonviolence is the one thing that the state is very afraid of - it will use any means to prevent it so please don't lower yourself to their level.

Rather than get into the knotty debate about violence vs. nonviolence - which people need to have, but need to make up their own minds through respectful discussions and not on the internet - it is true that the climate camp has a commitment to direct action, not to NVDA or indeed VDA (if there's such a term!). That choice was an intentional one, and one that came out of the experiences of longer-term activists who'd lived through the debates before and after J18 (June 18th 1999).

And whilst we're at it, it's the Camp for Climate Action. Taking a piece of land, holding it, transforming it is an essential part of our toolkit, as are many other forms of protest, but to define direct action as "stopping bad shit happening directly" this is not. I'm sure we could debate that till the cows come home too - the important point however is the camps have been many things, but it includes a platform to help people take direct action during and after the camp, beyond the taking of the site. Direct action is not about column inches nor about influencing people - it's direct, and it's action.

If the agonisors over nonviolence were to come and join in with the climate camp related projects at Lewes or Transition Heathrow, they would soon realise how academic and rather silly, their prevarications actually are. Activists needed, not more philosophers, please.

I agree, I don't want to get into the whole NV vs V thing here - that was certainly never my aim. It's a long, convoluted argument and the only conclusion I've ever really come to on that front was that we should all stop bickering and just support eachother's diverse tactics.

I'm not sure if I'm who the "agonisers" comment was aimed at, but I find the whole idea of playing up your own experiences and involvement while attacking others for theirs to be one of the lowest activist pastimes I've ever encountered. That's as true of your comments about activists and philosophers as it is true of arguments over violence and nonviolence.

i wasn't aware that comments had to be 'aimed' at anyone - mine certainly wasn't.
i mentioned my observation of an incident as an example of the two sides of the discussion - not to continue it or to criticise or 'attack' anyone.
i picked that incident because it happened over 10 years ago and mention of it should not put anyone in danger.
End of...

Erm. I really clearly was not talking about your comment. How was your comment 'the "agonisers" comment'? Try the comment that includes the word "agonisers".

There has been a commitment to avoiding 'nonviolent' (mainly because it allows the powerful to determine what is violence, and it usually means protesters not the state) among people who have been to national gatherings and have done national media work. But occasionally it gets used, either because people slip up or because they're not aware that this decision has been made or they don't understand it. This is one of the several difficulties of a roving national gathering process. I think unfortunately the only answer is to keep having the debate over and over again - it's part of the self-education of the movement we're trying to build :-)