It seems like a million years ago, but I clearly recall a conversation among members of the Alliance for Non-violent Action around non-violence and choice. At the time there were sit-ins and blockades of the Morgentaler clinic. There were some with ANVA who took the position that because the tactics were similar to those used by ANVA and others in the anti-war/anti-nuke movements they were part of our movement. Others were clear that it wasn’t just the tactics but the cause that needed to be considered. It wasn’t just the tactics that determined the nature of the movement but a combination of aims and tactics—non-violence can easily be used to promote a far less just, open and compassionate society.
I also remember a conversation in regards to disruption of events. For some it was a way to speak truth to power. For others, such efforts contain echoes of jack boots and were a statement of an unwillingness to accept the value of free speak. For these later folks our tactics should be ones we’d be willing to tolerate against us—if we would feel intimidated by outbursts of anger and efforts to silence our speech, we shouldn’t use such tactics against others.
One of the major reasons I am politically pessimistic is that some movements I’d like to support are using tactics I oppose and some movements I oppose are using tactics I have long advocated. I am longing to see a unity of means and ends.
Notes for a More Coherent Article 