Probably the best personal account of the riots I've read so far...

An article by London anarchist 'Max von Sudo' published on London Indymedia on the looting in his home neighborhood of Brixton.

What is the crime of looting a corporate chain store next to the crime of owning one?
-- Luther Brecht

Looters don't give many press conferences. This made all of the conversations on today's BBC morning show a little bit one-sided.

Having been out last night in Brixton, I feel as qualified as anybody to offer at least a bit of perspective as an anarchist living in the area for the past six years.

First things first. None of the people hauling ass out of Currys last night will ever pay £9000 annual tuition to David Cameron's shiny new neo-liberal university system, so beloved by the young people of London. Although Britain has a bit more social mobility now than in the Victorian era which Cameron seems to idolize, the racist overtones in the Great British societal symphony are still pretty loud. Most of the black people who participated in last night's looting of the Currys over on Effra Road may never make it off their housing estates and into the Big Society. They don't have a hell of a lot to lose.

Despite this, the fairly mixed (for Brixton) crowd of several hundred was feeling festive last night, as cars lined up on both sides of the road, all the way to Brixton Water Lane. They're not people who are used to winning very often. The chance to haul away several hundred thousand pounds worth of electronics, right under the helpless noses of the police who routinely harass, beat, and kill them, made it a great night. The fourteen year old girls heading for that 60 inch plasma TV of their dreams were polite enough to say "excuse me", quite sincerely, as they bumped into me while springing into the Currys parking lot. Last night, everybody on Effra Road was in a great mood.
This morning, killjoys in the corporate media disagreed.

Many commentators decried the lack of a clear political motive in the riots, and seemed worried about how unrespectable the looting makes it all seem. According to this line of thought, poverty is not political.

On the radio, on the web, and in the papers, there's a lot of talk right now about the 'stupidity' of the rioters, burning down their own neighbourhoods. All of the commentators who follow this line of argument haven't considered some pretty basic facts.

Outraged Guardian readers, I say to you: you're only partially correct. It's true that the guy carrying that cash register past Brixton Academy last night probably didn't conceptualize his actions according to rational choice economic theories. However, when compared with four years of failed state capitalist attempts to catapult us out of the economic crisis, his maneuvers were in fact the height of rationality. Destroying evidence by turning on the gas cooker full-blast and burning down the Stockwell Road Nandos is pretty crazy. But it makes a lot more economic sense, for Brixton, than anything so far attempted by Labour, the Conservatives, or the wizard brains of the City of London.

Smashing windows in Brixton is probably a surer road to prosperity for most people than any of the more respectable paths already explored.

The guy who showed up today to fix the smashed windows on Brixton Road may live just down the street from the shattered glass lying on the pavement; it's unlikely that he's a currency speculator or a hedge fund manager on the side. Any money he makes from fixing the windows will be mostly spent back in the local community.

The merits of endlessly sucking money out of the pockets of working people into the reserve accounts of the supercharged risk-takers at Canary wharf are quite a bit less clear to me, at present. The crisis is entering year five. Throwing hundreds of billions into the endless rounds of bank bailouts, corporate tax breaks, and other props for a global economy which increasingly resembles that of the USSR circa 1987 is not clearly a winning strategy.

The eruption of economic chaos in the Eurozone, and the police bullets which ripped into Mark Duggan, ending his life, are now two events which are bound together in a massive sequence of riots in London, the European continent's largest financial centre.

These riots are remarkable chiefly for the role-reversals they bring about, and most of the outrage in the corporate media is a reflection of this. The outrage is really interesting if you stop to think about it.
For instance: retail profit is a kind of theft. It's economic value which is hoovered out of a local community via corporate cash registers. The decisions about where to re-invest the profits are the preserve of corporate managers and shareholders, not the decision of the people from whom the value was extracted. The whole process is fundamentally anti-democratic.

This daily denial of basic democratic political rights is "normal", and may last for years, decades or centuries. Corporations may steal from poor people - but any attempt on the part of poor people to steal back must be condemned in the strongest possible terms.

Similarly, I had multiple conversations today about Saturday night's riots in Tottenham. They invariably referenced the case of Keith Blakelock, the police officer who was killed during the Broadwater Farm riots of 1985. Not one of the conversations I had included any reference to Cynthia Jarrett, the woman whose killing during a search of her apartment sparked those riots in the first place.
In the same way, I doubt whether any of the outraged middle-class commentators on the BBC 4 radio show this morning gave much thought to the dozens of people that the cops have killed in custody, or to the more or less daily humiliation of black youths who get stopped and searched outside my house. The message conveyed by all of this is pretty clear: police attacks on poor people who can't defend themselves (especially black ones) are normal. Conversely, popular attacks on police are an outrage, especially if they happen to succeed. And don't ask that guy who nicked the cash register to give his side of the story.

None of this is to say that the fire truck which just screamed past my window is a good thing. The political and economic problems of Brixton are complex. It's too easy to spout platitudes about how nothing will ever be the same again - but for a few hours last night, walking down Effra road with plasma screen TVs and Macintosh laptops, the losers were the winners. And that could have a powerful effect.

Direct democracy: An anarchist alternative to voting

Image by El Cartel

With elections around the corner, various parties and their members will be out seeking your vote, your support, or at least your attention. “It’s the time for you to have a say in how the country is run”, as the adverts say. You might also hear a rather different message from some corners, namely anarchist ones. Not only do anarchists say “don’t vote”, but they usually follow it up with “organise!” They also talk about ‘direct democracy’.

So what does that actually mean? If voting is the only way to have your say, why would anarchists question it? And what does the ‘organise’ and ‘direct democracy’ bit entail?

While there are many reasons why anarchists think voting and parliamentary representation is a bankrupt way of directly looking after our many needs and wants, such debates are not the main focus of this wee text (these arguments can be found at on various websites such as www.libcom.org or www.anarchistfaq.org). What we want to try and illustrate here is the ‘organise’ part of the critique—the ways of doing things anarchists refer to as self-management and direct democracy. These are summed up by a thing called ‘federalism’—a tongue-twister of a word that will be explained by thrashing the analogy of grocery shopping the extreme!

How democracy works now

Politics, political parties, and our current system of parliamentary democracy all rely on ‘representation’. Politicians are elected by popular vote to represent us and our interests, and in exchange, we give them the power to make decisions—in short, to govern us. We do this either a) voluntarily every 3 years (because we are led to believe that this is the most logical and efficient way of doing things); or b) unwillingly through the use of coercion or force.

This means the power to make laws, to regulate and control society, are in the hands of those in power (politicians), and are binding on you and me. Because we pass on these responsibilities we advocate a system of hierarchy—a pyramid-like structure with a few at the top, and the rest of us at various levels below. The system can be described as top-down, because information and power are concentrated with the few representatives, who make decisions for the people. If those representatives at the top don’t do a good job, we are allowed the right to replace them every three years by voting in another bunch of people at the top. This is a very basic run down of things, but it will do for here.

For anarchists, it is this very kind of hierarchy and imbalance of power that causes most of the problems in today’s world, because it means a tiny group of people (politicians, corporations), have more power, more say, and more control than others. This loss of control at the bottom leads to things like greed, exploitation and poverty—we who have no power are exploited by those with power, whether it be economic, social or political.

An alternative

Anarchists propose that a better way to do things would be to ensure that no one has more power than another, that everyone was equal and had an equal say in their direct affairs. We believe important decisions such as where and how we work, how we live, and how we relate to each other, should be decided directly by all those involved. This is what we mean by ‘direct democracy’, and as we shall see, is totally different to ‘representative democracy’.

“Anarchism is a theory for social change based on the essential belief that no person has the right to have power over another person. When you accept the notion that every person has their own personal freedom, it becomes clear that our present social structure does not allow people equal footing. It does not allow us control over our own lives.”

So, how do anarchists think direct democracy would work? And how do they think that ‘bigger’ tasks such as ‘running a country’ could be done, without falling back into structures of unequal power, control and hierarchy? How do we ensure all decisions are made fairly, democratically, and directly, in all aspects of life—local, national and international?

Far from advocating chaos, anarchists are strong believers in organisation—and in particular, ways of organising that are as non-exploitative as possible. Anarchists don’t just wont to flip the ‘pyramid’ upside down, so the bottom becomes the top and the top becomes the bottom—we would rather do away with the pyramid all together! Instead, horizontal and equal forms of decision making would replace it, making the most out of non-hierarchal systems that would function—not up or down—but from the outside edges-in, from the periphial to the centre. This form of direct democracy is known as Federalism.

Confused? In fact, we do this kind of organising in most aspects of our lives already.

Take, for example, the weekly task of going grocery shopping for the house or flat. A few of the flatmates are entrusted with carrying out the task of getting the groceries agreed to earlier by the whole flat (the dreaded shopping list), and it’s then their job to do (administer) the tasks set out (ie the shopping). We expect them to stick to the list we all agreed on, and this would make sense, because they helped create it too. They are part of the group and the decision making process, so to change the list effects them also. They might come back from the shopping with suggestions on how to do it better next time, but these are only suggestions, to discuss together as a group.

The key here is the nature of power and representation. The ‘delagates’ of the task put forward by everyone (in this case, the grocery shopping) are temporary, administrative (doing) in nature, and do not have any power to make binding or final decisions. If they really sucked at the shopping and spent all the flat money on booze and chips (‘awesome’ some might say), then obviously the next time around the group would decide on different flatmates to have a go. In fact, we all know the task of getting groceries swaps around as it’s fairer that way. Anarchists say, why not take this kind logical system and apply it our wider lives?

The key aspects of direct democracy is the fluid and temporary nature of delegation; that delegates are directly involved in the decision making, and are directly from and for the group; and that everyone involved has a direct say in the issue at hand (whether that’s shopping, running a community garden, or an entire workplace/community). What’s cool about it is the equal balance of power in making decisions, and the non-existence of an exploitative hierarchy. It is in this way that direct democracy and self-management  takes place—meaning you can have the maximum input in what directly effects you. When this process joins together with other groups doing the very same thing (such as between communities or workplaces, or even countries), federalism on a larger scale takes place—following the same structures and the same principles.

Still not sure if this is a better way of doing things? Lets bash this shopping analogy out even further, and see how the shopping would take place under the current system of ‘representation’.

The people who you ‘elected’ to go shopping—and who promised they would ‘stick to the list’—have decided to not only stay and live at the supermarket, but try and control everything else about the flat from there too. They try to make sure you’ve got the right groceries from where they are, as they say it’s more efficient than making trips back and forth. So, the flat trusts that those in the supermarket will somehow know what the flat needs each changing week, even though they are now separate and removed from the flat. If they start to get it wrong and become completely out of touch with the flat’s various needs, then all you can do is wait three years to vote in another group—who, funnily enough, also happen to live at the supermarket! And finally, if you decide to go out and actually do the shopping yourself, and at a different kind of supermarket, they send out the trolley boy’s after you!

This analogy is terribly cheesy (as is this pun), but when it comes down to it, it’s sadly accurate. The representative system is far from efficient—in fact, its illogical, wasteful and completely divorced from our everyday lives. That’s why anarchists advocate direct democracy, direct participation, and a system of inclusive, equal, federalism. That’s also what it means when we say, “don’t vote—organise!”

My first review!

Until this week I had a fear of history books. Remains to be Seen: Tracing Joe Hill's Ashes in New Zealand by Jared Davidson dispelled my fear with its stunning layout, exceptional readability and perfect length (85 pages). The book’s subtitle might be a little misleading, as the book takes us through events that seem to have produced no trace of Joe Hill's ashes in New Zealand whatsoever. The journey, however, is very informative, revealing sad truths about New Zealand's history and the origins of today's repressive state. If a history book should do anything it is to kindle an interest in the past. Davidson's book left me with inspiration to learn more of Joe Hill and dissenters during World War I, and therefore comes highly recommended. – Arthur Price.

Courtesy of the Labour History Project Newsletter #52.

'Remains to be Seen: Tracing Joe Hill's ashes in New Zealand' (Book Launch)

My speech at the Christchurch book launch (30 June, 2011). The book—an account of censorship, Joe Hill, and the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) during the First World War—is available to purchase at http://www.rebelpress.org.nz/publications/remains-to-be-seen

Remains to be Seen: Pics from the production floor

Here's some neat pictures from the amazing peeps at Rebel Press: without their labour there would be no book! If you want to get your hands on a copy, it's  available to purchase from Rebel Press: http://www.rebelpress.org.nz/publications/remains-to-be-seen

'Remains to be Seen: Tracing Joe Hill's ashes in New Zealand' is out now!

Featuring an array of archival documents and illustrations, Remains to be Seen: Tracing Joe Hill's ashes in New Zealand—an easy-to-read account of censorship and radical labour during the First World War—is now available to purchase from Rebel Press: http://www.rebelpress.org.nz/publications/remains-to-be-seen

About the book:

On the eve of his execution in 1915, Joe Hill—radical songwriter, union organiser and member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW)—penned one final telegram from his Utah prison cell: “Could you arrange to have my body hauled to the state line to be buried? I don’t want to be found dead in Utah.” Hill’s body was then cremated, his ashes placed into tiny packets and sent to IWW Locals, sympathetic organizations and individuals around the world. Among the nations said to receive Hill’s ashes, New Zealand is listed.

Yet nothing is known about what happened to the ashes of Joe Hill in New Zealand. Were Hill’s ashes really sent to New Zealand? Or was New Zealand simply listed to give such a symbolic act more scope? If they did make it, what ever happened to them?

Remains to be Seen traces the ashes of Joe Hill from their distribution in Chicago to wartime New Zealand. Drawing on previously unseen archival material, it examines the persecution of anarchists, socialists and Wobblies in New Zealand during the First World War. It also explores how intense censorship measures—put in place by the National Coalition Government of William Massey and zealously enforced by New Zealand’s Solicitor-General, Sir John Salmond—effectively silenced and suppressed the IWW in New Zealand.

A free downloadable PDF version is also available from Rebel Press.

The book will be launched in Christchurch on Thursday June 30 at Beat Street Cafe (Corner Barbadoes and Armagh), at 5.30pm. Jared Davidson, author and designer of Remains to be Seen, will share a few thoughts on his research, and copies of the book will also be available for purchase.

Anarcho-syndicalism in the 20th Century: free download

Damier's Anarcho-syndicalism in the 20th Century (which I reviewed here) has been released as a free PDF. It's a really good read—I definitely recommend it!

Download it here: http://libcom.org/library/anarcho-syndicalism-20th-century-vadim-damier

From my review:

For those who can read Russian, Vadim Damier’s two-volume study of the International Workers’ Association (IWA) is a comprehensive history of the worldwide anarchist labour movement in the early 20th Century. For the rest of us, Malcom Archibald has translated what is essentially a streamlined version of Damier’s larger work into English. Anarcho-syndicalism in the 20th Century is a broad survey of a movement often marginalised by Marxist academics, and is a welcome addition to the existing literature on anarcho-syndicalism. As Damier illustrates, anarcho-syndicalism was far from a outmoded, ineffective or petty-bourgeois movement — the practice of direct action and revolutionary struggle controlled and self-managed by the workers themselves extended to all countries of the world.  

It's time to get organised! Join Beyond Resistance

With the National Government steadily sweeping away what little crumbs of a living we have left, it’s time to get organised. Cuts to welfare, draconian earthquake laws, union busting and employment nightmares — all in the first term. What they get away with next depends on our ability to resist. And we don’t mean voting in Labour (who would do exactly the same).

If you are based in Aotearoa, sick of the situation we’re up against, and want to see a change, then let’s get together. By joining Beyond Resistance we multiply our skills and our strengths, and face the ills of our society collectively rather than on our own. Only in Solidarity can we truly effect change.

Contact otautahianarchists[at]gmail[dot]com to find out more, or check out our website on how to join. You can either join as an individual from anywhere in Aotearoa, or if there’s members nearby, you can join (or start) a Local.

It’s time for anarchists in Aotearoa to be heard!

Interview with Justseeds printmaker Dylan Miner

The Norwegian art quarterly Måg Magazine just published their new issue which includes an extensive interview with Justseeds artist and creator of the Joe Hill image for my book, Dylan Miner. View the issue online here.

Gardens and Forests? Two perspectives on archival outreach

Yet another MIS paper, the last for my 'Archives, Advocacy and Outreach' course, taught by Wendy Duff. For this paper we were asked to compare and contrast 'user-centred' and 'materials-centred' approaches to outreach.

The only constant in this world is change. However, from my limited knowledge of archives, change in that world seems at a pace slower than most. And probably for good reason. The core archival theories guiding acquisition, appraisal, description and preservation currently serve their purpose, and on the most part, serve it well. Yet there is a missing but equally important element: the ‘global south’ of archives that is outreach.

Outreach, also known as public programming, is one way that archives create awareness and promote use through things like public events, physical or online exhibitions, and educational or in-school workshops (to name but a few). Unfortunately, this aspect of archival work is either viewed as not important by some repositories, or they simply do not have the time or funds to spare. For many archives outreach is like a mid-winter tropical sojourn, a nice thought, but often unattainable.

 In spite of these difficulties, a change in perspective on archival outreach has come to the fore in the last 20-30 years. Writers such as Elsie Freeman, Randall Jimerson, Timothy Ericson, and others, have been pushing outreach to the forefront of archival theory. At the frontline of this push is the user, with an increased focus on their search techniques and their current (rather than future) needs. This user-centred approach not so much departs from the traditional archival viewpoint, but places emphasis on one of its key components: use.

However this change is far from accepted in the archival world. Writers such as Terry Cook—while supporting improvements in outreach—warns that taken to the extreme, a focus on the user instead of a focus on the records themselves could have dire consequences for the archival profession. For Cook, it is a matter of the message outreach conveys, and that message has to be the value of the record in its context.

Both the user-focus of Ericson, and the materials-focus of Cook, has important repercussions for archives and archival theory—not only in outreach, but the way records are used, and how they are appraised. It is these two facets of archival theory that concerns archivists such as Cook, and the focus of this text.

GARDENS & FORESTS: TWO PERSPECTIVES ON OUTREACH

“The archival profession has fallen short of the mark in promoting archival materials…” writes Ericson in Archivaria 31, “…it is the inevitable afterthought” (Ericson, 1990/91, p.114, 116). Archivists have become “preoccupied with our own gardens, and too little aware of the larger historical and social landscape around us” (Ham, 1981, as cited in Ericson, p.115). As a result, the promotion and use of archives for current users (and non-users) is far from what it could be.

According to Ericson and a number of others writing about outreach, this neglect of the record’s use, and those who use them, is the result of outreach playing second fiddle to acquisition and description. “Availability and use are last…when, in fact, they should be first. This may seem like a minor point, but the consequences are insidious. Outreach and use come last… something to be undertaken when all the rest of the work has been done” (Ericson, p.116). Naturally, when time and funding is stretched, those at the bottom of the archival ladder (such as outreach) suffer.

If the purpose of preserving archival materials is so that they will be used (Eriscon, p.114), then outreach should be tied to an archive’s mission statement, and sit alongside (or even in front) of other archival principles:

the goal is use. We need continually to remind ourselves of this fact. Identification, acquisition, description and the rest are simply the means we use to achieve this goal. They are tools. We may employ all these tools skilfully; but if, after we brilliantly and meticulously appraise, arrange, describe and conserve our records, nobody comes to use them, then we have wasted out time (Ericson, p.117).

This shift towards outreach and the user is what Malbin describes as being user-centred: “the increasingly widespread, mostly American school, which favours a user-centred approach,” including user-friendly finding aids and indexes arranged by subject (1997, p.70). According to this school, archivists should concentrate on ‘translating’ archival theory (such as provenance) into a form more understandable to the typical user’s needs (Malbin, p.70).

Lowrence Dowler echoes this trend: “use, rather than the form of material, is the basis on which archival practice and theory ought to be constructed” (1988, as cited in Cook, p.125). The value of records and the information they contain is not in the record’s context, but in “the relationship between the use of information and the ways in which it is or can be provided” (1988, as cited in Cook, p.125). It is this relationship that should define archival practice.

But for archivists such as Terry Cook, this shift in archival theory could undermine both it “and the very richness of that documentary heritage” which outreach would make available (Cook, 1990/91, p.123). Cook’s fears are not in making archives more accessible (something he supports), but in extending a user-centred approach to the two main archival functions of appraisal and description—in other words, what we keep, and how it will be found by the user. According to Cook, rather than making records instantly available, outreach needs to ensure the right message is being delivered. That message is the unique value of the record when viewed through the lens of archival theory.

This view represents a materials-centred approach, and arguably the dominant discourse of archival theory. For Cook, “archives are not just collections of individual documents but, rather, a blend of what is in all of them” (Malbin, p.71). Knowledge is gained through the record’s richness, the contextual significance of the record, and the collections in which they are found. Rather than “focusing on that isolated tree,” archivists, through educating users on the power of provenance, should lead their users “through the grand archival forest, with all its fascinating paths and interesting byways” (Cook, p.128).

 Cook argues that the key principles of archival theory—provenance, original order, context and the like—imply “a sense of understanding, of ‘knowledge,’ rather than the merely efficient retrieval of names, dates, subjects, or whatever, all devoid of context, that is ‘information’” (Cook, 1984/85, as cited in Cook, p.128). Records do not simply provide facts and figures, but offer a unique insight into the creator of the record and the larger society to which they belong. Treating a record as containing mere data or information negates its archival value.

Cook is concerned that if outreach is promoted at the expense of archival theory, then the current and future use of records is threatened. A user-centred approach to appraisal, while increasing service for today’s users, could be to the detriment of future use. And while outreach should not “be the tail unthinkingly following the appraisal and description dog, it is no healthier that [outreach] should wag the entire archival dog” (Cook, p.127).

USE, INFORMATION & KNOWLEDGE

There is no question that outreach should be prime and centre in the role of an archive. As well as ensuring that our cultural heritage is accessed by a wide variety of people in order to create new knowledge, outreach is needed for the very existence of archives itself—even more so a neo-liberal world overly concerned with outcomes and profit margins. As Tapscott and Williams, when discussing Web 2.0 and outreach, put it: we must “harness the new collaboration or perish” (2006, as cited in Daines & Nimer, 2009).

Outreach and public programming creates an awareness of the archive and what it does. It can aid current users and act as the catalyst for new ones. Online exhibitions, educational programs in schools, workshops and events, and innovative digital tools that bring archives to the streets (such as being able to text a number and find out information about that street or place), all aid in the use of archival documents. Outreach activities “teach people that archives are places to which they may come for information” (Ericson, p.119).

But does this use come at expense of archival principles? And if so, what knowledge is being gained? For Cook, if outreach is taken to its limit at the expense of the archival message, archives would be turned into “the McDonald’s of Information, where everything is carefully measured to meet every customer profile and every market demographic” (Cook, p.127). This is because ‘information’ and ‘knowledge’ is not the same thing.

In the same issue of Archivaria as Ericson, Cook quotes Theodore Roszak to describe the differences of information and knowledge: “information is not knowledge. You can mass-produce raw data and incredible quantities of facts and figures. You cannot mass-produce knowledge, which is created by individual minds, drawing on individual experience, separating the significant from the irrelevant, making value judgements” (as cited in Cook, p.128). The knowledge gained from records through their original order, their provenance, and an understanding of the societal context in which they were created, is threatened when a record is pulled from its collection and instantly served to the user “on a silver platter” (Cook, p.125). It may service their need, but at a price. That price is archival value.

Instead, archivists need to get back to the records themselves, and to the unique power of provenance. Although difficult for the Google generation to grapple, archival theory on record creation and description is important because of the uniqueness of archives: “archives are not like libraries, nor should they be” (Malbin, p.71). The power of provenance ensures the user is not limited to “a diet of fast food, of quick hits of facts, names and dates without context and without much meaning” (Cook, p.131), but a rich experience of knowledge making.

Cook argues: “every user from the genealogist looking for a single fact or a copy of a single documents through the most sophisticated researcher using ‘discourse’ methodology would benefit from this materials-centred approach to archives” (Cook, p.130). This is because the retrieval of information is not a logical, analytical and linear process, but a holistic, intuitive and creative one (Ketelaar, 1988, as cited in Cook, p.129). Therefore finding aids structured to the users current needs, or description that caters to subjects only, would hinder the holistic search process, fragment the organic relationships of archives, and endanger a record’s coherence. “In the rush to produce more sophisticated and more comprehensive finding aids better to assist the researcher, turning him or her into a one-minute expert, grave risks presents themselves to archivists and researchers alike” (Cook, p.126). For Cook, these grave risks also include how records would be appraised.

TRENDY CONSUMERISM OR PRAGMATIC ACQUISITION: USER-CENTRED APPRAISAL

“A deep and dangerous theoretical iceberg,” is how Cook responded to the extension of a user-centred approach to appraisal. For writers such as Freeman, however, it is more a case of bringing records above the surface in order to be used today, rather than a preoccupation with the explorers of tomorrow. Archivists need to “consider less the uses of the future and turn more to identifying the users and uses of today” (Gracy, 1986, as cited in Cook, p.125). Because of this eye on the future, the ‘products’ archives hold “do not supply what users want or, far more important, what they will actually use,” writes Freeman; “a look at how and why users approach records will give us new criteria for appraising records” (1984, as cited in Cook, p.126).

Knowing what the user wants or needs and acquiring records for that purpose, ensures the records are relevant, and above all, used. Archivists should “respond to the needs of users, rather than the expectations of archivists” (Blais & Enn, 1990, as cited in Cook, p.124). Although this would require a “radical rethinking” of archival theory, the advocates of such an approach content that the user, and archives, would benefit—through increased use and increased funding. In all probability, this would lead to an awareness and use of the archives not yet seen in its history.

However for Cook, such an approach is a disaster in the making. “Archivists do not (and should not!) want to acquire labour records this week, women’s diaries next week, or scientific lab reports after that” Cook, p.131). Appraising and collection records should never be based on “trendy consumerism” or the “transient whims of users” (Cook, p.130), because such an approach would destroy the unique value of archives—that is, the accurate reflection of the “functions, ideas and activities or records creators and those with whom they interact” (Cook, p.130).

Having a window on how a society functioned and the values that prevailed through the archival record, is the key to appraisal (and the very function of archives). Acquisition based on current use would provide a fragmented, rather than a holistic view on the period in question. Instead, it is better to develop criteria “to ensure that the records acquired reflect the values, patterns and functions of society today, or for older records, of the society contemporary with the records’ creators” (Cook, p.130). In this way “all kinds of research will be supported” (Cook, p.130).

Cook makes it clear that he is not supporting “cultural elitism” (Cook, p. 131), but ensuring that the uniqueness of records and the insights they provide are not negated by appraisal dictated by transient whims or quick-strike answers. Rather, Cook urges “archivists to step back from being superficial McDonald’s of Information or flashy Disney-Worlds of Heritage Entertainment, and step forward to providing all researchers with relevance, meaning, understanding and knowledge” (Cook, p.131). Because in the end, providing records in context in order to make knowledge is what an archive does best (even if it happens at a snail’s pace).

CONCLUSION

The seeds of change are taking root in modern archives. A user-centred approach is coming to the fore, lead by American archivists and writers such as Freeman and Ericson. This emphasis on the user and use of records has the potential to change the world of archives—from its public perception to the archival profession itself.

However, whether that change is for the better is open to question. For if change comes at the expense of key archival theory, then is the change worth it? If the goal of archives is facilitating use that makes sense of a particular period in question, and to create knowledge through an understanding of a record’s wider context (rather than accessing mere information), then the jettisoning of key archival theories is problematic, to say the least. Instead, archivists such as Cook reaffirm the power of provenance and a materials-centred approach in the quest for meaning and knowledge.

Perhaps the question archivists should be asking is: “how can we combine outreach with key archival principles, at the expense of neither?” For it is the combination of these components, rather than the privileging of one over another, that could steer change in the most beneficial direction. Instead of disregarding archival principles of provenance, original order, context and the like for more palatable translations for the public, archives—through education and outreach—should promote why such techniques are used, and the unique value they bring to research.

The last word on these two views of outreach goes to Terry Cook (sorry Ericson): “the user should also be led to information about the contextual significance of that document… that is informed public service; that is exciting public programming; that is making archival users knowledgeable rather than loaded down, however efficiently, with facts and copies of detached documents floating around devoid of context” (Cook, p.131).

REFERENCES

Cook, T. (1990/91). Viewing the world upside down: Reflections on the theoretical underpinning of archival public programming. Archivaria, 31 (Winter), 123-134.

Daines, J.G., & Nimer, C.L. (18 May, 2009). Web 2.0 and archives. Accessed 12 May 2011 from http://interactivearchivist.archivists.org/

Ericson, T. L. (1990/91). Preoccupied with our own gardens: Outreach and archivists. Archivaria, 31 (Winter), 114-122.

Book Update: Justseeds blog post

By Dylan Miner over at the justseeds.org blog: Justseeds' friend and proprietor of Garage Collective, Jared Davidson has recently completed his manuscript for Remains to be Seen: Tracing Joe Hill's Ashes in New Zealand. Although not out yet, this amazing book studies the IWW in Aotearoa and looks specifically at what happens to Hill's ashes once they were shipped following his execution in Utah.

Jared asked me to do the cover illustration, which I happily obliged. Keep your eyes open for this which should be released by Rebel Press in the near future. Also, keep your eyes to Justseeds for this print becoming available for purchase.

Fee or free: Public library services in the face of economic hardship

Another essay for MIS. I think the economic section would be rather different if I had more space to bring in an anarchist critique of economics... maybe next time. Image by Mary Tremonte (http://justseeds.org).

INTRODUCTION 

As neo-liberal economics and the downward cycles of the capitalist system deepen, social institutions such as public libraries are beginning to come under the increasing scrutiny of those in power. Questions around free library services have crescendoed in parts of the developed world, and are beginning to reverberate throughout the offices of policy makers in New Zealand. In April 2010, the Tauranga City Council announced that it was exploring the introduction of user-charges for general issue books. Green MP, Gareth Hughes, quickly pointed out the irony of such an announcement coming during the United Nation’s Literacy Decade (Hughes, 2010, par.4). But irony doesn’t concern the powers that be in their quest for profits. So what arguments can be made for free public libraries the face of increasing economic hardship?

Advocates of user-charges often draw upon economic perspectives to justify their position. Yet the services and benefits of a public library cannot always be measured in purely economic terms. In response, the defenders of free public libraries often talk about its benefits in terms of their impact on society. Far from abstract or philosophical ideals without any bearing on everyday life, the social benefits of a free public library include equal access to information, and the building of community, social inclusion and social capital through a free public space. These benefits also have economic ramifications, as advocates of free public libraries are increasingly trying to illustrate.

The negative impact user-charges would have on society at large—or more specifically, the access to information, democratic participation, social wellbeing and economic activity—makes a strong social and economic case against the introduction of user-charges.


FEE OR FREE: A QUESTION OF VALUES

‘Free’ in New Zealand means “free access to the collections and information held by the library, free membership to LTA residents who already fund the library through rates, and the right to borrow library materials free of charge, except when those materials are due” (Chamberlain & Chamberlain, 2007, p.69). For most libraries, this is still the case. However over a quarter of New Zealand libraries have fees beyond the traditional costs of membership (usually the cost of the plastic membership card): “in Matamata, borrowers have to pay $1 a week to rent ordinary non-bestseller books” (Campbell, 2010, par.1). Advocates of user-charges would like to see this trend extended to most, if not all, public library services.

The introduction of user-charges can partly be explained by the prevailing values of Neo-liberalism: “policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize their personal profit. This includes the management and provision of social services” (McChesney, 1999, par.1).

As a result, advocates of user-charges often view library services and their benefits in a strictly economic sense—a supply and demand model where a customer (user) should be able to choose the information commodities and services they deem valuable, at a cost set by the market. Following this, “advocates of a ‘user pays’ philosophy believe that charges will indicate true levels of demand” (Chamberlain & Chamberlain, 2007, p.69), and that price is a measure of value (Casper, 1979, p.304).

However the business world of returns and maximum profits conflict with the social values of a free public library. Creativity, freedom, altruism and equality—although often imprecise and hard to measure— are “no less valid” (Smith, 1981, p.2). In contrast to the library as a place to purchase information commodities, advocates of the free public library hold that:

the publicly funded library… despite some current tendencies which have identified it as a purely recreational service… is the collective memory of our society and is part and parcel of the complex organization which feeds the culture through service to the individual. (Smith, 1981, p.7).

Yet modern libraries do more than just feed culture. Public libraries of today “engage, inspire and inform citizens and help build strong communities” by incorporating “community gathering places with cafés, associated council services, learning centres, lounge areas, community meeting rooms and parenting rooms” (Local Government of New Zealand, Library and Information Association of New Zealand, National Library of New Zealand [LGNZ, LIANZ, NLNZ], 2006, p.8). These are services unique to libraries not often found elsewhere.

Advocates of user-charges argue people should not pay for something they do not use—that libraries are for the benefit of the few (Casper, 1979). However the services provided by libraries are being used more frequently and by more people than ever before. In a New Zealand survey of cultural activities and spending, “public libraries were the second most popular cultural activity,” behind the purchasing of books (LGNZ, LIANZ, NLNZ, 2006, p.9). In times of economic hardship, use has increased even more. 81% of economically impacted Americans have a library card, are 50% more likely to visit their library at least weekly, and are nearly a third more likely to visit at least once a month (OCLC, 2010). During economic hardship, belief in the value of the public library to the community also increased by over 31% (OCLC, 2010, p.45).

When charges have been introduced, “the use of the library has declined so dramatically that some charges have been withdrawn or reduced” (Chamberlain & Chamberlain, 2007, p.70). In Ashburton user-charges were cancelled due a drop in patronage of around 40% (Campbell, 2010, par.16). User-charges directly affect access, which in turn, affects the use of library services and their social and economic benefits.


TO HAVE OR HAVE-NOT 

The neo-liberal paradigm ignores the benefits of modern (and future) libraries that cannot be measured in monetary terms, and threatens the values on which libraries were founded: equal access to information. The ability to freely access information is the cornerstone of a healthy and just society. “People, communities, and organizations need, for their physical, mental, democratic, and economic wellbeing, free access to information…” (LGNZ, LIANZ, NLNZ, 2006, p.7). Public libraries fulfil this need, and are a key part of ‘information democracy’ (LGNZ, LIANZ, NLNZ, 2006).

User-charges erode the fundamental right to participation in democratic life, by limiting the information needed for participation to those who can afford it. Dressed up in the rhetoric of choice, charges as a level of demand and price as a measure of value masks the fact that there are major socio-economic differences between the users (and non-users) of libraries. Two-thirds of New Zealanders earn less than two-thirds of the average wage, while the gap between rich and poor is the sixth biggest in the developed world (Oosterman, 2010).

A person’s income has an overwhelming impact on the access and use of library services. Mathews confirmed, “…the socio-economic status of the surrounding population is the most important factor in determining how much use will be made of the public library” (2001, p.3). Users with higher levels of income frequented the library more than others with lower incomes.

Income is also the major contributing factor to the digital divide—the gap between those with access to computers, the Internet, and online information and those who lack it (Warschauer, 2010, p.1551). A US study found that only 55% of those with household incomes under $30,000 used the Internet, compared to 93% of those over $75,000 (Warshauer, 2010, p.1551). In New Zealand, “lower-income households remain less likely than higher income households to use the Internet” (Bell et al, 2009, p.3).

The availability of information addresses these disadvantages, “by ensuring free and equitable access to collections for all community members” (NSW Public Library Network [NSWPLN], 2009, p.8). Through the Aotearoa People’s Network Kakaroa (APNK), libraries in New Zealand have successfully filled this role—facilitating participation in the democratic process, increasing library usage, and combating the digital divide by providing free access to computers and the Internet. A 2011 APNK Impact Evaluation found that 39% of those surveyed had visited their local council’s website at the library, people using the libraries increased by over 80%, and for 42% of the respondents, the public library was their only means of accessing the Internet (Brocklesby & Simpson-Edwards, 2011, pp.4, 5, 34).

It is clear that if user-charges were introduced, not everyone could afford to access information. Monetary barricades in the form of user-charges affects those already marginalised, and continues the physical and digital division of society along socio-economic lines. It would silence the voice of the ‘have-nots’ in the participation of democracy, and compromise the valuable role libraries play as the providers of information—both on site and online.


SOCIAL SPACE: SOCIAL WELLBEING 

As public spaces are increasingly privatised the need for a free public space is more pressing than ever before, especially for those excluded from social participation. Libraries provide a warm, inviting—and most importantly—non-commercial space that fosters social inclusion and community development, regardless of socio-economic status. The library as a ‘third’ space is a crucial factor for such development.

A survey of users in New South Wales found “the library’s value as a place that is a safe, harmonious, welcoming and inclusive environment was the most quoted contribution [to social wellbeing]” (NSWPLN, 2009, p.8). By acting as a neutral meeting space accessible to all, libraries promote acceptance and understanding of others not often found elsewhere.

Even in the digital age, the “online library has not become a substitute for visiting the library in person” (OCLC, 2010, p.97). This is because “the library building—the way it is designed, located, configured and maintained—has real significance in creating a welcoming and stimulating environment” (LGNZ, LIANZ, NLNZ, 2006, p.40).

The physical space of the library creates “social interaction among people with common interests who may never otherwise meet” (NSWPLN, 2009, p.8). This is of special value for immigrants and ethnic groups for aiding community participation and integration. Multicultural programs, reading and parent groups, literacy courses, literary events and exhibitions encourage interaction and wellbeing by creating social capital—the connections between people that improve quality of life and provide ‘life-chances’. Social capital also has economic benefits: “hhealthier lifestyles, and higher levels of educational attainment… in turn helps promote economic development” (Horton, 2006, p.504).

The uniqueness of the library as a free public space is illustrated by what happens when that space is no longer available. “One study in England that examined the impact of the closing of public libraries due to a strike determined that although nine out of ten users missed the library, only 9 percent replaced their library use with nonlibrary-oriented activities (Mathews, 2001, p.69). The library was missed because it was “a meeting point… a place to participate in social events [and] to meet or chat to people” (Proctor, Sobczyk, & Usherwood, 1996, p.27). For many, the library as a free social space is simply non-replaceable.

If “the overall social health of a society reflects the strength of voluntary and community associations within it” (Horton, 2006, as cited in Selwood, 2002, p.30), the libraries role in creating social capital should not be hindered by user-charges. They would alienate and eliminate a large number of users, especially new migrants or economically impacted individuals with a real need for such a space.


MONEY, MONEY, MONEY

Social institutions are constantly under the neo-liberal axe, especially in times of economic hardship. Funding is cut and libraries are closed, because in neo-liberal terms, they are financially unviable. However, evidence of a positive return on investment and the creation of economic activity illustrate that libraries are indeed economically sound.

Studies have shown that patronage of a public library significant aids the surrounding retail economy. One retailer noted a 10% increase in turnover after a library was established nearby, while another estimated library users spent $50 in their store per library visit (Brown & Morris, 2004, p.132). Library closures also have economic consequences. During the Sheffield Libraries strike, nearly a quarter of all users surveyed visited their local centre less often because of the library closure (Proctor, Sobczyk, & Usherwood, 1996, p.37).

A 2008 summary of Wisconsin Public libraries found they contributed $753,699,545 to the Wisconsin economy (Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction [WDPI], 2008). This figure does not include the range of economic benefits that arise from social interaction at a library due to the difficulty of measuring such benefits. The surrounding retail economy is also not included. If they had, the libraries economic contribution would be considerably larger. Far from a liability, the summary also found that return on investment was $4.06 for each dollar of taxpayer spent on libraries (WDPI, 2008),

A 2009 survey of New South Wales users found public libraries generated $810.2 million of economic activity—the equivalent of $2.82 for every dollar expended (NSWPLN, 2009). Benefits included supporting local businesses through access to information, increased tourism via library events, and employment for both library staff and those seeking it: the “survey found that 8.1% of respondents credited the public library as helping them obtain a new job or promotion and that 14% credited the public library as making them more productive in their jobs” (NSWPLN, p.10). Like Wisconsin libraries, these benefits equate to a return of investment of $4.24 per dollar spent (NSWPLN, 2009).

Free libraries stimulate and support the economic development needed in times of economic hardship. A decline in patronage due to user-charges would have significant economic effects, both directly (the surrounding retail economy) and less-directly (the wider economy). Libraries also save the taxpayer money: “in the event that public libraries did not exist, it was estimated that annual expenditure on government school libraries would increase by $24.4 million” (NSWPLN, 2009, p.10).


CONCLUSION 

Neo-liberal attempts to control and profit from social institutions conflict with the social values of the free public library and the benefits of its unique services. As a result, the introduction of user-charges in times of economic hardship would have a number of dire consequences—both socially and economically.

The access and use of library services currently enjoyed by those with lower incomes would be severely curtailed, minimizing democratic participation and fostering socio-economic divisions already prevalent in society. The privileging of monetary transactions and the move towards libraries as a commercial space also compromises the free and neutral public meeting space needed for social wellbeing. Introducing user-charges would also diminish the economic benefits of the library due to lower patronage.

Libraries are a core social service with wider benefits than monetary returns. Instead of a business model concerned with increased profit margins:

measurement of social institutions should encompass the extent to which they deliver superior performance, make a distinctive impact, and achieve lasting endurance. These measures are ones that rely little on how much or how often or who owns what, and rely not at all on becoming “more like a business” (Wilson, 2007, as cited in Collins, 2005).

It is clear free public libraries make a distinctive impact—on those who use them, and the communities who have them. It is also clear user-charges would have a distinctive impact—for all the wrong reasons.

—Jared Davidson


REFERENCES

Bell, A., Billot, J., Crothers, C., Gibson, A., Goodwin, I., Sherman, K., Smith, N., & Smith, P. (2010). The Internet in New Zealand: 2007–2009. Auckland: Institute of Culture, Discourse and Communication, AUT University.

Brocklesby, J. & Simpson-Edwards, M., (2011). Aotearoa People’s Network Kaharoa: An Impact Evaluation. Retrieved 13 April 2011 from http://www.aotearoapeoplesnetwork.org/content/documentation

Brown, A., & Morris, A. (2004). Siting of public libraries in retail centres: benefits and effects. Library Management 45(3), pp.127-137. Retrieved from Emerald database.

Campbell, G. (2010). Closing the books on libraries. Retrieved 10 April 2011 from http://werewolf.co.nz/2010/05/closing-the-books-on-libraries/

Casper, C. (1979). Pricing policy for library services. Journal of the American Society For Information Science, 30(5), 304-310. Retrieved from ProQuest database.

Chamberlain, A., & Chamberlain, G. (2007). Public libraries. In A. Fields & R. Young (Eds.) Informing New Zealand: Libraries, Archives and Records (5th ed.). Lower Hutt, New Zealand: The Open Polytechnic of New Zealand.

Horton, S. (2006). Social capital, government policy and public value: Implications for archive service delivery. Aslib Proceedings: New Information Perspectives, 58(6), 502-512.

Hughes, G. (2010). Read all about it—Tauranga library to charge for books. Retrieved 10 April 2011 from http://blog.greens.org.nz/2010/04/19/read-all-about-it-tauranga-library-to-charge-for-books/

Local Government of New Zealand, Library and Information Association of New Zealand, National Library of New Zealand. (2006). Public Libraries of New Zealand—A Strategic Framework 2006-2016. Retrieved 7 April 2011 from http://www.lianza.org.nz/library/files/store_011/StrategicFramework2006.pdf

McChesney, R. (1999, April 1). Noam Chomsky and the struggle against Neoliberalsim. Monthly Review. Retrieved 9 April 2011 from http://www.chomsky.info/onchomsky/19990401.htm

Matthews, J. (2004). Public library users. In Measuring for results: The dimensions of public library effectiveness (pp.57-72). Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited.

NSW Public Library Network. (2009). Enriching communities: The value of public libraries in New South Wales. Australasian Public Library Information Services, 22(1), 6-12.

OCLC. (2010). Perceptions of Libraries, 2010. Retrieved 10 April 2011 from http://www.oclc.org/us/en/reports/2010perceptions.htm

Oosterman, S. (2010, 18 July). Help build solidarity in Auckland. Retrieved 12 April 2011 from http://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/78760/help-build-solidarity-auckland

Proctor, R., Sobczyk, G., & Usherwood, B. (1996). What do people do when their public library service closes down? An investigation into the impact of the Sheffield Libraries strike (British Library R & D Report 6224). Retrieved 12 April 2011 from http://www.shef.ac.uk/is/research/publications

Smith, J. (1981). A conflict of values—charges in the publicly funded libraries. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science, 13(1), 1-9. DOI: 10.1177/096100068101300101.

Warschauer, M. (2010). Digital divide. In Encyclopedia of Library and Information Sciences (3rd ed., pp.1551-1556). London: Taylor and Frances.

Wilson, A. (2007) Reading tea leaves: One past, many futures. In Information Tomorrow: Reflections on Technology and the Future of Public and Academic Libraries (pp.217-225). Medford, NJ: Information Today. 

Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (2008). The Economic Contribution of Wisconsin Public Libraries to the Economy Of Wisconsin: Executive Summary. Madison: NorthStar Economics. http://dpi.state.wi.us/pld/pdf/wiimpactsummary.pdf.

Extreme hardcore: birth of the blast beat

There's debate around who pioneered the blast beat first. Many cite Napalm Death (UK), but they were heavily influenced by extreme hardcore bands such as Siege (Boston, USA), among others. It would be fair to say that Swedish band Asocial are among the first, with their 1982 EP, How Could Hardcore Be Any Worse?

Other extreme hardcore bands around 1982/83 who used blast beats include Youth Korps (USA):

and DRI (USA):

A little later (1984) Siege was putting extreme hardcore on the map:

Worthy of a mention is Deep Wound (USA) who were pretty fast for 1983 (and feature future Dinosaur Jr members):

Gang Green (USA) gets overlooked but they too were super fast on their first EP:

Total Chaoz (Pre-Larm) from Holland are also worthy of a mention:

I'm sure I've missed a heap of bands (especially Japanese HC and other European HC bands), as well as those outside of hardcore who were using blast beats in the 1960's (Jazz musicians, for example).

So I wrote a book...

In between babies, work and now study, I've been quietly trying to find out what happened to Joe Hill's ashes in New Zealand. It's been a form of escapism which has rewarded me with new skills and new knowledge—plus it's been fun trawling archives. Now that I've come to the close of my research, it's going to be coming out as a book. Here's the blurb for Remains to be Seen: Tracing Joe Hill's ashes in New Zealand:

"On the eve of his execution in 1915, Joe Hill — radical songwriter, union organiser and member of the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) — penned one final telegram from his Utah prison cell: “Could you arrange to have my body hauled to the state line to be buried? I don’t want to be found dead in Utah.” His fellow ‘Wobblies’, remaining faithful to his Last Will, did one better. After two massive funerals, Hill’s body was cremated, his ashes placed into tiny packets and sent to IWW ‘Locals’, sympathetic organizations and individuals around the world. Among the nations said to receive Hill’s ashes, New Zealand is listed.

Yet nothing is known about what happened to the ashes of Joe Hill in New Zealand. If some kind of ceremony had taken place, there are no oral or written records that recall such an event. Were Hill’s ashes really sent to New Zealand? Or was New Zealand simply listed to give such a symbolic act more scope? If they did make it, what happened to them?

‘Remains to be Seen’ traces the ashes of Joe Hill, from their distribution in Chicago to wartime New Zealand. Evidence is provided to suggest Hill’s ashes were not scattered around the World on May Day 1916 as commonly believed, and draws on previously unseen archival material to examine the persecution of anarchists, socialists and Wobblies in New Zealand during the First World War. It also examines how intense censorship measures — put in place by the National Coalition Government of William Massey and zealously enforced by New Zealand’s Solicitor-General, Sir John Salmond — effectively silenced and suppressed the IWW in New Zealand."

Thanks to the peeps at Rebel Press, the thing is going to be published very soon. They've also been cool with me doing all the design myself, which is rad. Check back for more updates—hopefully there will be a bit of a book launch/tour (really an excuse to go to Wellington...), but in the meantime, here's a spread from the book.

Operation 8: the movie

nzherald.co.nz: If you're not paranoid, you haven't been paying attention. It's an old line, coined half in wry humour, half in deadly earnest, but it has a special pungency for Wellington filmmaker Errol Wright.

Wright and co-director Abi King-Jones have spent most of the last three years making Operation 8, a restrained, even sober survey of the October 2007 "anti-terror raids" and their aftermath, that patiently paints a disturbing picture of the use of state force to suppress political dissent.

Wright is aware that the undertaking will have attracted close official attention. He recalls driving along a remote road late one evening and noticing a car a couple of hundred metres behind.
"My cellphone rang," he says, "so I pulled over to answer it. And the other car pulled over 200m back. Then when I drove off, it continued to follow me."

The incident spurred Wright to write to the Security Intelligence Service asking what information it held about him. He shows me the short letter he received in response. Over the signature of director Warren Tucker, it declines to confirm or deny that the SIS holds anything. In doing so, the letter says, it relies on section 32 of the Privacy Act, which allows an agency to withhold information if its release could "prejudice the maintenance of the law".

"Which is a yes," chips in King-Jones.

"We have just taken the view that we expect there will be surveillance [of us] and we carry on. It's not a very nice feeling, but it brings you closer to the world of the people you are documenting."

The events of October 15, 2007 introduced the word "terrorist" into our domestic political discourse for the first time since 9/11 made it the century's most electrifying buzzword. More than 300 police raided 60 houses around the country, many in the Ruatoki valley in the heart of Tuhoe country.
The raids, which resulted in 18 arrests, followed more than a year of surveillance and related to an alleged paramilitary training camp deep in the forests of the Urewera ranges.

Within less than four weeks, the police case was in tatters: charges laid under the Terrorism Suppression Act 2002 were dropped after the Solicitor-General declined to prosecute them. He specifically defended the police action, but said there was insufficient evidence to sustain the charges, brought under legislation he called "complex and incoherent" and "almost impossible to apply to domestic circumstances".

The firearms charges that remain are scheduled to be heard - controversially before a judge alone, not a jury, for reasons that have themselves been suppressed - next month in Auckland.

Operation 8 - the film takes its title from the police codename for the 2007 raids - deliberately avoids using an instructive or tendentious voiceover. But it provides a pretty useful summary of a story which, its makers fear, has fallen off the public radar.

"I think a lot of people are saying 'whatever happened with that? Are they in prison?'," says King-Jones. "Other people think the whole issue was finished when the Solicitor-General made the decision. People want to know - and they need to know - what happened and why."

What's new about the film is that it gives a voice to those who have so far been voiceless. The opening shots, a helicopter-eye view of the forest, plays over the words of 12-year-old Patricia Lambert, caught in the raids on Tuhoe.

"I saw all these people in black," she says. "It was really scary."

Patricia ushers in the testimony of others in Tuhoe and elsewhere whose stories of police actions would be comical if they were not so chilling: unlocked doors kicked down; fences smashed a few metres from a wide-open gate; children and grannies in their nightwear, kneeling on wet concrete at gunpoint; officers yelling "you will be sent to Guantanamo!".

Meanwhile a gallery of talking heads including security analyst Paul Buchanan, law professor Jane Kelsey and lawyer Moana Jackson comment lucidly and disturbingly on the original actions and the conduct of the case since.

There is testimony from former cops too, including Ross Meurant, whose contribution lent the film its subtitle "Deep in the Forest", and a one-time undercover man who makes some troubling inferences from the size of a police application for a surveillance warrant.

Wright and King-Jones are aware of the charge that they sometimes appear almost to merge with their subjects. At one point, one of the more eloquent of those arrested, Valerie Morse, accosts Detective Sergeant Aaron Pascoe, the head of the operation, outside the Auckland District Court. "Do you really think I am a terrorist?", she asks.

The microphone she thrusts towards him is plugged into King's camera and I feel constrained to ask him whether he has crossed the invisible, but important, line between a documentarian and his subject.
"I think it's impossible to be totally neutral when you are making something. It's very difficult to understand what the environment is for being a political activist in NZ if you don't spend enough time finding out."

Adds King-Jones: "When you collect all this observational material, you get to know these people. It's an important part of the process because these people are in a way quite isolated because of what they have been through. You have to get over their very understandable suspicion. They are wondering 'Are you someone that can be trusted?' or 'What's your angle?', that sort of thing. You can't really separate yourself from your environment."

No one disputes that most, if not all, of the 18 have a history of activism. But the film raises concerns about the role police anti-terrorism measures can play in stifling the legitimate dissent that is the lifeblood of democracy.

Wright and King-Jones point out that what might be dubbed the "protest movement" has been sidelined since the 1970s when political dissent was commonplace.

"It's been really crushed in the last 10 or 20 years," says Wright, "and this was a further crunch."
In any case they are impatient with the notion of objectivity, a term commonly used by people who wish something had been slanted their way.

"[In the raid], 18 people were arrested, 60 houses smashed into, stuff turned totally upside down," says Wright. "The police got to present their point of view through the media and they called press conferences all the time. They have a whole full-time PR team at Police National HQ. They are very well-resourced to look after their own interests. And at the same time, you have these people who really have no voice."

So is their film a dispassionate or activist one?

"Both, really," says King-Jones. "It's about allowing the audience to hear and see something and take away from it what they want. They don't want to be banged over the head with anything. But you want to be able to take them by the hand and lead them somewhere and say: 'What do you think of that?'."
Unsurprisingly the pair are hoping for a good turnout at the screenings - and even a bit of noise. "It's an opportunity for people to take stock of where this country is going," says Wright, "and ask themselves whether we want this kind of country. Because if we don't rein it in soon we are going to be in too deep."

King-Jones: "I just hope that audiences will get a first-hand experience of the people who were targeted. If you are able to get a broader picture of where this has all come from, maybe you will go away from it being more aware of what's going on."

Operation 8: Deep In The Forest screens at the Paramount in Wellington tomorrow at 2.45pm and at Skycity Theatre in Auckland on Monday at 3pm and 8.15pm as part of the World Cinema Showcase.