Interesting piece put up on indymedia.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70236
For the creation of an autonomous space
12 point plan for a social/autonomous centre in Dublin.
1. A 'social' centre does not mean solely a place for socialising; the word stems from the 'movement of the social' or 'socialism' (in the broadest possible definition of the word) as opposed to the movement of capital, i.e. capitalism. Across Europe, which has a long established tradition of the social, these social centres are part of a much wider fabric of resistance and culture than the mere buildings in which they are housed.
2. An 'autonomous' centre means that the centre is distinct and independent of state and commerical reliances. It both acts independently of and in opposition to forces of oppression and mediocrity. Autonomous in that it seeks to exist beyond the realm of money and control.
3. Historically Ireland does not have the same tradition of the movement of the social that other European countries do. The pyschopolitical geography of the civil war split means that we live in a country with a consistent 75% vote for right-wing parties, who favour big business and capital. Therefore any attempts to create a centre must take this into account. We cannot simply mirror the experiences and methods of our neighbours; we must learn from them but also put them into play in a highly localised context.
4. With this in mind, support must be sought among all movements of the social here, including those who may not necessarily agree with one another, or the methods of a group attempting to set up a centre. Practically, this entails calling an assembly of all interested and related parties, including homeless support networks, community groups, residents associations, artists, musicians, bored teenagers, housing and tenant organisations, local representatives, squatters, building co-operatives, housing trusts, and so on. If a centre is to be a part of the movement of the social, then it must aim to encompass many different disparate elements within it. Reaching beyond existing circles of contact must be prioritised.
5. A centre must be autonomous from the movement of capital. In this city, this includes the members of the landlord/property-owning class. To this end, a centre should and must be located in a disused/unoccupied building. Every dog in the street knows that "rent money is dead money". Contributing money to landlords only perpetuates the misery of spiralling and unaffordable rents, property speculation, neglect and dereliction. Occupying empty and unused buildings is a strong, loud affirmation of rejection of these values.
6. At the proposed [4.] meeting, a group attempting to set up a centre should fully explain their intentions and reasons behind occupying a derelict building. This will facilitate discussion - and more than likely disagreement and dispute - within the various attendees. Nevertheless there is support among many against continued dereliction of buildings, particularly in inner city areas where large tracts of land and/or housing are left rot by speculators and developers, to the detriment of local communities. People not within the "activist" subculture may not neccesarily support "illegal" actions; this is where debate and discourse must occur to elaborate on why the law should be changed. Full minutes, notes, attendance etc should be taken at all meetings.
7. When a suitable building has been found, the location should only be known to those that intend to occupy it. A public demonstration/march in support of the occupation will be held, arriving at the building - which ideally should be occupied and secured (and cleaned!) several days in advance. This is where the culmination of collective efforts within the public meeting/consultation process will hopefully occur. Supporters or well-wishers may not want to personally co-occupy the building, but will lend support and advice when the occupation is made public.
8. Inevitably moves will be made against the occupiers to have them evicted. This is where the support of others will come in useful. Anyone who chooses to be involved in an occupation must know and be assured that there will be a strong legal and financial campaign behind them if/when they come before the courts, and they should not be afraid. Laws in other European countries that guarantee some rights to squatters have not simply been given over, they have been fought for. To this end, at some point there will have to be a collective legal effort which seeks to change or clarify existing Irish property laws.
9. At present, there is conflicting legislation in Irish law surrounding the occupation of derelict land or buildings. Pre-1921 legislation guarantees some legal rights, although this has been somewhat extinguished by the Trespass Act of 2002. It is possible also that the occupiers could be prosecuted under the Prohibition of Forceful Entry act, which relates to burglaries. Nevertheless, there exists a space in land law to determine the intention in the mind of the occupier. This is where the notes from the meetings [6.] should be produced as evidence to show that the group was acting with various political and social intentions, rather than a simple trespass for criminal purposes. Other people such as the supporters/well-wishers who may not be directly involved in an occupation could be called as witnesses to explain the reasons behind the occupation.
10. This is where the issue of "renting vs. occupation" is answered best. (Aside from [5.]) Rent on a small premises within the city canals that would facilitate the general purposes of a centre could run up to €2,000 euro a month, or €24,000 euro a year (excluding costs involved in upkeep, electricity, etc). This money will have to be raised somehow. This money could instead be used to mount a serious legal campaign/defence of those involved in occupying a derelict building. A lawyer should be contacted long in advance of an occupation and informed of the action. With this, the people involved in occupation will feel more secure and confident, and less likely to up and leave when a confrontation occurs.
11. When the centre is up and running there must be a collective effort on the part of everyone involved to make the centre as active and useful as possible. The more events that happen in the centre, the more the word will spread among the public that the centre exists and is 'open for business'. The centre must act in opposition to lethargy and apathy.
12. Repeat, repeat, repeat, until desired effect becomes real.
Rent money is boring. The grind of raising cash to fatten a landlords pocket becomes more miserable with every month. If money exists for rent then it should similarly exist for reinforcements needed to secure a disused potential building. Steel doors, petrol powered angle grinders, CCTV cameras and generators are infinitely more risky, exciting and glamarous than rent books, direct debits, deposits and leases. If a centre is to act as a space which actively encourages direct action then the centre -itself- must be a direct action.
http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=70236
For the creation of an autonomous space
12 point plan for a social/autonomous centre in Dublin.
1. A 'social' centre does not mean solely a place for socialising; the word stems from the 'movement of the social' or 'socialism' (in the broadest possible definition of the word) as opposed to the movement of capital, i.e. capitalism. Across Europe, which has a long established tradition of the social, these social centres are part of a much wider fabric of resistance and culture than the mere buildings in which they are housed.
2. An 'autonomous' centre means that the centre is distinct and independent of state and commerical reliances. It both acts independently of and in opposition to forces of oppression and mediocrity. Autonomous in that it seeks to exist beyond the realm of money and control.
3. Historically Ireland does not have the same tradition of the movement of the social that other European countries do. The pyschopolitical geography of the civil war split means that we live in a country with a consistent 75% vote for right-wing parties, who favour big business and capital. Therefore any attempts to create a centre must take this into account. We cannot simply mirror the experiences and methods of our neighbours; we must learn from them but also put them into play in a highly localised context.
4. With this in mind, support must be sought among all movements of the social here, including those who may not necessarily agree with one another, or the methods of a group attempting to set up a centre. Practically, this entails calling an assembly of all interested and related parties, including homeless support networks, community groups, residents associations, artists, musicians, bored teenagers, housing and tenant organisations, local representatives, squatters, building co-operatives, housing trusts, and so on. If a centre is to be a part of the movement of the social, then it must aim to encompass many different disparate elements within it. Reaching beyond existing circles of contact must be prioritised.
5. A centre must be autonomous from the movement of capital. In this city, this includes the members of the landlord/property-owning class. To this end, a centre should and must be located in a disused/unoccupied building. Every dog in the street knows that "rent money is dead money". Contributing money to landlords only perpetuates the misery of spiralling and unaffordable rents, property speculation, neglect and dereliction. Occupying empty and unused buildings is a strong, loud affirmation of rejection of these values.
6. At the proposed [4.] meeting, a group attempting to set up a centre should fully explain their intentions and reasons behind occupying a derelict building. This will facilitate discussion - and more than likely disagreement and dispute - within the various attendees. Nevertheless there is support among many against continued dereliction of buildings, particularly in inner city areas where large tracts of land and/or housing are left rot by speculators and developers, to the detriment of local communities. People not within the "activist" subculture may not neccesarily support "illegal" actions; this is where debate and discourse must occur to elaborate on why the law should be changed. Full minutes, notes, attendance etc should be taken at all meetings.
7. When a suitable building has been found, the location should only be known to those that intend to occupy it. A public demonstration/march in support of the occupation will be held, arriving at the building - which ideally should be occupied and secured (and cleaned!) several days in advance. This is where the culmination of collective efforts within the public meeting/consultation process will hopefully occur. Supporters or well-wishers may not want to personally co-occupy the building, but will lend support and advice when the occupation is made public.
8. Inevitably moves will be made against the occupiers to have them evicted. This is where the support of others will come in useful. Anyone who chooses to be involved in an occupation must know and be assured that there will be a strong legal and financial campaign behind them if/when they come before the courts, and they should not be afraid. Laws in other European countries that guarantee some rights to squatters have not simply been given over, they have been fought for. To this end, at some point there will have to be a collective legal effort which seeks to change or clarify existing Irish property laws.
9. At present, there is conflicting legislation in Irish law surrounding the occupation of derelict land or buildings. Pre-1921 legislation guarantees some legal rights, although this has been somewhat extinguished by the Trespass Act of 2002. It is possible also that the occupiers could be prosecuted under the Prohibition of Forceful Entry act, which relates to burglaries. Nevertheless, there exists a space in land law to determine the intention in the mind of the occupier. This is where the notes from the meetings [6.] should be produced as evidence to show that the group was acting with various political and social intentions, rather than a simple trespass for criminal purposes. Other people such as the supporters/well-wishers who may not be directly involved in an occupation could be called as witnesses to explain the reasons behind the occupation.
10. This is where the issue of "renting vs. occupation" is answered best. (Aside from [5.]) Rent on a small premises within the city canals that would facilitate the general purposes of a centre could run up to €2,000 euro a month, or €24,000 euro a year (excluding costs involved in upkeep, electricity, etc). This money will have to be raised somehow. This money could instead be used to mount a serious legal campaign/defence of those involved in occupying a derelict building. A lawyer should be contacted long in advance of an occupation and informed of the action. With this, the people involved in occupation will feel more secure and confident, and less likely to up and leave when a confrontation occurs.
11. When the centre is up and running there must be a collective effort on the part of everyone involved to make the centre as active and useful as possible. The more events that happen in the centre, the more the word will spread among the public that the centre exists and is 'open for business'. The centre must act in opposition to lethargy and apathy.
12. Repeat, repeat, repeat, until desired effect becomes real.
Rent money is boring. The grind of raising cash to fatten a landlords pocket becomes more miserable with every month. If money exists for rent then it should similarly exist for reinforcements needed to secure a disused potential building. Steel doors, petrol powered angle grinders, CCTV cameras and generators are infinitely more risky, exciting and glamarous than rent books, direct debits, deposits and leases. If a centre is to act as a space which actively encourages direct action then the centre -itself- must be a direct action.
