against TAV Assembly has issued a statement following the attack which claimed the life of Ignacio Uria. I'm not at all agree with the terms under which it says:
The rest of the statement insists and again to attack the TAV without mentioning the attack more, which would seem to me very well if it was not what many expected from this statement is a critique of it. But it seems that the criticism is conspicuous by its absence.
As for the terms in which the attack is mentioned, I think intentionally soft, always used the word "death" instead of other more suitable as "murder" or "murder." I have no doubt they would not use that terminology to be an anti protestor TAV who had been killed by the police, for example.
Obviously I do not demand that the Assembly condemn ETA globally, not to condemn the use of violence with respect to the anti TAV (is ethically refuse to sabotage machinery works? how to act when the state does not hear the outcry?), or even to "condemn" the attack as required by the PP and the PSOE. Suffice it to say explicitly whether they favor or against the use of assassination as a tool to achieve the cessation of TAV. If yes, explain why, if not, reject it properly.
Of course, this does not mean I am in favor of the TGV (in fact I am against), to outlaw the Assembly against the TAV, criminal act against it, etc.. I think the opinion Assembly is just an opinion, and has as much right to express it as I disagree with it.
* Opposition to the HST should be as comprehensive, popular and participatory as possible. The right tools to achieve the cessation of this infrastructure are truthful information on the impacts of the project, civil disobedience, direct action and mass mobilization.seems disavow the killing as "right tool" to achieve the cessation of ART, but only implicitly. If so ... Why not explicitly disavows? So would not doubt that the murder is not within the concept of "direct action" referred to the Assembly.
* There is no violence comparable to that exercised by the states and capitalism on nature and human beings in their daily lives. Deaths caused by wars, pollution, industrial accidents, in car coffin wage poverty, unemployment, police, prisons, etc. Are just some of the forms of violence, "fuzzy" or not, we support a daily. The works of TAV and claimed the life of a Romanian worker Luko on 14 July.this is very true, but not the question to be addressed at this time, but has killed a man, a matter that is not comparable at all to others such as pollution or unemployment. Not even an accident. Such a string of examples of violence can only be aimed to minimize the violent event on which to rule Assembly, that is, the murder of Uriah.
* We demand that ETA is not involved in this conflict. This does not mean much less an endorsement of any kind to the political 'terrorism' of the English state but to extend the reflection on the legitimate means of struggle to stop the imposition of TAV and preserve the autonomy of the opposition movement.'s okay to make clear that such a requirement to ETA does not mean in any way an endorsement of the State, but I think at the same time should make equally clear whether they support or not the attack on ETA. Especially since over the statement did not become clear to all.
The rest of the statement insists and again to attack the TAV without mentioning the attack more, which would seem to me very well if it was not what many expected from this statement is a critique of it. But it seems that the criticism is conspicuous by its absence.
As for the terms in which the attack is mentioned, I think intentionally soft, always used the word "death" instead of other more suitable as "murder" or "murder." I have no doubt they would not use that terminology to be an anti protestor TAV who had been killed by the police, for example.
Obviously I do not demand that the Assembly condemn ETA globally, not to condemn the use of violence with respect to the anti TAV (is ethically refuse to sabotage machinery works? how to act when the state does not hear the outcry?), or even to "condemn" the attack as required by the PP and the PSOE. Suffice it to say explicitly whether they favor or against the use of assassination as a tool to achieve the cessation of TAV. If yes, explain why, if not, reject it properly.
Of course, this does not mean I am in favor of the TGV (in fact I am against), to outlaw the Assembly against the TAV, criminal act against it, etc.. I think the opinion Assembly is just an opinion, and has as much right to express it as I disagree with it.
