This site is an archived version of Indymedia prior to 5th November 2012. The current site is at

The Failure of Nonviolence (and why we must also struggle)


Drawing heavily on thinkers such as Ward Churchill and Errico Malatesta, this zine hopes to illustrate the bankruptcy of limiting struggle to purely nonviolent forms, how tenets of nonviolent thought has been detrimental to breaking with the prevailing order, and why struggle is needed to establish a peaceful society free of violence and exploitation.

For the full article click here

A print version for groups to use is also below (A4 tall collated to print pdf).

Failure_of_Nonviolence_print.pdf522.65 KB


I'm afraid I don't find this

I'm afraid I don't find this adds much to the debate about non-violence - it doesn't engage with radical non-violence and simply sets up false dichotomies. The implication is that you either accept the need for violence or are reduced to lobbying or "passive protest". Which is simplistic and limited.

It follows the Ward Churchill, and that other guy whose name I forget (author of "How non-violence protects the state" or something similar"), in first setting up obviously stupid arguments, which are dubbed "pacifist", then refuting them. But these arguments aren't sourced to pacifists, or anyone else for that matter, and appear to be derived from the sort of comments made by woolly-minded social democrats.

If you want to critique woolly-minded social democrats, go get 'em, but don't dub these people 'pacifists' - they aren't. Some may or may not take this label, but this is because they haven't done much thinking about non-violence and have an irrational fondness for the state.

They actual debate around non-violence, self-defence and the impact of violence on both victim and perpetrator is a complex and difficult one.

Condemning pacifism on the basis of the smarmy remarks of woolly-minded social democrats is easy, but not helpful. It's a bit like picking up some of the rabid, testosterone-fuelled comments on IndyMedia and claiming to have refuted anarchism by critiquing them.

It's also easy to complain that non-violent activism hasn't successfully created a lasting free society, but so far, violent activism hasn't either.




Sam Buchanan

Hi Sam. Have you read the

Hi Sam. Have you read the zine? Because I think it does add to debates around revolutionary praxis and does engage with radical nonviolence. It also mentions that violent activism isn't the answer either — but to not engage with ideas around armed resistance and struggle are detrimental to any movement for social change. It also mentions that we need a variety of forms in our toolbox for social change — I don't feel there is a false dichotomy being set up between lobbying and violent acts at all.

Also, it makes it clear that the zine is addressing 'dogmatic pacifists' not non violence in general (from the zine): THIS IS NOT a critique of nonviolence per se, but the pacifist position which limits all forms of social struggle to purely nonviolent ones."

"Condemning pacifism on the basis of the smarmy remarks of woolly-minded social democrats is easy, but not helpful."

In Christchurch, where I live, there is a strong Quaker/Christian influence on protest (I've lost count on how many candle vigils there's been). I've personally experienced self-confessed pacifists and quakers attack others for holding signs 'of violent nature'. So I feel that it is a subject worth exploring, especailly in the context of Christchurch.

This zine is simply a gathering of quotes and thoughts with regard to those experiences, and the Aims & Principles of Beyond Resistance (which includes a position on revolution and violence). It's not definitive, but meant to encourage discussion. Of course, violence for violence sake is harmful in more ways than one (I wrote a text on Guy Fawkes and terrorism around this time last year which deals with minority vs mass struggle), but so is defending a position of dogmatic pacifism.

Thanks for your comment,



Yup, I did read it. I kept

Yup, I did read it. I kept finding comments such as: "Pacifists tell us..." and "Pacifism seeks to..." and then a statement which doesn't come from any pacifist school of thought I've run across.

If your critique is aimed at some Quaker and Christian social democrats then you need to identify them as such, not dub them 'pacifists' - they are not pacifists. Most openly support state violence, sometimes with qualifications and misgivings, but they support it none the less. The problem with these people is not their pacifism, but their hypocrisy - demanding non-violence by activists while ignoring or supporting the violence of the authorities.

It's a shame about the Quakers as they have a genuinely radical history and philosophy, but in the most part - there are exceptions - they've dropped the radical activity that their philosophy would suggest in favour of mild criticism and good works.

And this is what I meant about false dichotomies:


"Our task, as revolutionaries, is to break the strangle hold pacifism has on the majority of the working

class and our forms of resistance. Lobbying simply isn’t enough."

Quite simply, pacifism doesn't have a stranglehold on the working class. Neither is lobbying a specifically pacifist tactic.

Very few people are pacifist. Again, the problem is that people have been taught to have a knee-jerk negative reaction to certain violent acts (largely criminalised acts), and to perceive other, equally violent acts, as somehow OK (state sanctioned violence or violence that matches with the revenge fantasies that are a the stock in trade of material produced as entertainment by large corporations - TV shows, films, books etc.).



Sorry mate but we may have to

You can't tell me you've never heard those arguments though, right? I think they are pretty spot on, regardless of the label we attribute to the person espousing them.


"Our task, as revolutionaries, is to break the strangle hold pacifism has on the majority of the working

class and our forms of resistance. Lobbying simply isn’t enough."

Quite simply, pacifism doesn't have a stranglehold on the working class. Neither is lobbying a specifically pacifist tactic.

I do think the majority of protest currently is through these forms (ie lobbying). We've recently been involved in ACC protests and Post Shop Closure resistance and the one thing everyone kept coming back to was to get 'Brendan Burns from Labour' on the case! So there definitly needs to be a challenge to those forms of dissent, with regard to direct action, building dual power and mass resistance.

Sorry mate but we may have to agree to disagree. I do believe the pacifist argument (in whatever form: anarchist, social democrat or Quaker) is hypocritical if those espousing them believes nonviolent resistance ALONE will change anything.


I'm not sure what it is you

I'm not sure what it is you think we disagree on. I'm not espousing pacifism, I'm just saying that what you are attacking isn't pacifism.

Lobbying is a social democratic/reformist tactic. Moral posturing - candle lit vigils and the like - seem to also come from a social democratic base, often with a bit of vague spirituality mixed in. Neither tactic recognises the realities of class and other expressions of power in today's world.

Most of the opponents of anarchism come from clear ideological positions (Whether those expressing opposition understand their own ideology or not - many social democrats think themselves to be "non-ideological" for example. Their politics just reflect the culture around them and they haven't developed their critical thinking to understand this) and we need to clearly name these ideologies and their consequences.

Labelling those that argue for inneffectual protest "pacifists" gives them a credibility they don't deserve and confuses, rather than clarifies, the political situation.


Sam Buchanan


Thanks for this. Though

Thanks for this. Though non-violent resistance can without a doubt be an useful tactic, I feel that its effectiveness has been exagerated and exploited by the ruling class in order to encourage resistance which doesn't actually threaten their authority but at the same time gives them reason to jabber on about how we live in a 'free society' because we tolerate activists occassionally holding banners and yelling their lungs out. One of the most laughable things I've seen was Obama talking about how Hamas ought to adopt non-violent resistance as a way of claiming the 'moral high-ground', when Obama himself controls the largest military this world has ever seen and a nuclear arsenal which could reduce the planet to a radioactive hell-hole. Anyway, when a global dictator advocates a certain tactic I think thats reason enough to be weary of it.


Thanks Olly for your

Thanks Olly for your insightful comment,


Thank YOU for bringing this

Thank YOU for bringing this up, I somewhat elluded to this in a video I posted on youtube yesterday

I think the contradiction of pacifism is that it necessarily entails anarchism, but that we are unlikely to achieve anarchism via pacifism.


Thanks for this Jared.

I agree with Sam B, while the piece brings up some interesting critiques of current political actions (full of petitions, marches and letter/ email writing) in NZ, it fails to engage with the thought and theory of radical non-violence.

Generally those who choose pacifism, which can be described as dogmatic adherence to nonviolence, do so within a certain belief system, spiritual outlook or culture, ie quakers, buddhists, Moriori etc. It is part of their identity. To say that pacificism is limiting to those who wish to engage in revoluntionary struggle is simple and fair criticism as long as one accepts that this logical argument exists within a certain worldview. To respond that violence to other living creatures is contrary to ones beliefs, and undermining of ones culture and identity, is a fair and reasonable counter-argument.

I believe the theory and practice of nonviolence has a significant contribution to make to our protest culture. The lack of revoluntionary activity is not about the limits of a dogmatic rejection of any form of violence. There is very little desire to engage in politically conscious action (violent or non-violent) at a mass level, full stop. The reasons for that have far more to do with our culture of apathy and individualism. I disagree that nonviolence contributes to this culture, it is a myth that nonviolence = inaction (or "non action"). At its best, non-violence is heart-centred, conscious, disciplined protest action, and has many advantages which are not acknowledged in this article. I am not convinced that nonviolence has failed.

I'd love to write more, and address specific statements in the text, but time is limited. I'm interested in continued discussion of non-violence and revolutionary struggle, so while I may disagree, I appreciate the opportunity to have this discussion,


Protest outside Ministry of Justice & Dom Post Friday 30

I will be protesting outside the Eagle Technologies building (Victoria/Dixon) in support of the Ministry of Justice staff but also to inform them that the building itself is a rightful target for protest action. 

I will then move up to the Dominion Post for approximately 3.30pm and challenge them to begin to expose the truth of what is going on in Wellington relative to the breach of democracy by the Wellington City Council on the predetermined as commercial (stakeholder) decision to put buses through Manners Mall.

The relativity to this string is that as far as I can see, in order for buses to turn left from Victoria into Dixon (the option elected as desired to statutorily compete with the MM option) the building would need to be demolished. In other countries protesters demolish buildings with car bombs, suicide bombers and rogue airplanes. I have no plan to blow up or damage the Eagle Technology building or hurt any employee, owner or tenant. I abhor the thought of physical violence to achieve one's political end.  

How is it though that non violent protest can be protected in New Zealand where the facts of protest are proved yet the bureaucracy and its administration employing its media do not allow those facts to be exposed, actively disengaging information in the public interest to protect instead private and commercial interests?

Hopefully a few folk on indymedia (and readers around the world) will grasp what it is I am writing, recognizing that the HUMAN BUS being driven up Manners Mall (Guy Fawkes Day midday) is non-violent protest dealing with a matter of critical importance.

Non violent protest is better than violent protest and needs to be protected. Yet eventually if those who have the responsibility to respond to the questions being leveled by the protesters use every means possible to protect their silence it is obvious that the public become frustrated. Violent protest then becomes the function of a public body rather than being a will or determination by any one protestor or activist. The public simply take over.


Benjamin Easton

LAOS New Zealand

I would say that the standard

I would say that the standard pacifist tactics - if Ghandi and Martin Luther King are included as pacifists - are strikes, boycotts and occupations. These are direct actions that attack the state or capitalists at the economic level - by cutting their profits and removing - at least temporarily - their control of their property. These tactics seem to me to be entirely congruent with anarchism.

If some anarchists want to advocate violent methods then yes, lets have the discussion, but for heavens sake not using the detached academic language that Ward Churchill relies on. Violence is ugly, hurtful and dehumanising. It's use presents a real organisational problem for anarchists. How do anarchists propose to use violence without creating resentment, anger and confusion that undermines any chance of a peaceful society? How do anarchists propose to use violence effectively and not create secrecy, elitism and authoritarianism? How does is proposed violence different from violence employed by often well-intentioned movements throughout history but has lead to the creation of a violent elite that has maintained itself through ongoing violence?

I think these questions are far more important to a discussion of violence than getting worked up over the semantics of some admittedly poorly expressed pacifist slogans.



I would say that the standard

I would say that the standard pacifist tactics - if Ghandi and Martin Luther King are included as pacifists - are strikes, boycotts and occupations. These are direct actions that attack the state or capitalists at the economic level - by cutting their profits and removing - at least temporarily - their control of their property. These tactics seem to me to be entirely congruent with anarchism.

Of course! I completely agree! No one is saying to stop direct action tactics, but to take into account there may be a time when more struggle is needed. This, to me , is the crux of the matter. All revolutionary moments have included the need for self-defence and unfortuantely, civil war. This does not mean we institutionalise violence as a tactic, but we recognise that the ruling class is not going to give up their privilege lightly.

How do anarchists propose to use violence without creating resentment, anger and confusion that undermines any chance of a peaceful society? How do anarchists propose to use violence effectively and not create secrecy, elitism and authoritarianism? How does is proposed violence different from violence employed by often well-intentioned movements throughout history but has lead to the creation of a violent elite that has maintained itself through ongoing violence?

I'm not advocating institutionalised violence, nor making it a tactic of choice. There is a vast difference to violence instigated by a community as a whole in times of hightened class conflict, to small and ineffective affinity groups or Black Blocs acting 'on behalf of'. As is there a vast difference between the politics of mass, social anarchism and guerilla groups (which is beyond the scope of this argument, but I would suggest reading 'You cant blow up a social relationship' at Zabalaza Books, or 'Anarchism, Anarchist Communism and Insurrectionism' at the anarchist writers website). What this zine is talking about is how limiting the range of possibilites when confronted with a moment of revolutionary change is detrimental.

Again, I don't feel the issue is institutionalising violence into movements for social change. But it is recognising that a revolution without some level of self-defence, or made with half measures, is unlikely to succeed.
Do you accept the example of Spanish militias and the workers in arms were liberatory (in the sense that a level of violent self-defence ws needed in order to liberate opressive statist and capitalist relations?). Or are you of the (pacifist) opinion that using the masters tools make you like the master? (An argument used by a lot of leninists is that revolutions are necessarily authoritarian, which is rubbish).

The idea that violent struggle cannot remain libertarian is a flawed one, without willing to engage with the context and unique conditions in which that struggle would take place. I have been accused of lumping all pacifist action into one, yet it seems you have lumped all violence struggle into one. As I noted earlier, a mass, social upheaval on anarchist terms cannot be compared to other forms of struggle, nor can it be prepared for or instigated by a minority 'in training'. But, again, I cannot accept institutionalised pacifism or pacifist arguments against the necessity of revolutionary violence, for the reasons posited above and in the zine.

Violence is ugly, hurtful and dehumanising.

I agree, that's why we must end the mass violence perpetuated by the state, through self-organised struggle in our workplaces and community, and building dual power which will be able to confront and break with the current order. What I'm saying is this break will not be a peaceful or easy one, and to think otherwise is detrimental. However, it will be a time of liberation, and a much needed time at that.

Until you can offer a realistic way of ending the exploitation of the majority of the world, without having to resort to confrontational struggle, then, as history as unfortunately shown, violence will be a necessity, and must be part of our strategy.


"There is a vast difference

"There is a vast difference to violence instigated by a community as a whole in times of hightened class conflict, to small and ineffective affinity groups or Black Blocs acting 'on behalf of'."

I strongly agree - unfortunately I've never been part of "a mass, social upheaval on anarchist terms" so I can't really say what its needs will be. I'm unwilling to tell other people they must be pacifist and equally unwilling to say they must use violence.

But I must say I find it hard to square your comments "I'm not advocating institutionalised violence, nor making it a tactic of choice" and "Until you can offer a realistic way of ending the exploitation of the majority of the world, without having to resort to confrontational struggle, then, as history as unfortunately shown, violence will be a necessity, and must be part of our strategy".

It does seem to me that the latter is institutionalising violence as part of anarchism. You appear to be saying "violence, as a part of a revolutionary strategy, is the default option unless somebody else can prove that non-violence will work" (obviously I can't prove this as I don't know what conditions will be in the future) - or am I reading this wrong?

And I'd add that most radical pacifist traditions do see a need for confrontational struggle.



While I can read the words

While I can read the words and comprehend their meaning, this is to say that I know the difference between violence and non violence, what I do not connect with is the processes used in order to achieve present aims.


I am not an anarchist. I am a royalist until the justification of that system can be established to be functioning for any impropriety. Additionally, I have to consider that a democratic capitalist system as it is operative is entitled protection until such time as it can be proved to be acting unlawfully (which is what I am about).


Thereafter for my own politics in New Zealand I would call myself a tribal democrat – seeking our national unification and cohesion as built and respected under the New Zealand Declaration of Independence 1835. But all of this is simply rhetoric against an acting and functional abuse by a commercial and corporate system that is abusing the populace. This is what I am proving in Court – and Court is surely the ultimate non violent remedy for political ill.


As I understand the Glorious Revolution in 1689 it was an effect of exposure that the political and legal system was abused and the catalyst to effect the revolution was a Court case. This is what I am stating is presently alive in New Zealand – but – those with the temperament to engage injustice haven’t considered what it is that is happening around them.


This is to say that the dialogue here is theoretical waiting for an event under which to engage a strategy. My protesting tomorrow is pretty simple really (please excuse my non-anarchist language).


“If there is no justice then we have nothing”


In my view this is the corner stone for an equivalent of anarchy. This means that the Justice workers going on strike are at the very heart of establishing an anarchic state. If the pay disputes go on and choke the system then the system will collapse and very quickly. My view is to support the workers to equitable pay for the solid work ordinary workers do and to support them to dig in ‘hard’ and get what they are due. If this happens and the Ministry of Justice does not yield to the PSA then, get ready for the collapse and the environment that ‘anarchists’ need is immediate. So I am barking at a building establishing a condition suitable to anarchists – yet – that does not seems to have registered here.


Secondly the next part of the process is in the Supreme Court where I am with the Manners Mall issue. Has no one registered what I am telling you? Council has acted unlawfully and I have exposed them. The lawyer for WCC in the recent Court of Appeal proceedings was embarrassed by the three justices dismissing Council’s defence. My complaint here as with Vince Siemer’s,, and Penny Bright’s is to identify for the public where the Court system is protecting the bureaucracy. Once this is proved then the argument is identified and everyone is able to protest by sheer numbers because everyone knows they are right. While none figure that the fundamental part of justice is actually being right – then there is no justification for any protest – because if it does not stack up in law then the law will always win.


I mean no disrespect in providing this information and qualify exactly what it is I am saying, suggesting that it is not time in New Zealand to be debating complex strategy and unification – it is time to be unified and to act.


This is not stating that the present actions by protesters are not effective – yet they cannot be proved to be right so half of the action is trying to convince others about its justification. If you have the justification that I have produced over nine long years then you have something by which to centre a revolution.



Benjamin Easton

LAOS New Zealand

I think there is a difference

I think there is a difference between institutionalised violence, and an awareness of historical examples and not limiting struggle to purely nonviolent forms. It's not like I know what will happen in a revolutionary situation either, but we can learn from the past, and unfortunately, past revolutions have been violent...


Middle class revolution - establishing rights

This article is about the revolution of 1688 led by William of Orange. For the revolution of 1868 in Spain, see Glorious Revolution (Spain).

The Glorious Revolution, also called the Revolution of 1688, was the overthrow of King James II of England (VII of Scotland and II of Ireland) in 1688 by a union of Parliamentarians with an invading army led by the Dutch stadtholder William III of Orange-Nassau (William of Orange) who, as a result, ascended the English throne as William III of England. The expression "Glorious Revolution" was first used by John Hampden in late 1689,[1] and is an expression that is still used by the Westminster Parliament.[2]

The Glorious Revolution is also occasionally termed the Bloodless Revolution, albeit inaccurately. In England there were two significant clashes between the two armies, and anti-Catholic riots in several towns.[3] There was also the Williamite War in Ireland and serious fighting in Scotland (notably the Battles of Killicrankie and the Dunkeld).[4] The revolution also led to the collapse of the Dominion of New England and the overthrow of Maryland's government.

The Revolution is closely tied in with the events of the War of the Grand Alliance on mainland Europe, and may be seen as the last successful invasion of England.[5] It can be argued that James's overthrow began modern English parliamentary democracy: never since has the monarch held absolute power, and the Bill of Rights has become one of the most important documents in the political history of Britain. The deposition of the Roman Catholic James II ended any chance of Catholicism becoming re-established in England, and also led to limited toleration for nonconformist Protestants — it would be some time before they had full political rights. For Catholics, however, it was disastrous both socially and politically. Catholics were denied the right to vote and sit in the Westminster Parliament for over 100 years afterwards. They were also denied commissions in the army and the monarch was forbidden to be Catholic or marry a Catholic, thus ensuring a Protestant succession.

The invasion ended all attempts by England, in the Anglo-Dutch Wars of the 17th century, to subdue the Dutch Republic by military force. However, the personal union, the common market and the co-operation between the English and Dutch navies shifted the dominance in world trade from the Republic to England (and then to the United Kingdom of Great Britain).

"and unfortunately, past

"and unfortunately, past revolutions have been violent..."

...and ultimately, unsuccessful.



AT this point I am unclear

AT this point I am unclear what you are advocating or why you see a pacifist position as a problem. If you are saying that at some revolutionary moment, there will be a mass struggle that, at that moment, must decide whether or not to use violence, and that at that moment all the organisational and psychological problems entailed in using violence will disappear, then I am confused about your whole approach to the issue.

At this moment in a mass, revolutionary struggle, I cannot see how the opinions of a handful of Christchurch quakers or their fellow travellers will count for much. It hardly seems worth worrying about. I don't know you, but from the zine it just looked like you where indulging in a bit of pacifist-baiting - which gets approval in some sections of the anarchist movement but gets my back up as it doesn't seem to add up to more than playing a more radical then thou game, especially as some pacifists I have known have been far more committed and far more willing to engage in struggle than most anarchist I have known (myself included, I have to admit). 

On the other hand you have said we have to prepare for violent struggle, and that violence "must be a part of our strategy" and I am wondering what this preparation entails?

I am still suprised you see non-violence and confrontational struggle as mutually exclusive. Ward Churchill had the same problem, and in his pamphlet he excluded "real pacifists" from his attack on pacifism (those who were committed and confrontational). This of course made his arguments easy, but if he was honest he would have retitled the pamphlet the Pathology of Liberalism. Presumably he couldn't let go of the alliteration. Personally I think the anarchist movement has a lot to learn about non-violence and pacifism and we should be engaging with, and where necessary, radicalising pacifists rather than ridiculing them (although in terms of leading by example, radical pacifists seem to be doing better than anarchists at the moment).

Ward Churchill was writing from a context of his support for Guevaran and Maoist guerilla struggles. I understand you don't support this approach, but at least Churchill had some historical examples of what he was advocating. They look pretty unconvincing these days ( as You Can't Blow up a Social Relationship points out), and I must say they were already looking pretty unconvincing in 1985 when Pacifism as Pathology first came out. But without these examples you are in danger of doing what Churchill accuses pacfists of doing - imagining a magical transformation of society, in your case, a moment where using violence ceases to be problematic and becomes liberational. What I need to hear is an explanation of what these "unique conditions" in a "moment" of revolutionary struggle are that means all the problems of violence are transcended. And I need to hear that in terms that acknowledge the realities of violence - people killing people and the hate and dehumanisation that entails. To some extent I think it is better to do this from a perspective that does lump all violence together. That is because so many people have romanticised revolutionary violence and created a dichotomy between revolutionary violence and authoritarian violence. There is an authoritarian element in all violence. Making a choice to kill someone is an authoritarian act, whatever the circumstances (I presume you don't think you are going to seek their agreement first). This raises real and significant problems that I don't think you are addressing by theorising unique circumstances in a moment of mass revolutionary struggle.

I don't think advocates of revolutionary violence have really dealt with the realities of violence in the way that some pacifist and feminist activists have.

I certainly don't think that the break with the current order will be easy or peaceful, and to repeat myself, neither I nor most pacifists have ever expected to be able to avoid a confrontational struggle. I would say that the process of building dual power might have to go a lot further than it did in, for example, 1930s Spain, if liberation is to have a chance. We are not dealing with conscripts with rifles. We are dealing with a technological, militarised elite. I can only imagine a liberatory struggle suceeding if this power is thoroughly compromised (by undermining its economic foundations, by infiltration, by widespread non-cooperation) before it gets a chance at violent confrontation. I would also say that in a moment of mass revolutionary struggle there might be all sorts of possibilities for non-violent confrontation that have simply not occured to us at the present, schooled as we are to associate change with violence.


I do have to admit that there

I do have to admit that there is a danger when one advocates the necessity of violence in that it can become a self-fulfilling prophesy. I am not a fortune-teller, maybe it is necessary, however I think everyone would agree that it is by far preferable to achieve as much as one possibly can without using violence.

One quick thought, would you guys consider 'cyber-terrorism' a form of violent struggle?


This is exact Joe but without identifiable cause - and additionally as Ollie grasps with a finite view on the constitution of violence. However, as I believe you point out you have to comprehend violence before you can talk about it either politically or rationally.

I also believe you do not exclude different perspectives engaging the phenomena of revolution and encourage this perspective as it directly relates to what I believe I am doing. The concept of struggle is built against fear and is perpetuated by the same. If you lose the fear and directly engage the oppression, then a necessary component of success has already been actualized.

Thereafter in my view the source of conflict must be as close to the principles of foundation that one can go in order to accommodate the element of surprise. This makes a good deal of the process consideration prior to effect. I hope my writing demonstrates this – albeit the effective or broader plan being a long way off employed. The frustration is the depth of the oppression requiring penetration if it has been left to calcify for many generations.

I repeat that in my view the PSA (MoJ) struggle is where to start because it immediately brings the argument to the platform of anarchy. Rules (as pointed out) must still be debated so why be frightened of which rule will survive. The rule of existence is surely the most vital and for that to be secured the direct oppression must be directly challenged.      

Dialogue (1) PSA: On introduction of support

Thank you again Pam,


The noise of traffic was loud and the batteries were low so the megaphone didn’t give me as much lift as usual although a woman came up to me complaining about noise pollution from down the street.


The point that I am most centered on that the Ministry has not taken into regard is that the Justice system is one step off anarchy. This gives your members all of the bargaining firepower that is required. You do not have the same limitations as other sectors where the sick will immediately lose their power or children cannot get to school. This means in my view that institutionally you are in a very strong position to hold out. Without justice we have nothing without justice we have anarchy.


A point I didn’t deal with as much because of the lack of effect with the clarity as to keep the protest short was that lawyers and judges (bigger lawyers) with their executives and other associates are exceptionally accomplished bullies. This means that staff is up against the elite when having the fairness dished out and it is really no surprise for me to hear that the disparity is so significant (with a natural depreciation of conditions) and a freeze is called for.


Personally I see this as a flag of challenge rather than any cause for comfort of protection for legal bullies.


However, and saying this, I have now run my protest and demonstrated my dedication to your cause. I take full ownership for chalking up the message in chalk outside your building and intend to keep it alive while you continue to struggle. Ross and the PSA are welcome to continue to use the megaphone.


Kind regards,

Benjamin Easton

LAOS New Zealand

Kia ora Benjamin


PSA welcomes your support for our Justice for Us campaign to achieve fair pay and a fair pay system for members working at the Ministry of Justice. 


In saying that, I must be very clear that our campaign is based on peaceful protesting and industrial action activities.   Our members in MoJ are in the business of upholding laws and we are not intending to lead them into any violent or unlawful activity.   


Please be advised, that your support of the Justice for us campaign (within the parameters of that campaign) is welcome, but we are not and will not be advocating violence of any description.



Pam Horncy

PSA Organiser

Kia ora Ross,


thank you for meeting with me on Tuesday to discuss my concerns in respect of the Ministry of Justice matters and in relation to the Eagle Technology building in which the Ministry of Justice is housed.   


As we discussed I am asking you to forward on my message to the appropriate authorities, officially informing them about my intention to protest. I am also using the link below, to provide you with information about what it is I have to say. I will be protesting for approximately 15 minutes from 3.00pm tomorrow.


If possible can you please send me any information that you believe will assist me to make informed comments about the PSA matter - as, as you are aware, you have my full support. I will deal with the PSA matter first and then bridge that to my own information.  


I would like to be able to contribute in an informed sense rather than dealing too much with general principles. 


I also intend to drop of a leaflet to each level tomorrow morning.




Benjamin Easton

LAOS New Zealand