by Felice & Jack Cohen-Joppa

Things can become somewhat routine when you've done them for a long while. After almost 20 years of editing and publishing the Nuclear Resister, we realize that from time to time we may not always explain things thoroughly or clearly enough. We need to be careful, for instance, to avoid terminology or assumptions that veteran activists may be familiar with, but new readers likely are not. (We've only half-jokingly considered adding a glossary, defining not only "CD", but "nolo", "o.r.", "p.r.", "plowshares", "CIT", etc.)

Sometimes, as we are guided by the editorial policies that have evolved over the years, we may forget that newer readers are not aware of editorial decisions that were made long ago. We are grateful for recent correspondence with Joel Kilgour of the Duluth Catholic Worker, who pointed out why we need to be more mindful of the lack of clarity that can develop as a result.

Joel wrote of his concerns regarding our coverage of Steve Argue's arrest and consequent imprisonment for punching a police officer in the face to aid a mother being hurt, when a loud Santa Cruz, California, anti-war demonstration turned into a melee in May, 1999. Joel explained, "I agree that we, as a movement, need to be challenged continuously to examine both our own violence and our dogmatic adherence to pacifism (and passivity). Only through free exchange of information and ideas can we grow. In that, I wholeheartedly support coverage of Mr. Argue's action and subsequent arrest and imprisonment.

"What I found troubling about the article, however, was what I perceived as casual - almost dismissive - treatment of the issue of violence. Punching a police officer is not a casual occurrence - it lies in serious moral 'gray area', at best, which requires equally serious prayer and discernment. Maybe, as you say, Nuclear Resister (NR) readership is adept and sensitive enough to examine those issues independently and know that NR coverage of the arrest does not imply NR support for the tactic. And if NR readership is comprised solely of seasoned activists, I would agree.

"But here is where it becomes problematic for me: I distribute the Nuclear Resister not only to seasoned activists, but also to many folks who are just dipping their toes in the water of CD and anti-war radicalism. My hope is that the stories of women and men acting on their conscience (rather than just talking about it) will inspire, give hope and guidance, and engender an understanding of the implications of nonviolence today. Unfortunately, as wonderful as the last issue (#118) was, several of these new activists were turned off by what they saw as endorsement of - or at least tolerance for - violence, without enough explanation of the specific circumstances and no call to peaceful resolution of conflict on the part of the editors."

Personally, we agree that it is not a good idea or keeping within a nonviolent discipline to hit a police officer, or anyone, during a demonstration, or at any time. And for ourselves, we would not want anyone to punch a police officer at a demonstration we were attending, even with the good intention of stopping the police officer from harming us or someone else.

But as editors of the Nuclear Resister, we have long included support for all people who are imprisoned for their anti-war and anti-nuclear resistance, most, but not all of whom, act nonviolently... although it has been quite some time since we've discussed it in the pages of the newsletter.

The issue first came up for us in 1983, shortly after the Vancouver Five were charged with, among other things, the bombing of a Litton plant near Toronto which produced cruise missile components. Several people were injured in the blast. Our Resistance Reflections in issue #17 stated, "We recognize the violence of nuclearism and the systems which support it. We also recognize the seemingly 'quick solution' that a violent approach may seem to offer to the overwhelming violence of government and corporations. But for us, we can recognize only nonviolence as a sane, long-term strategy and as a way of life, as well.

"However, the nonviolent response to the perpetrators of actions like the Litton bombing is to support them as prisoners, should they be jailed or imprisoned. The prison environment is a distillation of the violence our society is based on, and a nonviolent response to all prisoners is to offer whatever hope for peace and justice we can."

This generally inclusive outlook has guided our coverage ever since. Frankly, out from under our editor's visor, we publish an essay or tell a story about an action in many issues that we are in some way critical of, and sometimes strongly disagree with - tactically, strategically, or for other reasons! And we think readers can appreciate that sharing information about how conscience moves people to act against war and destructive nuclear technologies - whether we agree with the particular action or not! - helps us all to think about and perhaps improve our own actions.

As time passes, and with thoughtful input from people like Joel, we find ourselves considering these and related issues in new ways, as well as revisiting the familiar questions. Certainly not all of our readers are pacifists, or even necessarily committed to nonviolence. In addition, people have quite different opinions on what is nonviolent and what is not. Do we need to publish a "disclaimer" (for lack of a better word) or clarification along with stories such as Steve Argue's? Where do we draw the line? What about Plowshares and other actions which involve property destruction that some people view as violent? What about coverage of movements or campaigns that commit to nonviolence for a particular action, or as part of a coalition effort, but otherwise use violent methods to achieve their goals?

We recognize the importance of reflecting on some of these questions as more new activists become involved in anti-war and anti-nuclear resistance. As always, we welcome your thoughts and comments.

Please click here for an essay on nonviolence from Héctor Rosario, a Vieques supporter who was arrested in New York with other protesters as they ran onto a baseball field with pro-Vieques signs and Puerto Rican flags.