Catherine Baker: Unterschied zwischen den Versionen

== Abolitionist Manifesto (1984) ==

The principles that founded the prison were philanthropic principles: the offender while incarcerated would think, to mend, to regenerate. The story was correct these painful taradiddles. We can build utopia on an absolute intellectual rigor, or imprisonment based on "hope it will be better after", that is to say on anything intelligible.

The word "rehabilitation" was a pretty entertaining speech but which amuses even the students of the National School of Prison Administration; it would at least time to find another, preferably also comical.

This is not the place to repeat the obvious: the incarceration makes crazy, makes you sick, makes hard and hungry. Nobody ever the challenge to say otherwise.

And no one wants to live in a world in which some people, taking the risk of locking up men make even more menacing than it is.

In most countries, criminologists, knowing that she is deeply harmful, trying more and more to avoid jail for "petty criminals"; it is certainly not by goodness of heart.

That is why these lines are not taking a position intellectual (what we think is not original) but a call to take concrete action to some for the abolition of prisons by inventing the means for our action .

We are not ladies of work; we do not believe in attacking us in prison, relieve the miseries of the world nor bestiality counteract the multitude by a "human" attitude.

We are not humanists. Man does not exist and we are all commonly scoundrels.

The prison is a symbol we mean a sign of recognition for people instinctively horrified of what we are condemned.

The prison secures the highest number too easily and causes each to dispose of any sense. The prison is essential to maintain the order because the order maintains the prison. That's why prison is indispensable to the maintenance of the prison.

Reformism is not, strictly speaking, silly, but impossible unless the prison punishes the less it responds to his vocation. Blame the prison to be too painful is blame a hospital too well treated.

There is an interesting question that we often arises from century to century: "You talk to suppress torture but what are you going to replace extort confessions useful to society? "This question is a good question. Our answers will never be good enough for such good question. Also humbly ask ourselves another formulation of the problem.

Meanwhile, we see no interest in prolonging the current situation is not a stopgap but worse.

We have much less to lose in open prisons as highways and everything to gain in serenity, in intelligence, desire to think about the many ways to live with others.

At best, we exclude the idea of ​​opinion (s) State (s); at worst, we affirm that the own public opinion is supposed to be manipulated by those to whom it benefits. As for us, we do not despair of seeing individuals to join our positions when they are made up their own minds on the issue.

Playing the game of an absurd split between guilty and innocent, justice, the practice of imprisonment, we saw two and allowed us to search our unit; strengthening the most rigid standards mental structures, it makes us mechanical agents. We do not tolerate the company under its judicial avatar, we cornered well with dementia and take pretext to exert "naturally" guardianship over us.

We do not like the convicts because they are convicts. The convicts are more friendly as like women, Jews, children or writers. But we love some people who also, among other features, to be writers or Jews or women or children or convicts.

We can not bear to be locked. Neither inside nor outside. We, the "innocent" have no more right to enter the taules that the prisoners out. Same thing for the censorship of our mail. We do not get most newspapers written inside the dungeon, they are forbidden us.

This is not "out of respect of human rights" that we refuse confinement. We do not suffer more we tie the dogs to the kennel or we put monkeys in a cage. This is not a parenthesis.

Nous nous opposons à toute institutionnalisation de la force, qu’elle vienne des caïds de tous ordres, des maffiosi, de la famille, du peuple, des mâles, de l’État, etc.

Nous ne reconnaissons à personne le droit ni de nous juger ni de juger nos actes.

Nous avons tous les droits.

Le Droit n’existe pas. Il est une vision pessimiste mais néanmoins fausse de ce que sont les rapports entre nous. Il est sans aucun intérêt d’interdire par exemple le viol, mais hautement intéressant au contraire d’imaginer comment éviter d’être violeur ou violé.

Le crime en soi n’existe pas ; si l’on prend au hasard un acte cauchemardesque et révoltant (comme un employeur qui me vole mon temps, ma vie), nous ne dirons pas qu’il faut éliminer le criminel mais que chacun a intérêt à renverser les choses, à comprendre ce qui se passe et à résister à la force. Rien ne s’oppose d’ailleurs à ce que des gens qui mutuellement s’apprécient ne réfléchissent ensemble aux moyens de se garder de toute atteinte à leur intégrité mentale ou physique.

Nous ne sommes pas complices des tribunaux qui condamnent en notre nom. Il s’agit là d’une usurpation qui est une fois de plus un coup d’État.

Cela ne saurait nous empêcher de garder chacun la possibilité d’un jugement ou d’une indignation mais la société n’a pas à se charger de nos indignations individuelles.

Nous ne sommes pas de gauche. Nous ne sommes pas davantage anarchistes, ni de droite, ni des parallélépipèdes, ni n’importe quoi de ce genre. Nous sommes opportunistes si cela nous semble utile. Nous savons ce que nous voulons.

Nous, abolitionnistes, sommes réalistes – si l’on veut bien par « réalistes » ne pas entendre « experts à avaler toutes les couleuvres du sordide aujourd’hui » – mais « décidés à réaliser nos idées ».

Catherine Baker