“a) you could be more specific in your criticisms then “

Yes - I’ll be more specific as time and space permits.

“b) it may be possible to either c) develop a strategy whereby Jura becomes a properly anarchist collective/resource “

I doubt it. There have been numerous attempts in the past (as evidenced by the letter). The problem lies not just in Mark Maguire, but in Sid Parisi retaining all control over the bookshop. I know that certain people will accuse me here of (a) sabotage and (b) rumour-mongering, but this is my analys. Sid used Mark as a stalking-horse for some time, and he still does. Sid cannot bare criticism or even any outside influence that threatens to disturb the balance of the shop for the better.

Other people have pointed this out in the past, and they have been called loonies or forgotten. Sid has run the shop into the ground and avoided anyone getting involved, except on his terms. Now that people are involved, if it is not on Sid’s terms then, they are white-anted and isolated until they piss off. Jura won’t be an anarchist collective while Sid is around.

“or d) is exposed, to a much wider audience, as being something quite alien to this project…”

I am writing (against instructions from Jura members) something about the politics in effect there. However, I doubt that it will have any other effect except to further isolate me, and perhaps provide a sterling critique for the next generation to look back on once they have become disillusioned.

===

Dear Friends,

At the moment the Sydney anarchist community is in crisis due to a growing problem at Jura Bookshop. We feel that you should be informed of recent events as we are aware that you deal with Jura commercially, and that you are anarchists yourselves.

This statement was initially presented to ARI/Jura supporters, & now since their response has been to reject our analysis herein, we are issuing it to Jura’s suppliers/ customers / etc., and anarchists at large (eg. via submitting it as an open letter to anarchist media).

Many people feel that the shop should be boycotted because it is under the control of a small self-interested clique who alienate potential collective members and deny the community access to the shop’s resources. Not only do new people find it impossible to participate meaningfully or completely in the collective, but a number of ex-members will testify to being excluded from the collective through various means. For instance, although the shop calls its management a collective, during 1994 it operated without a collective meeting for five months. We gather there were very few meetings during 1995 (see Jura’s Minutes from its Communications Book.)

Anarchist processes & methods of organisation are absent or over-ruled. For instance, in spite of a minuted agreement at a meeting, that book orders must be approved by the collective before dispatch, Graham Purchase continued to make orders unilaterally. This is indicative of his personal style which is bullying and autocratic.

Then there is Mark McGuire, whose politics and inability/ refusal to communicate with people on an individual level make him anathema to the majority of Sydney @s. Communications have been received indicating that MM’s standing with his anarcho-syndicalist comrades in Melbourne and other cities is no better. Questions remain concerning his longstanding monopolisation of printing facilities connected with Jura.

Attempts have been made to put it to Sid Parissi and other ARI (Anarchist Resources Incorporated) members that: the Jura Books Collective (JBC) is being used as a vehicle for the projects of two individuals, that their relationship with the rest of the community is at best poor at worse hostile, and that ARI’s statements of non-hierarchical processes are being violated.

Note that ARI is an incorporated non-profit entity with the primary purpose of buying 110 Crystal St., Petersham as premises for Jura, an anarchist bookshop collective. They are effectively JBC’s landlords. The members of ARI had been - until very recently - GP, MM & Joanne D (all of the JBC), & only three others.

While even capitalist corporations conduct elections (of a sort), & provide annual reports to their constituencies, neither Jura nor ARI practice such minimal accountability. Nevertheless, ARI’s incorporation with the Corporate Affairs Commission (NSW) does involve a ‘constitution’ of Objects (’aims’) & Rules. There is no membership of ARI other than the 6 people who at any point of time are ARI. ARI would appear to be seriously flawed, both as a self-proclaimed anarchist ‘association’, operating without anarchist processes; & also as a supposedly community organisation, operating without its community (”(ARI) shall be comprised of known anarchists of long standing.” (Object 1)). Most such community organisations are expected - both as a legal requirement, & as accountability to their membership /community - to hold AGMs where they firstly present financial, secretarial & other reports; & then, in order to carry out the work of the organisation for the forthcoming year, conduct an election for office bearers.

While the ARI AGM (21/10/1995) went through the motions of the former procedure, there wasn’t even a pretense at the latter; the AGM Minutes confirm this.

Yet the Rules of ARI specify that 2 members shall be elected (by the existing members (!), at each AGM. Should there be no other nominations (!), the incumbents can be declared re-elected, for a maximum of 3 consecutive terms for any member (!). Not having elections is a clear breach of the Rules of incorporation, & it allows the existing members to maintain control; thus trampling upon both (i) the principles of the organisation, let alone of anarchism, & (ii) the trust of the supporters of Jura & ARI who have contributed financially & in other ways, to Jura’s existence over the last 18 years.

The Rules indicate which 2 of the 6 members were due to stand down (ie., who was up for re-election). We hereby call upon ARI to explain such breaches of its constitution, including the naming of the 2 relevant members. (We’ve just heard that MM has been replaced on ARI - the constitutionality of this is unclear - see above.)

Until very recently (published on 24 Jan 1996 on ausanet), Jura had no written ‘constitution’. However, these published ‘Aims & Principles’ are roughly equivalent to the previous unwritten constitution/rules. Just as over the last 2 or so years the practices of the Jura Books Collective have been almost the opposite of such aims/principles, what guarantee/proof/evidence is there that Jura has now changed & will practice these principles?

We are a loose affinity group that has taken as its aim the maintenance of pressure on ARI/Jura’s corrupt management group. Its concern is not a take over or an exercise in the acquisition/accumulation of resources. Indeed our critique has clearly stated from the outset that such abuses could be simply prevented in the establishment of a viable collective. We have been variously characterised as: a plot by Peter McGregor, a plot by Black Rose (the other anarchist bookshop in Sydney) and most recently a group that simply wants to physically injure MM. If only it was that simple ! Such claims will continue to be made no matter how obviously false. Bitchy personal exchanges allow Jura/ARI to conceal the real debate in the same way that capitalist social relationships are concealed in economics. In addition to this they perform a diversionary role with respect to the main game, which reached a point of no return in the events at the Jura OPEN DAY (9/12/1995).

We don’t have the time or space for a blow by blow account here. The objectives of the group that met at a local pub were varied. Some had been invited to observe, others wanted to lend moral support and most had agreed to distribute a collectively produced leaflet. This had not been copied in time for the Open Day and Dominic Doyle went off to do so, while the rest of the group walked up for Bernhard’s talk ( Open Day began with Bernhard Huber on - somewhat ironically - ‘Censorship, the Internet & the Ultra-right’.) Let us make clear from the outset that we do not view it as destructive for anarchists, or anyone for that matter, to raise genuine questions, even problems/criticisms at an open day. You might even say that a vigorous group would welcome this in good faith.

This was not the case with Jura however and even before the arrival of the belated leaflet, genuine questions had taken on a threatening aura for MM. This precipitated his attempt to manage questions and culminated in his bizarre attempt to strangle Peter McGregor. With the eventual arrival of the leaflet all pretensions of civility were dropped. Harry was knocked to the ground by GP, who then told everybody to get out; attempting to herd Harry and anyone else in front of him out of the shop by pushing and yelling “Everyone out!”. His disturbance was minor but led to increased tension with most people including members of the public, obviously checking out exits. Shortly after this MM emerged from behind the (Jura) shop counter with a three foot mattock handle. He moved toward the centre of the room with this raised over his right shoulder. MM was quickly disarmed and the mattock handle was removed from the building. These incidents are the most disturbing developments thus far and probably did the most damage in the eyes of the public and former supporters. It must be said however that the general mood was better following MM’s being disarmed. A violent and dangerous confrontation had been averted by the calm co-operative actions of those in the crowd with each other’s safety foremost in their minds. Four or more people closest to MM had co-operated in his being disarmed. These same individuals then demonstrated enormous restraint by making no further move toward MM. Heated verbal exchanges that occurred at this time have been used by Jura to characterise individuals as having had violent intentions from the outset. (*)

A number of changes are necessary to allow Jura to again function fully in the anarchist community. Firstly, both Mark and Graham should cease their involvement in the collective as they have become intolerable to work with. Besides this, their methods and ways of relating are anathema to anarchist principles and as such damage the credibility of the bookshop (and by extension, the community) inestimably. We would like to stress that our main goal is to see a functioning collective put in place, and not to effect a ‘takeover’ of the shop ourselves. It is immaterial to us who runs the shop, given that those people use collective processes and adhere to anarchist politics in their practice: needless to say (?) this would include mechanisms for resolving conflicts. After much discussion and concern within the community, a number of people have come forward and expressed commitment to running the shop effectively in the absence of Mark and Graham. These people are Harry, Dominic, Paul, Rose and Suzanne. Three of these people have already been members of the Jura collective and, as far as they were allowed to participate, are aware of the necessary shop processes. Alternatively, people could be called upon to nominate themselves; we would be willing to support a collective suggested by Jura/ARI, on the condition that it either excludes Mark and Graham, or at least suspends them until they provide evidence of changed behaviour/attitudes. Reforms of ARI are also justified/needed.

Finally we would like to point out that this letter is written independently of Black Rose, and is based on the experiences & observations of a diverse range of people. At the moment the tactic Jura is using to discredit the protests of the community has been to blame Peter individually, initially as a ‘lifestylist infiltrator’, or more recently as a ‘liar’, & ‘trotskyist’, or to characterise Black Rose as attempting to take control of the shop. On the contrary, we are a loosely affiliated group of anarchists who have come together over this issue.

While we welcome, in principle, the recent offer (25 January) by the Anarchist Media Institute (Melbourne) to act as a mediator of this dispute, we reiterate it is people within the Jura/ARI milieu who have previously refused to engage in debate/dialogue. Although ARI has now endorsed mediation, we have doubts about its viability, at this stage.

In conclusion, while there do seem to be attempts at reform within Jura/ARI, we nevertheless urge anarchists to boycott Jura until it embraces in deeds & practices the kind of anarchist processes we’ve discussed.

Over to you …

8th March 1996

(*) George Black ( as a non-aligned, overseas visitor/witness to the Open Day, George merely endorses the account given here of Open Day)

endorsed by the following people (Sydney-based unless otherwise indicated) -

Peter McGregor (ex-Jura)
Harry Robinson (ex-Jura)
Haron Moses (ex-Jura)
Jake Rance (ex-Jura)
Paul Walters (ex-Jura, Black Rose)
Dominic Doyle (ex-Jura, Black Rose)
Stuart Gilmour (Black Rose)
Rose Johnson (Black Rose)
Dan Andrews (Black Rose)
John Jacobs (catalyst media room)
Suzanne Fraser (catalyst)
Caroline Graham
Hans Post (NSW country)
Monique Potts
Val Plumwood (NSW - country)
Chuck
Darcy Waters
Leigh Kendall (founding member of ASF (Aust.) - Melbourne)
Wal Larkin (ex-ASF, IWW - NSW country)
Brenton O’Loughlin (ex-ASF, Angry People - Melbourne)
Ray Elbourne (IWW - NSW country)
Keith Aggro (Angry People)