Bowden responds to criticism

54 replies [Last post]
Django's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 hours 4 min ago. Offline
Joined: 18-01-08

This got posted on Indymedia and the Wombles site a week or so ago. It seems to refer to the controversy around the Free John Bowden campaign a couple of years ago. Its a much better response than what I've seen from ABC so far, but it seems to conflate principled objections into support for the state - for instance, I don't think anyone supported the prison service penalising him on the basis of his association with ABC, which any anarchist would be concerned about, I think objections were more centred around the extremely misleading descriptions of his original crime which were being circulated by support groups (I happily read through a pamphlet of his I was given and flagged up the case with comrades before being made aware of the reality of what he actually did by others), and that the ABC had abandoned its founding remit.

I think the idea the people who think the nature of his crime is objectionable are "middle class" and so can never understand it is pretty bad.

Quote:
John Bowden: "Solidarity without prejudice"

from John Bowden, 9 January 2009:

"Real prisoner support, if it means anything, is about expressing the same instinct and supporting all those on the inside who are fighting the common enemy..."

John Bowden
Prison No. 6729,
HM Prison Glenochil,
King OMuir Road,
Tullibody,
Scotland FK10 3AD

Should a decision to politically support and build campaigns on behalf of particular prisoners who are engaged in a struggle against the prison system be wholly contingent upon the type of offence that preceded their imprisonment? Are some prisoners, no matter how politicised they've become whilst in prison and committed to the struggle, unworthy and undeserving of support because of lifestyles, forms of behaviour and criminal activity engaged in prior to arrest and imprisonment?

When it comes to supporting the struggle of “social” prisoners or those imprisoned for offences other than the overtly political (although it could be argued that in a capitalist system where the overwhelming majority of those sent to jail are inevitably from the poorest and most disadvantaged sections of society, all prisoners are in some way political) is it okay to support those who are originally convicted of, say, crimes against property but definitely not those jailed for crimes like murder, extortion and even rape? Are some prisoners on account of the crimes that put them in prison so irredeemably beyond the pale that absolutely nothing they subsequently do or become can ever qualify them as worthy of political support and solidarity? On this issue should we bury our differences with the police, judiciary and capitalist media and concur with their endlessly propagated view that some individuals convicted and sent to jail for seriously violent behaviour and the most “wicked acts” should be forever demonised, despised and permanently excluded from the human race?

Most prisoners in fact first enter jail for offences and forms of behaviour almost wholly associated with a life time experience of poverty, disadvantage and abuse, and are for the most part products and casualties of a grossly unequal and class ridden society. Obviously some people find their way into jail because of behaviour that was criminally entrepreneurial (the “career criminal”) and violently predatory, but these are a small minority of the overall prisoner population, and in the case of the “career criminal”, especially, the least likely to jeopardize early release by becoming politically active in prison or being associated with politically radical groups on the outside. The fact is that the prisoners more likely to become involved in confrontation and conflict with the prison system are those initially imprisoned for chaotically violent and rage-fuelled offences.

The revolutionary black American prisoner George Jackson once wrote in a letter to a friend - “I was captured and brought to prison when I was 18 years old because I couldn't adjust. The record that the state has compiled on my activities reads like a record of ten men. It labels me brigand, thief, burglar, hobo, drug addict, gunman, and murderer.” Jackson of course was transformed by his experience of imprisonment into a politically conscious prisoner leader and dedicated member of the Black Panther Party before being murdered by guards at San Quentin prison in 1971.

Amongst prisoners themselves the diversity of offences that initially landed them together in jail is quickly subsumed in a common experience of repression and collective adversity, and apart from the traditional hatred of serious sex offenders, prisoners are completely non-judgemental of one another's crimes and bond quickly in a common struggle for survival. Brotherhood and sisterhood amongst prisoners that organise and fight back is a real imperative and heart felt dynamic. Possibly in the enclosed world of prison populated by what ordinary society considers outlaws and law breakers and guarded over by individuals often prepared to brutalise, maim and occasionally murder in the interests of absolute control, “normal” values of behaviour and morality become inverted and corrupted; or maybe in conditions of extreme repression, struggle and survival, what originally put a person in jail matters nothing compared to the infinitely more important need to stick together and collectively resist a system that treats them all as something not fully human and undeserving of basic human rights.

Inevitably, there is conflict and division amongst prisoners that is often fostered by the guards for the purpose of exerting greater control, and some prisoners enter into a complicity with their jailers which creates a diffused suspicion hindering trust and solidarity, but during moments of collective and open rebellion the most natural and powerful tendency amongst prisoners is to band together and develop a new relationship, whoever and whatever they may have been during their moments of freedom.

Political activists on the outside who feel dubious about showing support for prisoners because of their original crime should maybe consider this: when prisoners revolt and fight back they are subjected to the cruelest and most vicious repression because isolated and stigmatised by the state and deionised by the media, conditioned and manipulated “public opinion” largely endorses the behaviour of the prison system when it brutalises prisoners back into line. Refusing to recognize and support the struggle of prisoners purely because of their pre-prison lives is tantamount to taking the side of the system against them and suggesting they get all they deserve; it also suggests ingrained middle class prejudice and fear of working class folk devils and tacit recognition of the legitimacy of the prison system.

That some prisoners, no matter how brutalised and brutalising they might have been before their imprisonment are radically changed as people by the experience of prison and sometimes embrace revolutionary politics to their very core is undoubtedly true. Yet to deny such prisoners any recognition and support when they politically fight back is also to deny the possibility of profound change in such people as a result of struggle. In fact, prison can and often is a crucible for radical change and a deep politicisation of some prisoners, and as in all areas and places of extreme oppression and resistance prisons by their very nature do produce revolutionaries and individuals who single-mindedly fight back. In the U.S. radical black groups, like the Black Panthers and Symbionese Liberation Army, were actively and theoretically guided by prisoners and ex-prisoners; George Jackson, Eldridge Cleaver, H. Rap Brown, Malcolm X etc., were all radicalised in prison following conviction for crimes such as robbery, rape, drug dealing, pimping and serious violence.

It is easy for those who have never experienced extreme poverty and discrimination, never experienced imprisonment and the inhuman brutalisation that takes place there, to be moral purists about the behaviour of people that have – it's a middle class inclination and attitude based on ignorance, arrogance and a distaste of the poor, and it pervades the characters of some individuals who claim to retain not a trace of their middle class conditioning, like some “anarchists”.

Obviously prison isn't full of nice people and there are individuals on both sides of the divide in jail, both guards and prisoners, who are so seriously de-humanised by the system. It's difficult to imagine them living safely amongst ordinary people in the community; although whether prison as an institution, the chief cause of their de-humanisation, should exist to constrain them is another issue. The issue here is that by its very context and the nature of the environment struggles that take place in prison will be represented, instigated and organised by people originally sent to jail for often the most destructive and violent forms of behaviour, that's what initially put them there and it's what the state uses to justify its brutalisation of them for ever afterwards. The organisers and leaders of most major uprisings in the U.K. during the 1960s, 70s and 80s were all people that the state and media described as “psychopaths”, “terrorists”, “gangsters” and “murders”, individuals that some strictly principled anarchists would no doubt deem unworthy of any expression of support and solidarity.

In prison, as in all places where repression is extremely sharp edged and survival hard, struggle is not an abstract concept or idea, it is a basic necessity of existence and an all important imperative of surviving with dignity and integrity, and it informs one's instincts about, above and beyond everything else, who the true enemy is.

Real prisoner support, if it means anything, is about expressing the same instinct and supporting all those on the inside who are fighting the common enemy.

John Bowden
Prison No. 6729,
HM Prison Glenochil,
King OMuir Road,
Tullibody,
Scotland FK10 3AD

Joined: 28-09-04
Quote:
Obviously prison isn't full of nice people and there are individuals on both sides of the divide in jail, both guards and prisoners, who are so seriously de-humanised by the system. It's difficult to imagine them living safely amongst ordinary people in the community...

Going on what I know of him, I'd say he shouldn't be "living...amongst ordinary people" until I heard otherwise.

The key issue, as Django says, has more to do with the disgusting euphemisms used by ABC members for his exceptionally violent and cold-blooded murder. It was wholly deceptive of them. Then the rather puerile, narcissistic behaviour of a few Libcom posters quickly made the issue about them and a couple of ABC members who clearly weren't interested in discussion (and behaved atrociously...and still haven't discussed their actions despite being approached by Solfed to justify them) when it should have been about Bowden really.

Maybe he has radicalised, it's certainly doing him no favours being involved with ABC.

weeler's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 21 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 25-09-05
Quote:
It is easy for those who have never experienced extreme poverty and discrimination, never experienced imprisonment and the inhuman brutalisation that takes place there, to be moral purists about the behaviour of people that have – it's a middle class inclination and attitude based on ignorance, arrogance and a distaste of the poor, and it pervades the characters of some individuals who claim to retain not a trace of their middle class conditioning, like some “anarchists”.

No, sorry, you chopped off somebody's head. Perhaps if you accepted how utterly disgusting, cowardly and abhorrent your crime was that might make a better starting point. Seems Mr Bowden has surrendered all agency to social forces, I don't think even the crudest Marxists on here would do that.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

Regardless of whether or not Bowden is rehabilitated (or however he wishes to word it) the issue is that support for him is way beyond the historical remit of the Anarchist Black Cross, which wasn't set up or envisaged to be some prison abolitionist group but an organisation for the supporting of anarchists in prison, not just anyone who 'resists prison regimes'. There is also the minor matter of how dishonestly the ABC campaigned for him.

The irony that seems lost on him is that a great many people fel that his crimes deserve punishment and retribution of some sort and as such they aren't prone to view his struggle against prison as a heoric act of political commitment but rather the actions of someone who is unwilling or unable to accept their time and take some responsibility for their actions

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
weeler wrote:
Quote:
It is easy for those who have never experienced extreme poverty and discrimination, never experienced imprisonment and the inhuman brutalisation that takes place there, to be moral purists about the behaviour of people that have – it's a middle class inclination and attitude based on ignorance, arrogance and a distaste of the poor, and it pervades the characters of some individuals who claim to retain not a trace of their middle class conditioning, like some “anarchists”.

No, sorry, you chopped off somebody's head. Perhaps if you accepted how utterly disgusting, cowardly and abhorrent your crime was that might make a better starting point. Seems Mr Bowden has surrendered all agency to social forces, I don't think even the crudest Marxists on here would do that.

Well exactly.

Thankfully, many millions of working class people who have experienced conditions and circumstances similar to and far worse than those of Bowden didn't end up butchering someone alive in their bathroom and most would find the suggestion that such backgrounds excuse or justify such barbarism sickening.

Django's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 hours 4 min ago. Offline
Joined: 18-01-08

I meant "the 'Hands off John Bowden'" campaign in the OP.

But yeah, I think the original dispute had much more to do with misleading information being circulated about him, and a strong reaction to what his actual crime was, a reaction that doesn't require "middle class conditioning".

It was pretty clear that he was being penalised for his involvement with ABC, and IIRC he had been cleared to do voluntary work with sensitive non-prisoners beforehand, showing he wasn't considered much of a risk by the prisons service. But the way the case was reported by his supporters was terrible, when I first heard about it I was under the impression that he'd killed someone in a pub fight, and was shocked when I got told what he'd done. And that raises perfectly legitimate questions about who ABC should be supporting, what it was set up for, and how it reflects on them and the anarchist movement. Its good that this article makes some attempt to deal with them, but ultimately its to claim that if you object to the ABC supporting people who comitted brutal, sadistic and premeditated murders, as opposed to the people it was set up to support, you are "middle class" and "prejudiced" against the poor(!)

But yeah, the way ABC dealt with the criticism, most of which was perfectly legitimate and sensible didn't help matters. And it wasn't justified even given the piss-taking.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

I note that Bowden makes metion of the historical tendency of prisoners to ostricise those convicted of sex crimes, he does this in a manner that suggests he support this or atleast has little problem with it?

By what reasoning does he reckon his barbaric crimes are any less deserving of ostricisation and outright societal rejection?

Joseph Kay's picture
User offline. Last seen 19 min 30 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
revol68 wrote:
Thankfully, many millions of working class people who have experienced conditions and circumstances similar to and far worse than those of Bowden didn't end up butchering someone alive in their bathroom and most would find the suggestion that such backgrounds excuse or justify such barbarism sickening.

of course there's a glaring contradiction in Bowden's argument - on the one hand his argument for prison abolition is based on it further dehumanising those dehumanised by capitalist society (which is essentially correct). then, when people object to such dehumanised acts as dismembering someone alive, he objects to them not being as dehumanised as him! as far as i'm aware, and as weeler points out he's never taken any responsibility for his actions and blamed them solely on society. this really doesn't help his arguments, since millions of working class people manage not to commit brutal, premeditated, "almost gratuitous" murders.

it was the dishonest misrepresentation of this which was most at issue. if they'd have just said 'john bowden committed a brutal crime, was politicised inside and is now being punished for it even though the state recognises he's no danger' i doubt there'd have been much fuss. instead we had a violent recidivist from the ABC going round threatening and assaulting people - ironically another 'innocent' man, with a track record of violence against comrades who takes no responsibility for his actions. and of course anyone who objects to such petty gangsterism is just 'middle class.' presumably if i cut someone up for no reason i qualify as a real prole.

raw
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 8-10-03

Just a thought. Would you support solidiers who were in Iraq or Afghanistan as victims of capitalism or active agents?

Joseph Kay's picture
User offline. Last seen 19 min 30 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
raw wrote:
Just a thought. Would you support solidiers who were in Iraq or Afghanistan as victims of capitalism or active agents?

why is it an either/or?

i mean clearly most squaddies are working class kids with few prospects. most of them manage not to commit war crimes, and most of those who do are doing things in which the chain of command is implicated. i wouldn't start excusing torture or extrajudicial execution of detainees on the grounds the perpetrators are working class though, and neither would i stiffle criticism of the military machine which makes such barbarism possible/inevitable.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
raw wrote:
Just a thought. Would you support solidiers who were in Iraq or Afghanistan as victims of capitalism or active agents?

Would I support soldiers who chopped up somone alive in bath of scalding water, no, no I certainly wouldn't.

Would I support soldiers who were convicted of raping civilians or of deliberately targetting civilians? Again, no.

Even by the standards of wars what Bowden did was barbaric.

Question for you, would you support Ian Huntley or Myra Hyndley if they took up prison resistance and strung together a woe is me narrative that appeals to daft leftists whilst at the same time allows the shirking of all personal responsibility?

Demogorgon303's picture
User offline. Last seen 2 days 22 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 5-07-05

Soldiers are also put through a great deal of carefully crafted psychological training, deliberately designed to enable them to kill, are part of a highly sophisticated hierarchical organisation, the main design feature of which is to overide any individual doubts and moral concerns.

Refused's picture
User offline. Last seen 14 hours 23 min ago. Offline
Joined: 28-09-04
weeler wrote:
No, sorry, you chopped off somebody's head. Perhaps if you accepted how utterly disgusting, cowardly and abhorrent your crime was that might make a better starting point.

This is pretty much how I feel about it.

User offline. Last seen 4 hours 58 min ago. Offline
Joined: 3-05-07

Oh no, not again, moderators. You know what will happen as on the two previous occasions. Better for us (and for him) that we don't give him or his crime any more publicity.

Joined: 28-09-04
revol68 wrote:
The irony that seems lost on him is that a great many people fel that his crimes deserve punishment and retribution of some sort and as such they aren't prone to view his struggle against prison as a heoric act of political commitment but rather the actions of someone who is unwilling or unable to accept their time and take some responsibility for their actions

That's a load of shite and you said the same last time round, only claiming that your thirst for revenge was cos you were "so working class" or something. laugh out loud

Looks to me like the guy has radicalised, and of course he didn't commit the crime in a vacuum, although trying to use his upbringing and background as an excuse clearly doesn't wash.

I forget though, is/was the ABC arguing that his continued detention is due to his association with them? If so, why the fuck is he still in touch with them?

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
Alan wrote:
That's a load of shite and you said the same last time round, only claiming that your thirst for revenge was cos you were "so working class" or something.

Perhaps you could explain coherently what point you are attempting to make here. I fail to see what is full of shit, like I said the fact is most people working class or not wouldn't be too moved to view his 'struggle' as the heroic resistance of the human spirit in the face of the soul destroying prison regime. They are far more likely to see it as the actions of somene who has never accepted responsibility for his crimes and simply can't serve his time.

The rest of your point about revenge because I'm so working class is just utter nonsense, and furthermore even if true doesn't exactly contradict my post above.

raw
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Alan wrote:
I forget though, is/was the ABC arguing that his continued detention is due to his association with them? If so, why the fuck is he still in touch with them?

Maybe he has convictions (excuse the pun).

Plus John Bowden did write something about what he did and what he felt caused it.

Anyhow I'm not going there again, good bye :-0)

raw
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 8-10-03
Joseph K. wrote:
raw wrote:
Just a thought. Would you support solidiers who were in Iraq or Afghanistan as victims of capitalism or active agents?

why is it an either/or?

i mean clearly most squaddies are working class kids with few prospects. most of them manage not to commit war crimes, and most of those who do are doing things in which the chain of command is implicated. i wouldn't start excusing torture or extrajudicial execution of detainees on the grounds the perpetrators are working class though, and neither would i stiffle criticism of the military machine which makes such barbarism possible/inevitable.

Equally millions of other working class kids DON'T join the army.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
raw wrote:
Alan wrote:
I forget though, is/was the ABC arguing that his continued detention is due to his association with them? If so, why the fuck is he still in touch with them?

Maybe he has convictions (excuse the pun).

Plus John Bowden did write something about what he did and what he felt caused it.

Anyhow I'm not going there again, good bye :-0)

Here's a clue, him!

What is it with this pathetic attempt to externalise his crime. It's perfectly possible to try and understand the circumstances and context that make you what you are and yet also take responsibility for your actions, especially actions so barbaric as his.

Joined: 28-09-04
raw wrote:
Alan wrote:
I forget though, is/was the ABC arguing that his continued detention is due to his association with them? If so, why the fuck is he still in touch with them?

Maybe he has convictions (excuse the pun).

Wouldn't he rather be practising them on the outside world then? neutral

Joseph Kay's picture
User offline. Last seen 19 min 30 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 14-03-06
raw wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
raw wrote:
Just a thought. Would you support solidiers who were in Iraq or Afghanistan as victims of capitalism or active agents?

why is it an either/or?

i mean clearly most squaddies are working class kids with few prospects. most of them manage not to commit war crimes, and most of those who do are doing things in which the chain of command is implicated. i wouldn't start excusing torture or extrajudicial execution of detainees on the grounds the perpetrators are working class though, and neither would i stiffle criticism of the military machine which makes such barbarism possible/inevitable.

Equally millions of other working class kids DON'T join the army.

are you trying to make a point? because it's really obscure... like i say i don't absolve war criminals of responsibility based on their class background, nor do i judge their act in a vacuum. you're positing an either/or, and offering no argument for it.

Rob Ray's picture
User offline. Last seen 1 hour 57 min ago. Offline
Joined: 6-11-03

iirc they largely won the case about him being held for his politics, then he absconded and was recaptured.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
raw wrote:
Joseph K. wrote:
raw wrote:
Just a thought. Would you support solidiers who were in Iraq or Afghanistan as victims of capitalism or active agents?

why is it an either/or?

i mean clearly most squaddies are working class kids with few prospects. most of them manage not to commit war crimes, and most of those who do are doing things in which the chain of command is implicated. i wouldn't start excusing torture or extrajudicial execution of detainees on the grounds the perpetrators are working class though, and neither would i stiffle criticism of the military machine which makes such barbarism possible/inevitable.

Equally millions of other working class kids DON'T join the army.

I don't think you quite get it.

There are certain acts of barbarism that go beyond the pale of all ethics, that transcend political positions and are simply self evidently repulsive to everyone of sane mind.This is why even in the heat of battle there is some nods to basic ethics ie the burying of dead, the treatment of enemy combatants. Now as much as all this is something of window dressing that in no way justfies the brutality of war, it does however mark out something of a line in the sand as to how far morality can sink.

Butchering somone alive in boiling water is such an action that puts the perpetrator beyond all ethical pales.

raw
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 8-10-03

Is there political arguments to support people or groups of people like soldiers who have engaged in brutality or involved (like the British Army) in brutal acts.

Some people would support soldiers returning from war precisely by absolving their own personal responsibiltiy (blame the generals..etc).

I am merely attempting to deconstruct the arguments and show parralels as it brings up questions on how long can some one pay the price for these acts - John bowden included.

its not a perfect world if you haven't noticed

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

Put it this way do you think anyone would absolve a soldier if it came out they'd chopped someone up alive in a tub of boiling water? Do you in anyway think people would have time for a 'chain of command' defence in such a situation?

No, of course not.

If you can't see the difference between deaths in a war, accidently shooting a civilian etc and actually carving up someone alive you need your head checked.

raw
User offline. Last seen 7 weeks 3 days ago. Offline
Joined: 8-10-03

The result is the same though, innit?

Would you support Bowden if he shot someone or poisoned them?

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04
raw wrote:
The result is the same though, innit?

Would you support Bowden if he shot someone or poisoned them?

Would depend on context.

But the fact is that Bowden was the actual ring leader of the action and had no rational motive or reason for the act, something that makes a bit of difference too. it really was barbarism for the sake of barbarism.

revol68's picture
User offline. Last seen 3 days 12 hours ago. Offline
Joined: 23-02-04

As for the result being the same, well what a chilishly crude argument, one thankfully that even the bourgeois justice system realises as a crock of shit.

Django's picture
User offline. Last seen 6 hours 4 min ago. Offline
Joined: 18-01-08
Rob Ray wrote:
iirc they largely won the case about him being held for his politics, then he absconded and was recaptured.

Yeah, the argument that he was involved with an anarchist "militia" was patently bullshit and political victimisation.

For some reason he decided to abscond from his open prison despite potentially seeing parole later in the month, and was recaptured.

The Daily Record wrote:
And the decision by the killer - who was given a life sentence in 1982 - to go on the run has puzzled prison insiders, as he was due to go before a parole hearing which could have won him freedom in just a few days.

Ian McGregor, governor of Noranside Prison, near Brechin, Angus, is understood to have allowed the shopping trip as the drugs test was not totally conclusive.

A prison source said: "Bowden had asked for a second test. Even if that proved positive it wouldn't necessarily have affected his parole hearing, but absconding will. "

Bowden's suitability for parole was reviewed a year ago because of his contact with the group Anarchist Black Cross - who campaign for the abolition of the prison system.

no1
User offline. Last seen 2 hours 51 min ago. Offline
Joined: 3-12-07

Personally I have some sympathy for Bowden although his apparent inability to take personal responsibility for the murder makes me doubt that he is a reformed character. In the Schnews interview he pretty much glosses over the murder but describes it as an inevitable response to the dehumanisation and brutal institutionalisation in prison.
The thing is, if he perceives his extreme violence as a response to his victimisation by society, wouldn't it be entirely logical for him to resort to the same sort of mad violence again if on release he experiences similar victimisation? And I don't think there's a chance of being treated fairly after release.

User offline. Last seen 19 min 39 sec ago. Offline
Joined: 9-02-06

He committed a cold-blooded murder and that's something that's hard to come back from. The fact that he doesn't want to take responsibility for what he has done does not necessarily mean he shows no remorse. The guilt involved with doing something like that might be hard to bear without doing so. But if this was written by him then it does seem to suggest a failure to understand the issues at hand. Rather than accepting that his crime should not have been downplayed in the way that it was he chooses to continue to argue that it wasn't his fault. I don't know if he's rehabilitated or not, but the apparent lack of remorse is a problem.

Incidentally I notcied this in here:

Quote:
In the U.S. radical black groups, like the Black Panthers and Symbionese Liberation Army, were actively and theoretically guided by prisoners and ex-prisoners

If he is offering the SLA as a positive example of an organisation then that is fairly worrying.

Quote:
Amongst prisoners themselves the diversity of offences that initially landed them together in jail is quickly subsumed in a common experience of repression and collective adversity, and apart from the traditional hatred of serious sex offenders, prisoners are completely non-judgemental of one another's crimes and bond quickly in a common struggle for survival. Brotherhood and sisterhood amongst prisoners that organise and fight back is a real imperative and heart felt dynamic

As mentioned above, this seems to condone the treatment of sex offenders, which is odd when the article itself argues against the idea that prisoners should be considered as "irredeemably beyond the pale" for having committed certain crimes. It also seems to present an extremely rosy picture of life inside prison.

The original argument on here did not start over whether John Bowden was politicised or not, but the attempts to politically justify the whole business have reflected very poorly on the ABC and people claiming to speak for it.