From: aforum@moose.uvm.edu (autonome forum)
Subject: interview with Brent Taylor, former Direct Action guerrilla
Organization: University of Vermont -- Division of EMBA Computer Facility
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 01:43:41 GMT

subject: interview with Brent Taylor, former Direct Action guerrilla
posted by: autonome forum
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interview With Canadian Ex-Political Prisoner Brent Taylor

     In Canada, in the early 80's, a number of armed actions were
carried out by two groups: Direct Action and the Wimmin's Fire
Brigade. These actions included the bombing of hydro-electric sub-
station in the Canadian province of British Columbia, the bombing
of the Litton plant (which produced components for Cruise missiles)
in Toronto and the firebombing of stores that sold violent
pornographic videos. On January 20, 1983, five people - Brent
Taylor, Gerry Hannah, Ann Hansen, Julie Belmas and Doug Stewart -
were captured by police in British Columbia. They were
subsequently charged with the various bombings and each received
sentences ranging from 6 years to life. During the course of one
of the trials, Julie Belmas turned on her comrades and gave
evidence to the state which resulted in longer sentences for Brent
and Ann. Since that time all of them have been released from
prison. The following interview with Brent Taylor was done on CIUT,
a progressive radio station in Toronto, and was transcribed by Arm
The Spirit.


To start with, where are the members of Direct Action now, 10 years
later?

     I guess I should speak, to begin with, about my own situation.
I live in Kingston, Ontario and I work in an AIDS prevention needle
exchange called the Keep Six needle exchange. Keep Six means to
look out for danger, so we're working with people who shoot up
drugs, telling them that they've got their health to watch out for,
with AIDS and with the other problems that can occur with injection
drug use. That's my full time work. As well as that there is also
AIDS prevention work that we do in the prison, developing peer
health counselling on the inside.
     One of the other members of Direct Action, Ann Hansen, also
lives in Kingston, and she has been out for about a year or a year
and a half, and she now has her own business making cabinets and
woodworking, and that is starting to get off the ground. Doug
Stewart lives in Vancouver and he's going back to university. He
is also an electrician - that's the job he has been working at
since his release -  about 4 years ago I guess. Gerry Hannah also
lives in Vancouver and he is trying to do a lot of music. Between
jobs he likes to make music and he is quite happy with the sounds
they are making at this time, and he hopes to get out a CD. Julie
Belmas also lives in Vancouver, and is apparently doing quite well
in some filmmaking work.

When everybody was arrested and you were on trial, you made the
statement that you were a human being and not a sterotype. And I
think the people, the media and the public, got a very particular
picture of you as the ideological leader of Direct Action. You were
branded a "committed terrorist". Who was the real person behind
that, and how has that changed over a period of 10 years?

     Well, obviously the perogatives that are attached to the term
"terrorist", and the way it is used in society, are perogatives
that I reject; in terms of who are called terrorists. And
certainly, for myself, the concept of sort of random violence and
of a blood-thirsty human being, certainly I reject that for myself.
And that is why I said that I am not a sterotype and do not fit
that characterization. And I think that it is very important to
understand that, again, for myself, I had a history and a
development in terms of the politics that were expressed in terms
of Direct Action; actions and activities that were thought out and
well intentioned and well-meaning, and certainly were from a regard
for life and not a disregard for life. 
     In terms of 10 years later these basic motivations and cares
and concerns remain.

Going back to the Litton bombing itself. It was probably the action
that had the most impact here, in the East [Canada - ed.] anyways.
It has some obvious immediate effects - Litton lost the contract
to produce the Cruise missile guidance system a couple of years
later, and they mentioned that nobody else was bombed and that that
was the reason as to why they lost the contract. But every action
has a lot of effects beyond its immediate results. What do you
think the effects of Litton and of the Direct Action experience
were on Canada?

     I think there was sort of a sobering sense to some extent, in
terms of what exactly guerrilla type activities really entail for
the reality of the people's lives who carry out these sorts of
actions, which in that instance was myself and the other people in
Direct Action. The reality of imprisonment for people who were
watching the situation and who empathized with the struggle and
were involved in the struggle themselves, that reality of
imprisonment had a sobering effect. It made it all the more real
that sometimes when we say we should just blow something up or get
involved in heavier types of activity, people really see that
despite the validity of that kind of sentiment, there is a whole
other reality to it, a reality that impacts upon people in terms
of what can happen to them.
     Also, on the other side, beyond the subjective impact it has
on the actors in that process, is the political impact it has on
a society. The extent to which the Litton bombing was a very
impacting event for a number of people both shows that there is an
effect politically that can result from that type of activity in
terms of a politicization process, as well as the direct impact it
happened to have on Litton itself, in terms of the corporation
deciding they might want to do their bomb-making business
elsewhere.
     But I think for a lot of people it had a sense of encouraging
people that there is a struggle that we participate in, there is
a context of activity which we can involve ourselves in; not simply
the Direct Action type of activity, but just political engagement
itself, to go up against the state and to struggle for justice. 
And it seems that a lot of people who came into their political
thinking during that time were influenced by the wider political
context of that time, which included Direct Action, and therefore
were exposed, in a sense, to a greater variety of potential kinds
of ideas about what forms of political struggle are possible.

Earlier on you were discussing the fact that you had a long history
of activism. And that points to a development, a conscious
political development, to the point of carrying out these kinds of
actions. But I remember back in 84/85, Gerry Hannah, who was in
prison at the time, said in an interview that he became a guerrilla
out of frustration, and you didn't like it when he said that. What
does that mean to you?

     I remember reading the interview, and I laughed when I read
that because what he was actually referring to was numerous
discussions that we'd had prior to being arrested, when we were
still doing things. And he would say something to the effect that
"There's nothing else to do but take the attack to these assholes
who are running the show" and things like that. And I would always
say that there is a more deliberate and purposeful sense to
introducing this form of struggle, besides simply the direct effect
it can have it terms of sabotage - which can be very useful - but,
that as well, it is part of a continuum of a political process. It
is not something that just comes from our hatred or our outrage in
some kind of frustrated sense like "I just want to change the world
this very minute and this seems like the most dramatic thing that
I can do." But it is very much a long term struggle in which
different tactics and strategies are required. There is a
developmental process to the whole struggle, and strategically, if
one has an analysis about the state, and about the ultimate
requirements of a people's struggle, in many different forms, then
to develop the learning and the engagement in different forms of
struggle is a long ongoing process. And it is from that motivation
that I saw the purposefulness of what we were doing, and the reason
to attempt to introduce that form of struggle and that type of
thinking. So, it is not just out of a personal sense of outrage,
like, "Hey, what the heck else can I do".

Was it something which you saw have an effect beyond just what
Direct Action was doing; actually politicizing a broader movement
and moving it in a certain direction?

     Yes, most definitely. The idea of conflict in the world is
something that obviously we do not desire, what we want is a nice
peaceful world where people are cooperating. But we are presented
with a situation where there is entrenched conflict and
contradiciton and exploitation and people who are exploited, etc.
And so how do we deal with that reality in a way in which it can
hopefully be changed? Because of the entrechment of the powerful,
of the ruling class, from a political analysis which I certainly
had, there is unfortunately no way to avoid conflict at some point;
direct conflict. And that reality comes from the entrenchment and
intransigence of the powerful. And when one sees that, one begins
to deal with that problem in the way that reality requires. So, my
thought was not that the ends justify the means, but that the
reality of a situation necessitates certain means. Given that, we
must understand that necesity and begin to develop ways,
experimentally almost, to learn how to prepare ourselves and to,
in a sense, arm ourselves, but not just with arms, but with the
ability to confront a problem and overcome it.

After the Litton bombing, Direct Action issued a communique in
which there was an apology for the people hurt, but which also
stated that there were few regrets. That seemed like a sobering
thing as well, seeing that that happened.

     Yes, and I still do feel that it was very unfortunate, first
and foremost because people were hurt that certainly were not meant
to be hurt, and in my opinion did not deserve to be hurt. So that
is the principal regret, in terms of injuries.
     Clearly, to be somewhat political as well, it was not desired
that anybody be hurt, and that was not a good thing in terms of
people legitimately criticizing that form of tactic, because people
can be hurt. I think it is very important to understand that people
can be hurt, but again, that is not to say that therefore that form
of activity is not in the realm of possibility. 
     It is undesired that there is a world of exploitation and
repression, and if it wasn't for that people wouldn't be being hurt
all the time. And it is not to belittle at all the responsibility
of radicals and revolutionaries. In an attempt to try and change
things we can't flippantly turn people into statistics.
     But on the other hand, to actually take to heart the sort of
horror, in a certain sense, of what the situation is that we are
actually in, and try to do everything that we can to overcome it
and not to allow it to remain in a state where people are being
hurt, unfortunately we will probably hurt people in the process of
doing what is needed to change things.
     And 'needed' isn't an ultimate. It's not like a 'should', in
the sense that you don't need to do the actions that we did. It is
perfectly fine and legitimate for someone to say, "In my vision of
how to struggle to change things these actions are not acceptable."
But it is an analysis, and that's where I think the question should
be at, in terms of analysis, not sort of the ultimate morality
[this part was unclear - ed.] of about different activities. And
I think if we really look at the situation and the political line-
up and the tools of repression and oppression that the state
employs, and keep it on that analytical level, and the process of
the development of struggle in terms of propaganda, and armed
propaganda, then it's a question of whether such activities have
a place, a needed place, in a process of change.

What you are talking about seems like pragmatism; a sense of
"the reality is this and we have to deal with the reality as it is
and do our best with it". A couple of years ago you said in a
interview that you felt you weren't ruled by the pragmatism of
warfare anymore. How do you feel about that?

     It's interesting actually, because there is always a context
of when you say something. And what I said in that particular
interview, the particular context was basically where I was at in
terms of the process of moving out of prison and the process of
engagement in discussion with my keepers, and their interest in
trying to understand where my head was at. But at the same time it
was also a process of my own inner growth and learning and thinking
about things and certainly I had, I would say, deepened in my sense
of the depths of the problems, of the conditions of the world; of
humanity, in terms of how deeply rooted in culture and just the
lived reality of peoples' thoughts about the world, that all sorts
of oppression exist, and so that to have a simple kind of sense of
a "quick-fix' to any of these things is not really possible. There
is so much more complexity to it; to the millions of problematic
things that exist in the world that are embedded right in the
psychology or even spirituality of our beings practically.
     So in having sat in prison thinking about that kind of stuff,
and having read all kinds of philosophy, and spritiual and
religious kinds of thinking as well, made me appreciative in a
certain sense of just how far we are from a vision or a sensibility
of what life might really be like in an ideal sense.
     At that same time, I also said something about how I was more
of an idealist then I was prior to going to prison, and what I
meant by that was that, the term idealist sometimes means that you
are removed from reality into some idealistic kind of thinking, but
what I really meant was a different sort of idealism, that how deep
change can be and of the potential of human beings to feel and to
care and to grow, my sense of that was much more deep after having
been in prison then it was prior to going to prison and therefore
I actually really believe in the human potential to be what we
ideally envision we can be.

Lets go back to the prison situation, going to prison. In the
interview with Gerry Hannah that we referred to earlier, he said
that there was almost a sense of relief to get arrested, because
of the pressures of being underground and because the level of
action was so extreme. Is there a way that people can involve
themselves in actions that fall outside of the legal means, without
that kind of extreme tension?

     First of all, I think that Gerry was speaking from his own
sense of being somewhat in over his head in the situation he found
himself in; being hunted and knowing that an arrest loomed at some
point, he was essentially in serious trouble vis-a-vis the
prospects of long-term imprisonment, and he had not internalized
that as his future in a way in which he was comfortable with that,
in a certain sense. So, for him it was almost like, "Whew, this is
over", the guillotine finally fell, rather than him just sitting
under it, because that can be kind of a scary feeling.
     Myself, on the other hand, I didn't feel to be under the kind
of tension that he felt, being in the position of being hunted by
the state, and I knew that I would be in that position, and I was
totally comfortable to be in that position and in fact that was
where I obviously had intended to be, to be doing the work that I
felt I want to be doing and that was important to be doing.
     So there are subjective differences in terms of the tension.
In terms of having the tension be less, such as being able to
engage in activities like that and being able to handle it,
psychically or whatever, there are two different ways of doing
that.
     One is a different model of activity from what we were doing.
In our case we were going underground, we were carrying out armed
attacks against the state until we were caught or killed. There was
to be no end to this; we would fight until we were caught or
killed. However, people could conceivably develop a model of
undertaking that form of activity, where they might decide to do
two actions, and then never do anymore. So they might see that if
they do this action and then that action, then it is all over. And
that might reduce the tension for them - they just have to get
through a little period, whereas for us really the only was it was
ever going to stop was when we were arrested.
     So, doom was always there in the distance, and you didn't know
just how far off it was, whereas if you had some sort of manageable
calender of events and you just carried those out and finished,
that would end the tension. Our's was a never-ending tension into
the future kind of thing.
     But with either scenario, I think the most important thing is
that there is no way to guarantee, in doing illegal activities,
that you are not going to get caught.
     So, I think the most important thing is really to internalize
that, and understand that; know yourself and whether those
consequences are something you are prepared to have happen to you
in your life. If you are not, then don't do the things that will
cause you psychic stress. And if you are, and I believe that that
is rooted in analysis, and in a faith or belief in what you are
doing, and if that is more or less where you are grounded or
centered, then you accept what happens from that place.

In a recent article talking about the tenth anniversary of the
Litton bombing, one of your supporters suggested that you hadn't
been prepared and had almost romanticized what was going on to the
extent that you hadn't really thought about prison and 20 year
sentences or life sentences. What you are saying doesn't seem to
concur with that.

     Well, it does, and it doesn't. Myself, I knew for a long time
before even doing those activities that I would be doing those
activities one day, and I knew I'd go to prison or be killed as a
result. And I was very conscious of that and accepting of that.
However, I think that it is very true that we were not really on
top of what going to prison really meant. And I think that where
that comes from is that a lot of people in progressive movements
in our society, given that we don't have a history of a lot of
imprisonment for political activism [referring to the anglo left
in Canada - ed.]; the level of immediate repression from the state
is not one of death squads or severe repression like we see in a
lot of places in the world. Generally, a lot of activists, such as
myself, are not persons of colour. I, a white person, and our
movement has often been rooted in an intellectual, theorectical
position of seeing injustice in the world and feeling that it is
wrong and wanting to try to change things. But directly
experiencing repression has not been that common, in the immediate
sense, for a lot of white activists.
     There are other components of white society that do experience
imprisonment, such as the poor; they know that prison is really a
reality not just a theoretical reality. But we were not part of
that group, so for us it was like "Yeah, we'll go to prison
someday", but it still does not hit home, because it has never
really been part of your home.
     And so, I think it's not a justification of why we weren't
prepared, it's more like an explanation. We were coming from a
place in society where imprisonment really waasn't that real to us.
And so even though I knew it would happen to me, it still never
had, so I never really thought it would happen, even though I knew
it would happen.
     Therefore I think it's very, very important for people not
just to have it theoretical, but to really work on internalizing
that it is really real, so you know how to accept it for your own
survival, but also how to deal with it politically, in the event
that it will eventually happen to you or to others in the movement.

Looking again at the trial, you said in court that you believed
that a moral and political responsibilty requires that people
develop an effective resistance, and that the struggle in Canada
is for people being under the system to overcome their allegience,
acquiesence, and participation it in. That is a pretty broad
mandate, what do you mean by that?

     The first part - a moral and political responsibility to
develop an effective resistance - I do believe that when there is
injustice, if indeed there is such a thing as a moral imperative,
it certainly should be to address and try to correct injustices and
wrongs. And obviously that translates onto a political level,
because, in my mind, 'political level' means to do things in the
context of society. Let's say we, as a society, have certain
aspects to our society that we as people could consider doing
something about, as people, rather than I, as an individual,
morally don't like these things so I will think I don't like them
all the time. It has to be moved to a political realm of solution.
And I don't think I really need to spell out what are the
injustices or wrongs; there are many of them, and I think there is
really little else to do but care for one another as human beings
in the present, other then resist the worngs that are occuring.

The context in Canada politically and socially is a lot different
now, things have changed, even the fact of an armed insurrection,
if you want to put it that way. The idea of even having arms out
in the open was changed by things like the Oka [the armed defense
by Mohawks of their land in 1990 - ed.] situation. Suddenly it was
not just a matter of some obscure idea, but it was a reality people
had to deal with over a 78 day period. What does that mean for
movements in Canada as far as the realm of activity that is
currently acceptable?

     Again, I think things have to be seen in a context, the
incident at Oka didn't come out of nowhere, and there is much more
going on in the native struggle than just the 78 days at Oka. It's
really important to see that there's all sorts of development going
on all the time, in communities, not just Native communties, all
the communities, people trying to help people, people trying to
survive. And all that is going on all the time, and those are
totally essential things, and there is no sort of quantitative
scale to what is more important than anything else. But, there is
certainly, in a process of development which I characterize as
historical, or herstorical, or perstorical, incidents that are part
of a process, that take it out of the daily lived activity of
resistance and develop and move it on to a realm that is
historical.
     So the Oka crisis is a historical action and it had an effect
that is sort of like a dialectical effect. The ability to do that
is the result of strength and then the strength shown in such
activities gives growth for the future. And the process needs these
sorts of activities.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     autonome forum: aforum@moose.uvm.edu
                          "solidarity is a weapon!"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc,talk.politics.misc