|
|  |
[am*dam] Ruyschstraat 42: kraak en knokploeg
Geheel Onthouder - 20.01.2010 14:39
Het recent gekraakte voormalige cafe aan de Ruyschstraat in de oost-amterdamse weesperzijde is gisteren in de late middag door een knokploeg van rond 15 man aangevallen en leeggetrokken. Door de tussenkomst van hun advocaat en rond 40 solidaire krakers uit de hele stad die binnen 1,5 op het alarm afkwamen, kon de politie uiteindelijk overtuigd worden om de huisvrede van de bewoners ie herstellen. Enkele leden van de knokploeg zijn opgepakt en over nacht vastgezet.
Kraak
Op zondag 17 januari 2010 heeft kraakgroep oost het leegstaande voormalige cafe 'Het Boek' aan de Ruysschstraat 42 hs als woonruimte in gebruik genomen. Uit de paper trail bij de kamer van koophandel blijkt dat de laatste activiteiten daar al in september 2006 zijn gestaakt. De kraakactie zelf verliep soepel (op wat wanhopige en uiteraard geweigerde vragen naar ID na), gezien het feit dat ook de agenten van het nabije bureau op de s'Gravesandeplein wisten dat daar al heel lang niets meer was gebeurt. Het feit dat het al om het tweede leegstaande horecapand in de zelfde straat gaat, zou ook hebben geholpen.
Het pand aan de Ruyschstraat is sinds 1997 in eigendom van Maarten Post, een bekende, maar (tot heden) niet echt beruchte amsterdamse huiseigenaar. Na een opknapbeurt een paar jaar geleden, is het in het najaar 2008 per etage gesplitst. De bovenwoningen zijn allemaal regulier verhuurd
Knokploeg
Rond 16.30 melde zich iemand aan de deur, die in eerste instantie op een buurman leek, die na aanleiding van het buurtbriefje een praatje wilde maken. Toen de bewoner de deur een kier opendeed, werd door de man meteen doorgeduwd, en de uit de zicht wachtende rest van de knokploeg van rond 15 mensen verschafte zich op gewelddadige wijze toegang tot het pand. De bewoner en zijn spullen zijn in het gevolg op straat gezet. De bewoner heeft toen alarm gebeld en is zelf na het 5 minuten verder gelegen politiebureau op de s'Gravesandeplein gelopen, om ook de hulp van het wijkteam in te gaan roepen, dat bij de kraak de leegstand had geconstateerd.
Volgens de mensen die op het alarm afkwamen, arriveerden de eerste agenten vrijwel meteen met een aantal autos. Wel duurde het de gebruikelijke 40 minuten tot het inmiddels stedelijk doorgebelde alarm iedereen had bereikt en zich een kritische massa krakers ter plekke had ingevonden. Op dat moment bevond zich een deel van de knokploeg en wat politie in het pand. Toen meer mensen van de kant van de knokploeg arriveerden, blokkeerden de krakers de ingang om te voorkomen dat meer van hun naar binnen konden gaan. Dit leidde tot een kort duw en trek partij, die door tussenkomst van de politie snel weer ophield.
In de tussentijd werd op het politiebureau door vertegenwoordigers van de tegenwoordige huurder Jan Erkelens van Steff Automaten, de bewoners, hun advocaat druk onderhandelt. Even later liet het OM weten dat de krakers idd huisvrede hadden en de knokploeg deze dus had geschonden. Er werd besloten om de krakers terug in het pand te laten.
Een tiental leden van de knokploeg werden door de politie gearresteerd. De bewoner deed aangifte, mede omdat de politie dat wilde, om tin leden van de knokploeg overnacht te kunnen vasthouden.
Nasleep
Inmiddels heeft de advo van de krakers een tweetal documenten van de huurder ontvangen. Er moet eruit blijken dat Jan Erkelens (van Steff Automaten) , de voormalige uitbater van een reeks cafes onder de noemer 'Euro Cafe' daar nog steeds officiel huurder was, was plaats zou maken voor wat een restaurant moet worden. Ook zou de toekomstige restauranthouder reeds voorbereidende werkzaamheden hebben uitgevoerd. In het pand zelf is echter geen spoor van zulke werkzaamheden terug te vinden. Ook is er tot heden geen Horecavergunning aangevraagd.
Gezien het feit dat deze documenten dus van Erkelens komen, en hij zich ook officieel als 'tegenpartij' opsteld, is aannemelijk dat hij ook voor de knokploeg verantwoordelijk is, te meer omdat Erkelens zich al eerder jegens krakers dreigend heeft opgesteld. Hij was naar eigen zeggen 'compagnon' van Samantha Fagel, toen eigenaresse van een kraakpand aan de Constatantijn Huygensstraat boven een TacoMundo waarvan wederom Erkelens de eigenaar was.
een timeline verslag van de knokploegaanval en diens afhandeling is te vinden op:
 http://indymedia.nl/nl/2010/01/64831.shtml
meer over kraken in am*dam oost onder:
http://squat.net/ksuoost
 E-Mail: ksuoost@squat.net
|
| aanvullingen | | | self-organisation | nnatuurlijk - 20.01.2010 17:01
SO to clarify what happened;
there was one squatter inside the building with no curtains so the whole world could look inside and see that he was on his own. Not only this the door was unsecured and I was told that when the 'knokploeg'came to the door it was duly opened for them. A group of squatters gathered outside and the police mediated the situation, eventually they made the decision to come in force (about 50-60 cops) and to return the house to the evicted squatter.
This act by the police showed they will not tolerate self-organisation and actions carried out without their permission. The police also made clear that they will allow this form of squatting, begging for their protection and following their rules.
This shows some of the big problems of the squatting movement/scene [delete as appropriate]. The squatter or his group showed a lack of respect to the efforts made by other people to give him/them the possibility to live there, this is demonstrated by his/their ignorance of advice to secure the door properly (with a bouwstempel for example).
This incident also highlights the lack of room given by the squatting scene/movement for self-organisation by the fact that there are institutions in place to do almost everything for you if you want to squat (the KSUs). Closely related to this is people limiting their own self activity by relying on the network of squatters and the KSUs. The incident highlights this precisely because if you put really alot of effort into something, or if you try really hard to achieve something you do not give it up easily i.e. if the group that squatted the house had of done everything for themself then they would sure as hell have made the door secure and would of occupied the building properly. On the other hand if you get something without trying you throw it away just as easily.
Contrasting the behaviour of the squatters in this instance was the knokploeg. The knokploeg may have been friends of the owner, former employees or as it appeared mostly people who used to drink in the bar. Whoever they were they got together decided that they wanted the squatters to be kicked out of the house and went and achieved it until the police interfered.
On this analysis, which is entirely my own, I feel more affinity with the knokploeg. You can argue that the intentions of the knokploeg or the owner are evil, but I saw the 'knokploeg'sitting inside having a beer and making fun with one another after self-organizing and achieving their goal. At the same time as this group of friends, as it seemed, were enjoying themselves the squatters, who suppose themselves autonomous, were talking to the cops and begging them to get the house back for them. Kind of like spoilt rich kids who get robbed by the poorer kids when they get to high school.
The first rule of life in the big world is; DON'T TALK TO THE COPS.
They don't do anything just to help you, they do what they do to protect property and to passify the people.
The second rule of life in the big world is; IF SOMEONE HAS BAD INTENTIONS TOWARDS YOU, MAKE IT AS DIFFICULT AS POSSIBLE FOR THEM.
Thats for your own self protection, lock the door if your house could be under threat, keep your wits about you.
| | Hang on a minute | NN - 20.01.2010 18:16
Something did go terribly wrong here on the part of the squatters, but it goes deeper than self organising. As you described yourself, self organising is a means to an end, any (bunch of) idiot(s) can do it in very little time, all thats needed is a short term common goal. Even toddlers use it to organise the bullying of the fat kid, red haired kid, black kid, poor kid, handicapped kid... in preschool.
What was ignored here was some other basic principle that goes hand in hand with the reason why squatters self organise. Not because self organising is easy but because self organising is a good method to organise society without hierarchy and authority. That can only be achieved if people take responsibility for their own actions in return for the solidarity shown by others and that is what went wrong here, not that the action wasn't self organised enough.
Bullying toddlers and most likely yesterdays heavies give fuck all about solidarity and responsibility, as soon as they get caught they turn on each other and rat each other out as soon as something goes wrong.
| | affin-idiocy ? | waf-bek - 20.01.2010 18:30
Apparently, its time to self-organize an in depth reading group, as some ppl have trouble with long text. To make this easier:
'Rond 16.30 melde zich iemand aan de deur, die in eerste instantie op een buurman leek, die na aanleiding van het buurtbriefje een praatje wilde maken.'
Yes , the door was opened, because (in spite of contrary fundamentalist opinions), it is important to actually keep in contact with the hood around your squat. If squatters are not reachable for the neighbours, how can they explain why and what they are doing? And how will they get the necessary support for their political activities?
How a squatter opening a door, not because of a threat, but trying to make contact with neighbours that were invited to pass by in a neighbourhood letter, is 'showing disrespect for ppl that helped him/her' or even how such an incident might 'highlight the lack of room given by the squatting scene/movement for self-organisation' eludes me.
How involving the cops in this situation might actually have lead them to 'protect property in order to passify(sic) people', is totally unclear in the same way.
Factually, it was the combination of being there is numbers (thanks to the wel organized scene/movement you mind!) and therefore posing a threat to public peace, plus the negotiating skills of the kraakgroep and the lawyer, that forced the police to actually protect the human right to a roof against the property mongers and their shady intentions.
Seen the quality of your 'analysis', its furthermore not very surprising, that you feel more affinity with the owners thugs (all very robust, selforganizing free spirits I assume), than with and organized movement of social revolutionaries (whos internal political discourse might be a little to complicated for ppl sleeping with a balaclavas and drinking molotov cocktail for breakfeast)
| | just wondering... | zz - 20.01.2010 18:47
"Rond 16.30 melde zich iemand aan de deur, die in eerste instantie op een buurman leek, die na aanleiding van het buurtbriefje een praatje wilde maken.'
Yes , the door was opened, because (in spite of contrary fundamentalist opinions), it is important to actually keep in contact with the hood around your squat. If squatters are not reachable for the neighbours, how can they explain why and what they are doing? And how will they get the necessary support for their political activities?"
Ehm... Maybe someone can enlighten me as to why, few hours after squatting action, there was only ONE person inside, happily opening the door of newly squatted appartment, to a stranger... is this a new policy? have i missed a meeting or something?
| | echt?? | vaag - 20.01.2010 18:50
Sorry maar bovenstaande reaktie grenst aan het waanzinnige. Zouden er echt medekrakers zijn die sympathie voelen met de mensen die andere krakers hun huis uit zetten. Tja, je moet er maar op komen.
Laat maar weten waar je woont, want dan ga ik niet twee uur voor jou in de kou staan blauwbekken als een 'zelf-georganiseerde' groep jou je huis uit komt schoppen.
Voor de rest: te gek dat de huisbazenpenose hier niet mee weg is gekomen.
Wel interessant trouwens dat de huurder kennelijk iets met de automaten handel te maken heeft. Deze branche raakte al eerder in opspraak vanwege criminele antecedenten. Meest berucht zijn natuurlijk de inmiddels geliquideerde Sam Klepper en John Mieremet. Het valt zeker niet uit te sluiten dat de smeris iets meer weet over deze huurder dan wij en daarom deze keer niet automatisch de kant van de huisbaas koos.
| | policy .... | raf-lek - 20.01.2010 18:58
The thugs attacked not 'few hours after the squatting action' but 2 days later. There have been numbers of real neighbours at the door before, asking the squatters, how the action was proceeding, bringing information or voicing support/critique.
As stated in the original text, the crowd of thugs was not visible from the inside, only one person was actually in front of the door.
There is many assumptions in the reaction to the main posting. In fact, it seems that the incident is used to voice frustration about things not really related here
| | .... | nnatuurlijk - 20.01.2010 19:06
what i wrote wasn't an indepth analysis and so wasn't taking into account group dynamics or goals of the knokploeg. it was written to challenge the status quo of the 'social revolutionaries'that are the squatting movement.
i don't say that all forms of self-organisation are right, but i cut it down to its basics. anyway, has the squatting movement never bullied people out of houses? anti-krakers???? and i stand firm that they weren't your standard knokploeg. they weren't hooligans, they just looked like big guys who used to drink there.
what i wanted to discuss was are the KSUs detrimental to developing beyond a counter-culture that is for the most only busy with putting rooves over our own heads.
also, yet again it appears to have been left for the police to sort it out. you can argue that this is what they are there for/they exist so why not use them for this. but i don't agree with the police, therefore why justify their existence.
and, having good relations with your neighbours comes over time, you first have to establish yourself into the neighbourhood before jumping in and saying you are from the neighbourhood. being sensible about it there's 15 biggish guys outside, doesnt exactly look like a family inviting you into the neighbourhood does it?
| | discussion also on kraken-post | theja - 20.01.2010 19:34
Look at the kraken-post (krakenpost.nl), as Indymedia is not supposed to host useless rants:
http://krakenpost.nl/archief/
| | Some basics | nn - 20.01.2010 20:04
I think there's some information missing here as to what actually happened. That and the need by the occupants of Ruyschstraat 42 (and by extension the rest of the scene/movement) for a rather large lesson in common sense. 2 days after squatting there still should have been people occupying. If there had been neighbours around wishing support and/or criticising beforehand, which is nice that there's engagement, some level of sensibility should still have been used.
Had they researched who the owner was? What did this person say that the occupant decided to open the door to them and then allow them (forcible?) entrance? There was no 'shifty' behaviour at all? Why didn't they step outside and lock the door or even close it behind them when talking to this person (please tell me there was a lock!)?
The list goes on. There doesn't have to be a public explanation/enquiry on indymedia but someone from squat group oost had better go round and talk to the people there and tell them they fucked up badly and point out where they went wrong, so that they learn from other people's experiences so that hopefully they don't make the same mistake twice. Which I doubt they will. :D
The role of and the use(fulness) of the police is a whole other debate, but again people should use a bit of common sense and learn from experience, i.e. they're not your friends!
| | research results | research dept. - 20.01.2010 20:58
As far as the information about the owner of the building (Maarten Post) is concerned, it was all well known to be somebody owning a lot of property, but not having a history of direct violent confrontation before.
Unfortunately, this information is next to irrelevant here, as the attack was organized, by the renter of the place, whos name never appeared anywhere before the actual thugs incident.
This renter, Jan Erkelens, was also not the one having the former cafes (we dug up all of them _before squatting_) on his name, but was subletting the place to the people appearing in the chamber of commerce records.
As far as the supposed under-occupation is concerned, I dont really see how the usual 2 or 3 or even 5 or 6 ppl could have held the place against 15 aggressive thugs.
As far as opening the door is concerned: this was not done because or inspite of a threat but because of the apparent lack thereof. As stated before, only one person was knocking and behaving normal, the rest of the gang was out of sight at that moment. The door was not either widely opened, and a lot of force was used to gain entry.
All in all, there was next to no avoidable mistakes made.
As far as the cops and their role is concerned, I would like to stress again, that it was not their love for the squatters that made them act as they did eventually, but more their fear, that the squatters would actually violently resquat the place, if the would have acted. (I guarantee you that this would have happened).
And no the cops are not our friends (and most of the time , the have other things to do than harrass squatters), but more something like a fact of nature, that needs to be reckoned with, if doing direct anticapitalist action. Setting them up to fight the (illegal) propertied class if possible, is not a sign of weakness, but a conscient choice.
Its like a martial arts method somehow: 'use your opponents strength against him/her'
| | yipee kay yay | nn - 20.01.2010 22:21
"As far as the supposed under-occupation is concerned, I dont really see how the usual 2 or 3 or even 5 or 6 ppl could have held the place against 15 aggressive thugs.
As far as opening the door is concerned: this was not done because or inspite of a threat but because of the apparent lack thereof. As stated before, only one person was knocking and behaving normal, the rest of the gang was out of sight at that moment. The door was not either widely opened, and a lot of force was used to gain entry."
Well actually, if it's one person forcibly trying to make there way in through a slightly ajar door this is exactly where two or 3 other people come in handy. To quote that other great revolutionary force, the boy scouts (yes that's sarcasm), "Be prepared!".
| | Lessons learnt? | nn - 20.01.2010 23:59
Dit is zielig. Wat als de persoon in ernstig gewond was of ziekenhuisopgenomen? Zou je nog zeggen dat er geen fouten zijn gemaakt? Geen nieuw advies? Ze deden niets verkeerd? Rotzooi!
Er is geschiedenis en ervaring daar en u bent verontschuldigen naïviteit en onverantwoordelijkheid.
| | wow | nn - 21.01.2010 00:43
"Setting them up to fight the (illegal) propertied class if possible, is not a sign of weakness, but a conscient choice.
Its like a martial arts method somehow: 'use your opponents strength against him/her' "
wow! since when became calling the cops a revolutionary act or a sign of strength? For me it looks the opposite: lack of strength and will power.
Im not trying to bash the people who made this squatting action. I would say good work! Too bad some unfortunate events happened, but if you could resquat the place as you have said then why did the person who was kicked out walk to the police station instead of regrouping for resquatting?
| | final des-illusionary attempt | martian artist - 21.01.2010 10:55
last and final attempt:
- the person kicked out did walk to the copshop because the alarm had not arrived yet. Staying outside while a big group of thugs in a clearly htreathening posture are there would have been very dabgerous
- the cops arrive anyway in such a situation, its therefore best to keep contact with them from the beginning on, in order to have a tap (and some influence) on their behaviour
- resquatting the place is a dangerous affair that can easily lead to casualties of all kinds (wounde, arrests, even worth). If entry and possesion can be regained without such a means, that is preferable.
and: its not a questions of (signs of) weakness or strength, but of eventual results. I for my part prefer to win without battle to a battle without victory. In this case, the place is still a squat, nobody (on our side) got wounded or arrested.
as far as principle is concerned: analysis _must_ be based on materialism, not on pride or hurt feelings. Because of such feelings, many conflicts lost are declared won, and some (like this one) might be declared lost when , materially seen, it was actually quite succesful.
| | "bezoek kroeg" | Makavelli - 21.01.2010 15:28
"its not a questions of (signs of) weakness or strength, but of eventual results." So the ends justifies the means?
Look we can appreciate your "material" analysis that there was still some leverage/power/insinuation of violence on the part of the squaaters that led to a fear of public disorder on the part of the cops which was a factor in getting the house back without the need for violence or injury. But if your revolutionary analysis is so great you'll know that while it's an irritant for the cops and it makes up a large part of their work, it's not what the powers that be ultimately fear.
On the other hand what gives even more leverage when a knokploeg attacks, is actually holding onto the building and managing to stay inside til the alarm is raised and/or the cops arrive. What still startles me is the refusal to acknowledge that there was any mistake on the part of the occupants or that they don't deserve some sort of dressing down for stupid, naive and irresponsible behaviour. Why then were they being told on the day of the squatting action itself that they should lock the door and keep the bauwstampe on when they weren't? A lack of critique and a "materialist" anlysis of "well it could happen to any of us, nothing went wrong, it all worked out in the end" isn't doing anyone any favours. Normally learning from your mistakes is a sign of maturity, yet when you claim there were none, nothing will be learnt.
| | dressing down | dec - 21.01.2010 16:11
Don't worry Makavelli, the people in question know that did something wrong. The guy who got kicked out has the bruises and the slight shock to remind him of that. It remains to be seen if the occupants learn from this, but that's their resposibility first and foremost.
Since some people obviously find it wrong that KSUs "do everything" for squatters, we decided to let those people make up their own mind this time ;)
Personally I also think those people made a mistake, and they are not the first. I can't even tell how many times people are told to keep their door secure and have a good occupation roster, and still don't do it.
In most cases nothing happens, but some unfortunately learn the hard way.
Be aware though everyone: Last year has seen quite some knokploegincidenten. More houseowners are willing to take the law in their own hands. If they see that there is a chance for success others will follow the example. Be prepared at all times. (but please don't become paranoid)
| | ends and purpose of means | Justy Fyer - 21.01.2010 17:47
Which means are unjustifiable exactly here? Is 'hating cops' the main point of squatting nowadays?
I tend to see all this in a class struggle context: the ones that have nothing procuring from the ones having too much by all means necessary.
Seen in such a light, the goal is also not to inspire fear to the 'powers' or even more exactly, the propertied class and their troops, but to successfully enforce a good distribution, starting with (but not limited to) the most basic things, such as food and shelter.
My main problem with the state and its police , is that they are (amongst other stuff) class struggle instruments (of the propertied classes this time), defending the rich against the poor.
'Self-organizing' on a level to be capable to resist such behaviour and even to set up a counterforce that does the opposite (defend human rights against property and greed), will eventually lead to structures far more stratified than the KSUs critiqued here above.
Setting up structures to replace the more useful functions of state and government (such as health care, energy production, scientific research and education , you name it) will require a degree of organization, reliability and above all, formalization, that none of the critics here would are willing to participate in (as even the KSUs are too formal for them already it seems).
Interestingly enough, the same 'anti-authoritarian' reactions are actually applied to anything more organized than the usual piss-up-in-a-brewery, probably because the most hardcore critics have in fact a lot more respect for the state and its symbols than in deserves (at least in the context here).
Instead of understanding the 'state' as the self organization of our class enemy and actually challenging its implied monopoly politically, it is perceived as an isolated and unique phenomenon, whereby any real attempt to self-organize (as the KSUs are an example of) is seen as a mini state, that should be hated and fought as well.
My bottomline is a syndicalist one: social structures (state/parastate or even private) should not be venerated or hated but seen in the context of useful/lessness in each and every situation they are encountered, and , more importantly, tackled as such without prejudice.
and then: yes there should be more occupiers in the rs42, please go there and help!
| | Back to basics | NN - 21.01.2010 18:27
It is true that over the past year there were several attempts by groups of heavies to recuperate recently squatted houses. That two of those attempts were succesfull and two more almost succeeded must have been encouraging.
Also the its been a few years now since the liquidation of several criminals with connections in the real estate world, its very well possible that the power struggle for their succesion has reached a point of sufficient stability to focus on the world outside their inner cicles again. Which gives cause for raised awareness.
A recently squatted house is vulnerable, no matter who the owner is.
The reshuffeling in the criminal and semi criminal real estate circles brings about change, new names pop up, old names get new positions and that might influence their behaviour, that means there either is no past experience or past experience might be less of a reliable indication for future behaviour.
Old info or no info means exactly that, it doens't mean don't worry, especially not in the present situation.
There is no nead to overreact, just to stay aware and keep yourselves safe as best as you can and stick to the following basic old rules:
- Barricade: the owners heavies is the main reason for barricading, they may only delay police eviction but they are effective in stopping goon evictions. Try and barricade the house in such a manner that it will keep out the heavies (even heavies bringing tools) for at least 20 minutes, thats the average e.t.a. of the people responding to your alarm call.
- Occupy: a good barricade is useless if you don't have an occupation crew, if you cannot keep the entrance secure enough, its easy to get in.
You can show your neigbourhood friendlyness to the neigbours also by explaining them why the place is well secured and why you talk to them outside while you get aquainted.
Of course there is no guarantee this will work at all times, it only guarantees that you're never unprepared and that you have a good chance to keep out the average 15-20 violent types gang for long enought to let the alarm take effect.
| | thanks | nn - 22.01.2010 01:12
Many thanks to the last five commenters and some of the earlier ones for making this discussion worthwhile after a very bad start.
It is a pity that we can apparently only have a nuanced and reasoned discussion about dealing with the police and defending squats only after someone first declares sympathy to knokploegen and offends people who devote much of their time and energy to grassroots struggles.
| |
| aanvullingen | |
