Saturday August 21, 2004
The AEELI (French acronym for Association of Kinds of Free and Imaginary Spaces) is a non-profit association that owns a building in downtown Montreal. It was created by anarchists in 1982, and the building housed a bookshop run for all these years by the Alternative collective.

Some long-time members of the moribund and troubled Alternative bookshop collective have had their sights on taking over the building project by selling it to another non-profit group controlled by themselves in order to keep other anarchists and anarchist projects out of the space; they failed to do so in a take-over bid in 1995. After a year and a half of fruitless exchanges and struggle by the Anarchist Distributors' Coalition (Coalition des diffuseurs libertaires) along with members the AEELI who agreed with the Coalition's agenda, the AEELI was finally opened up in March to a number of groups and individual comrades in Montreal.

Montreal -The AEELI replies to the insinuations made by the Alternative collective

Saturday August 21, 2004
The AEELI (French acronym for Association of Kinds of Free and Imaginary Spaces) is a non-profit association that owns a building in downtown Montreal. It was created by anarchists in 1982, and the building housed a bookshop run for all these years by the Alternative collective.

Some long-time members of the moribund and troubled Alternative bookshop collective have had their sights on taking over the building project by selling it to another non-profit group controlled by themselves in order to keep other anarchists and anarchist projects out of the space; they failed to do so in a take-over bid in 1995. After a year and a half of fruitless exchanges and struggle by the Anarchist Distributors' Coalition (Coalition des diffuseurs libertaires) along with members the AEELI who agreed with the Coalition's agenda, the AEELI was finally opened up in March to a number of groups and individual comrades in Montreal. These groups, as disparate as they are, represent the bulk of anarchist distribution and publishing in Montreal: the Groupe Communiste Libertaire, Maikan, NEFAC-Mtl, La Mauvaise Herbe, the Trouble, La Sociale, RASH, as well as distributors from the ASE-UQAM.

When Alternative rejected the participation of members of the anarchist milieu present at the assembly of 80 persons on August 5 2003, the member groups of the Anarchist Distributors' Coalition removed all of their stock from the bookshop and boycotted them. This spring, because those members who agreed with the distributors' coalition were able to overcome the stonewalling of the minority board, the AEELI was finally opened up to all the groups of the coalition as well as several other individuals. We were able to have a decisional general assembly for the first time in over five years. Four Long-time members close to Alternative collective were expelled from the association in May for having falsified bylaw documents, for economic sabotage, and for having behaved secretively and hierarchically against the wishes of the majority. For anyone interested, we are more than willing to explain and show proof of the substance of these complaints that lead to their expulsion. We thoroughly reject Alternative's claim that we justify our "takeover with a series of serious but unproven allegations against four members"; these are well documented and long standing grievances (to read more about the reasons of their expulsion, see the annex below).

Since a central objective of the AEELI is to mandate a functioning anarchist book store, since last spring we have turned our energies towards the founding of a new book store to supplant the one controlled by Alternative. On August 12, 2004, we informed Alternative that they would be replaced by a new book store, and that until they had resolved the issue of debts to us and the thousands of dollars owing to their distributors, they could not remove their diminished stock of some 900 (nine hundred) books. On the night of August 17-18, Alternative removed all their stock and all the bookshelves and displays from the space. We will assure that Alternative assumes all debts that they have contracted, since they have left us no books for the new book store. If Alternative does not continue their project elsewhere soon, we ask that the stock of books and the bookcases be made available to the anarchist milieu, because they are presently held by individuals who did not spend their own money on these items. These books are a community resource.

We consider that we acted frankly with Alternative. They claim that we did not respond to their invitation to discuss our problems with them. Only one member of the AEELI was able to make it to their hastily called meeting. They are poorly placed to complain, since Alternative did not attend a meeting with us scheduled last May, and they didn't attend the last general assemblies.

Alternative writes that the AEELI has "ignored all communication from the bookshop and refuses to confirm or deny wheter or not it is responsible for removing the bookshop's chequebook from the store" What letter has Alternative sent us asking us if we removed their cheques? We deny having any involvement in the loss or theft of their checks. Considering that a number of their members opposed paying us anything that would alleviate the project's hard-pressed finances, and that they admit to having a high turn-over of members, with new ones who are not well known in the anarchist milieu, Alternative should perhaps look within its ranks.

We categorically reject Alternative's assertions that their problems stem from our campaign against them. As many anarchists in Montreal and Quebec City can attest, Alternative has been a marginal and dysfunctional project for many years. They have excluded many anarchists, functioned as a closed and private group, attracted leftists who brought in maoist literature, national-liberation struggle material, and other identity politics documents while core anarchist material was neglected and marginalized. We make no apologies for saying that we want an anarchist book store, and not a "radical" or "anti-authoritarian" one. This book store will also stock some works of relevance to anarchism but that are not explicitly anarchist.

Alternative writes that we "refused several proposals that no structural changes to the AEELI take place until after a neutral committee had been set up to examine the foundation of their charges" What is a "neutral" committee? What are these "structural changes" other than opening up the membership and electing a new treasurer and secretary? Why should the former AEELI administrators have continued their fifteen year stranglehold on the finances and administration? Also, we defend the principle that the majority of an assembly can decide to "refuse" a proposal. At a March 9, 2004 assembly, a proposal from the treasurer of fifteen years to remain on in his functions was rejected.

Alternative writes: "Jen, a bookshop member, quit the AEELI after repeated written attacks and accusations" What exactly were these written attacks and accusations? Would Alternative like to detail some aspects of this conflict, rather than throw out vague insinuations?

Alternative writes: "members of the AEELI have been spotted going through documents in the bookshop after hours and without consent" Who's consent? The space is the AEELI's, we hold meetings and receive mail there. While we are on the subject of documents, it is partly because long-time members of Alternative and the AEELI confiscated certain key documents, such as the bylaws, that they were also expelled from the project.

They write that we treat them "not as an integral part of the building project but as the most hostile landlord would treat their most defenseless tenant" It is Alternative that excluded anarchist comrades for years, and refused to accept us in their bookshop. They did not pull their weight in this anarchist project that is the building. The Alternative collective behaved like a tenant, their claim to autonomy was a talisman against us and the anarchist milieu, and they expected us to ignore this and treat them like comrades? When Alternative members controlled the building, they acted as slumlords towards one community group and the Rebelles collective, refusing these comrades a place in management and unilaterally trying to raise their rent.

Alternative insinuates that some of our members "seem to be employing similar heavy-handed tactics in order to manipulate other anti-authoritarian political collectives" What is this all about? Which other collectives in Montreal "seem" to be manipulated by which "heavy-handed tactics"? Unless other collectives have something substantial to say, Alternative is engaging in vicious smears couched in vague, neurotic and Kafkaesque terms.

Alternative writes that "the new AEELI has neglected the building, and as pipes have burst and doors have been broken, the bookshop has been forced to handle the problems on our own" We respond that the pipes burst in January, while Alternative was still in control. The wave of break-ins took place in the fall and winter, and also affected the third floor tenant and the neighbouring building. Alternative agreed to pay for their door repairs, as it only affected their space. We have not neglected the building any more than the encrusted Alternative clique did; there simply is no money now; and Alternative knows this. They have the gall to raise this problem when they engaged in economic sabotage against us: We received an electrical bill for nearly $700 this summer, compared to $200 last summer! This increased consumption is due to radiators being left on all summer. Earlier in the spring the former treasurer failed to give over cheques to the newly elected administrators and without notifying us, issued cheques totaling $1700. Better than anyone, he knew that the AEELI was in a precarious financial situation.

Alternative writes that their "revolutionary potential has been sucked dry by the capitalists and cops masquerading as anarchists in the AEELI" We would like to know what, -- besides their sheer bitterness at having lost exclusive control of the building -- is the basis of such a serious and grotesque slander? How was it less capitalistic when they ran the building? Since when did Alternative's half dozen unknown dregs and deadwood become judges of who's the real anarchists?

At this late stage, Alternative will try to "establish an outreach committee to seek the support and participation of other anarchists, anarchist groups, and militant radicals" We ask why wasn't this able to happen a year and a half ago when this conflict entered this terminal phase marked by the formation of the anarchist distributors' coalition?

We are relieved that the crisis over the AEELI is likely over and that the Alternative collective left when they did. We will assure that their distributors are properly informed and hold Alternative responsible for their debts. The new anarchist book store has many challenges ahead, not the least of which are financial. However we have a large number of experienced groups and individuals who's enthusiasm, optimism and energy is manifesting itself already.

The members of the AEELI,
aee...@northernhacking.org

Links for background information:

(Coalition, 30/10/03) Anarchist distributors boycott Montreal bookshop
http://www.ainfos.ca/03/oct/ainfos00620.html
(Alternative, 18/11/03) Montreal Alternative bookshop responds to boycott
http://www.ainfos.ca/03/nov/ainfos00372.html
(Coalition, 24/01/04) The Anarchist Distributors respond to the Alternative Bookshop Collective
http://www.cmaq.net/en/node/15281
(Alternative, 19/02/04) Alternative's answer
http://www.cmaq.net/en/node/15568
(Alternative, 18/08/04) Alternative Bookshop - EVICTED!
http://www.cmaq.net/en/node/17876

Annex
Why the AEELI expelled from our ranks four persons associated with the Alternative Bookshop collective of Montreal

These four persons sent us a letter where they wrote: "we are both eager and willing to defend ourselves against every single one of the charges made against us". They have never responded. Since we think there is nothing more legitimate than the court of anarchist opinion, we openly present some of the grievances against these individuals:

1- At the March 9 assembly, one of the expelled individuals admitted to having modified (in hand writing) the minutes of a 1990 meeting that tried to amend the bylaws. These amendments, had they been passed, would have favoured the control of Alternative over the AEELI. Despite this attempt, we are unable to find any meeting minutes with a bylaw change stipulating that 4/5 of the board positions must be filled by Alternative members. Given that the old clique had a direct interest in proving the existence of such a change, we ask these persons how do they account for the bylaws that they presented at the big infamous assembly of August 5, 2003? If we have no historical and material proof of these bylaw changes, is it not reasonable to conclude that the bylaw document brought to this big assembly was falsified and that 80 persons were manipulated?

2- We would like to know why after numerous requests in the last two years, the former treasurer refused to provide a copy of the bylaws to the members of the AEELI?

3- How is it that a roofing expense for 5895$ in September 2002 was not the object of a decision of all the members of the association? How was this decision made, and why was the bill and guarantee for this huge expense never remitted to the administrators of the project?

4- Why did the former treasurer deny at the August 5, 2003 assembly that there was any legal irregularity with the association but then unilaterally engaged a lawyer to re-register and regularize the association in January 2004? Why was such an important change never revealed to the members at the March 9 assembly?

5- Why did the former treasurer spend about $1500 of the association's money on a lawyer at the height of the conflict? Other legal services are described in association documents, but about $1500 in lawyer's time is not accounted for. Was this an attempt by the board to fight off the offensive of the majority of the members? Who authorized the misuse of this money, and what business did this lawyer discuss in a meeting with members of the Alternative collective at the time?

6- In an association that is supposed to be managed by anarchists, why did the former treasurer refuse to convoke an assembly when a majority of the members requested one in January 2004? Why did he invoke the board's power to refuse this when an assembly hadn't been held since 1998? Why did he come to the March 9 assembly and inform us that the fact that he continues to speak in the meeting doesn't mean he thinks the meeting is valid and legitimate and that it was not convened by the board, nor was the August 5, 2003 meeting convened by the board (that's to say, by him)? Why does a so-called anarchist insist on legalisms that manifestly favour his power over an unaccountable board-in-perpetuity?

7- Why is it that after the former treasurer was replaced at the March 9 assembly, he failed to inform the new board of all outstanding cheques? He gave over a number of documents 10 days later, but certain cheques were missing. Later we discovered that he issued two cheques totaling 1700$ on March 12, three days after he was no longer the treasurer. One of the cheque recipients was informed to wait until the end of the month before cashing it. Had he heard that there would be a deposit made? Why did he interfere with our efforts to set the finances right?

We do not think there can be explanations to excuse these omissions and acts, and the former administrators have taken refuge in silence as a form of damage control. Alternative failed to ask these persons to respond to the detailed reasons we presented for their exclusion. Alternative collective dismissed these allegations as "unfounded accusations" without offering the least detail or rebuttal. Instead, the Alternative collective rallied behind the four cliquish members that the AEELI expelled. Alternative finds it sufficient to echo what this former clique maintains, namely that our control of the project is illegitimate. Borrowing the old clique's focus on legalisms, they called for an "independent" body to investigate the accusations, and refused to deal with the substantive problems of this clique's 15 year strangle-hold over the project. Alternative has not distanced itself from a position that it alone should own and manage the entire building. Furthermore, it is historically false to assert that the building was purchased by bookshop members only and that it was only theirs and not an anarchist resource. The original and founding members can attest to this.

To anyone who is interested, we will provide all material proof we have of the above mentioned situations.