Nonviolence Training: A Brief History

Introduction

A brief history of nonviolence training around the world, Australia and in the Pacific by a group called Pt’chang. Pt’chang was an Australian Nonviolent Community Safety Group which conducted a wide range of dynamic and creative violence-prevention, peace-building and community safety initiatives. Although no longer active Pt’chang has left a valuable legacy both through people they trained and materials such as a brief history which is an excerpt from their Nonviolence Trainer’s Resource Manual (pages 19 – 28).

Nonviolence Training: A Brief History

There have been countless instances of popular nonviolent struggle throughout history, with known examples dating back at least to the Plebeian withdrawal from Rome in 494 BC. However, only recently has serious any attention been paid to the task of documenting and classifying the methods used by ordinary people, without access to weapons or military might, to successfully challenge authority. As nonviolence scholar Gene Sharp has pointed out, this historical neglect should come as no surprise: the transmission of knowledge concerning the efficacy of nonviolence is tantamount to placing power into the hands of the oppressed.

Despite considerable efforts over the last 30 years to institutionalise the study of nonviolence and related fields through the establishment of Peace Studies as an academic discipline, most learning about nonviolence takes place outside formal channels, in draughty church halls or at blockade camp sites, in short workshops ranging from a few hours to a couple of days in length. Trainers are often volunteers with little, if any, financial or organisational backing.

Given the logical reluctance of elite-controlled institutions to disseminate knowledge concerning what a group of Thai peace activists once dubbed the secrets of nonviolence, it should be no surprise that people have turned to other sources to learn how to challenge the unchallengeable.

The story of nonviolence training, then, is essentially the story of how ordinary people have learned for themselves and from each other; experimenting, copying and adapting.

Tolstoy’s correspondence with Gandhi in the 1900s and visits to India by African American church ministers in the 1930s are two examples of how the basic strategic insights of nonviolent action have been shared and adapted by kindred thinkers and movements around the world. In Latin America, a successful nonviolent uprising in El Salvador in 1944 almost certainly played a role in the adoption of a similar strategy in Guatemala the same year, and more recently, post-communist Europe has witnessed an astonishing flowering of popular struggle, with citizens in Georgia, the Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan drawing heavily on the strategies and symbolism of the Serbian Otpor! movement to oust leaders accused of corruption and electoral fraud.

While some nonviolent struggles appear to erupt spontaneously, or have grown organically from the experience of populations who have rejected violence as unethical or impractical, the transmission of knowledge concerning principles, strategies and techniques for waging nonviolent struggle has proved critical to the success of many other grassroots social movements from all over the world.

The instigators of early nonviolent struggles against colonialism Maori resistance to land acquisition in the village of Parihaka in New Zealand/Aotearoa in the 1880s, for instance demonstrated considerable persistence, organisation and discipline. Charismatic leadership, appeals to a mixture of indigenous and introduced spirituality and the maintenance and strengthening of traditional political structures appear to have been key to the movement’s effective mobilisation against armed opponents.

In Afghanistan between 1929 and 1948, members of the 100,000 strong Khudai Khidmitgar (Soldiers of God) participated in training camps with up to 800 participants. The week long trainings included drills, physical fitness training, village cleaning, political education, spinning, grinding wheat, political-cultural performances, and speeches from senior members including [resistance leader, Khan Abdul Gaffar] Khan. Formed by Khan to resist British colonial rule, the Khudai Khidmitgar used marches, picketing, boycotts and other methods, maintaining strict nonviolent discipline in the face of brutal repression, despite the widespread acceptance of violence within Pakhtun culture.

Nonviolence training was also practiced by the Indian Shanti Sena (Peace Army), whose membership peaked at 6,000 during the 1960s. They used nonviolent techniques to de-escalate communal riots and disarm bandits and provided humanitarian assistance to refugees and victims of natural disaster. Inspired by and based on Gandhian principles, trainings ranging from a weekend to ten days in length included prayer and meditation, collective study, lectures and discussions, cultural programs, sanitation, games, manual labor and constructive work, and theoretical aspects.

The US Civil Rights movement of the 1950s and 60s borrowed heavily from Gandhian and Christian conceptions of nonviolence, along with the folk school and community organising traditions promoted by organisations such as Tennessee’s Highlander Center. Rosa Parks, whose refusal to surrender her seat on a bus in Montgomery, Alabama is widely credited to have sparked the surge of sit-ins, boycotts, marches and civil disobedience across the south. Prior to this planned act of civil disobedience, Parks had attended a 10-day training session at the Highlander Center; training during the subsequent campaign to desegregate the buses included role-played confrontations between civil rights activists and pro-segregationists. This fusion of nonviolent philosophy with training techniques that might be described, in today’s educational parlance, as experiential, would prove highly influential for subsequent generations of trainers around the world.

James Lawson, a conscientious objector and theology student who had travelled in India in the early 1950s, further honed these techniques. Lawson, who began training with Nashville civil rights groups in 1959 at the behest of Martin Luther King, ran evening workshops exploring Christian perspectives on nonviolence and sharing stories of contemporary and historic campaigns, including the freedom rides of the 1840s and the Montgomery boycott. During role-plays in preparation for store boycotts and sit-ins, students endured verbal abuse, pushing and punching and had water and food thrown at them to simulate the expected response of antagonistic crowds. Lawson also used the workshops to show the connections between local racism and broader, international issues, demonstrating it wasn’t a one-stroke thing.

The Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) also contributed significantly to nonviolent activism and training during the 20th century. Emerging from the political and religious upheaval of the English revolution, Quaker spiritual practice rejected hierarchical forms of worship; founder, George Fox, rejected violence in all its forms.

Following World War II, Quakers formed the nucleus of early opposition to nuclear weapons, establishing groups such as the Committee for Nonviolent Action to resist weapons tests by the United States and French governments. In the late 1950s, CNVA members walked into nuclear test sites in Nevada and sailed yachts into the test zone at Bikini Atoll. In the late 1960s, A Quaker Action Group (AQAG) shipped medical supplies to North Vietnam and organised a nonviolent blockade of freighters shipping arms to Pakistan. In 1971, AQAG members established the Movement for A New Society (MNS), a self-styled transformational network that would influence social movements around the world, but most notably, the US anti-nuclear movement.

The early members of MNS consciously sought to develop tools and strategies that could be employed to bring about revolutionary change through nonviolent means. MNS members also experimented with co-operative living to reduce living expense and provide political, material, and psychological support to members engaged in unpaid political work.

Unlike other radical organizations of the time, the MNS did not focus its energies exclusively on one issue or injustice. Its members were involved in working for social change on many fronts, most notably in the movement to end US involvement in the Vietnam war, and during the citizen-led opposition to the expansion of the US nuclear industry in the mid to late 1970s. The blockade of the Seabrook nuclear power plant in 1977 was a high point, with more than 1,000 citizens arrested at the peak of a people’s movement which effectively halted the commissioning of new nuclear reactors in the United States after the 1970s.

Through their company New Society Publishers, MNS members published numerous pamphlets and books providing practical advice on working for social change. New Society publications, most notably the co-operatively authored Resource Manual for a Living Revolution (known affectionately within movement circles as the Monster Manual) were a primary source of inspiration and guidance for nonviolent activist around the world, influencing movements as far afield as the Tasmanian Wilderness Society’s campaign to protect the Franklin River.

After MNS was laid down by its members in 1988, founding member George Lakey started an organisation called Training for Change, which has continued to develop the basic training methodology used by MNS and provide training support to activists in the US, Thailand, Russia and other countries.

The Pacific Tradition

Nonviolence and nonviolence training has an equally rich history in the Australia-Pacific region. While relatively few movements have consciously adopted the term nonviolence to describe their methods, it can be observed as an underlying methodology throughout the histories of anti-colonial, women’s labour, environmental, peace and indigenous rights movements. Resistance to British land acquisition in the village of Parihaka, in New Zealand/Aotearoa’s Taranaki region, provides one of the earliest documented examples of explicitly nonviolent resistance, not just in the Australia-Pacific region, but in the world. Parihaka leader Te Whito O Rongamai was a splendid orator, exhorting his followers to maintain both their resistance and their commitment to nonviolence as they continued to plough their land in defiance of British surveyors:

Go, put your hands to the plough. Look not back. If any come with guns and swords, be not afraid. If they smite you, smite not in return. If they rend you, be not discouraged. Another will take up the good work.

In 1911, Indian-Fijians, suffering under the British exploitative system of indentured labour, sought help from Mohandas Gandhi. In India, labour ships departing Calcutta and Bombay were picketed, Indian women marched on the British Viceroy’s office and public meetings were held to protest the indenture system. In Fiji, a local campaign led by Gandhi’s associate, D.M. Manilal, culminated with a month long strike by Indian-Fijian labourers following the official end to indentured labour in 1920.

In Samoa, the Mau movement for independence from New Zealand military rule peaked in the 1920s, when it is estimated that 85 per cent of the population were engaged in acts of civil resistance ranging from non-payment of taxes, to refusal to control pests which threatened the lucrative copra trade.

Aboriginal Resistance

The first documented example of organised resistance to British invasion of Aboriginal country was led by the Bidjigal warrior Pemulwuy, of the Eora nation, between 1790 – 1802. Windradyne, of the Wiradjuri, New South Wales, Yagan of the Nyungar (Western Australia and Jundamurra of the Bunuba (West Australia) were other celebrated warriors who fought to repel the invaders using traditional methods of battle.

Koori historian and political activist Gary Foley traces the history of significant [political] resistance, both passive and active to the occupation of Aboriginal land in south-eastern Australia to the 1860s. It was in the 1920s and 30s, however, that Aboriginal political organisations, including the Australia Aboriginal Progress Association (APA) and the Australian Aborigines League (AAL) began to move the struggle for land rights and human rights beyond localised struggle. The following chronology is derived largely from Foley’s research.

During the Great Depression of the 1930s, Aboriginals in NSW formed alliances with unemployed white workers, with strikes and stop-works organised in support of extending work relief to unemployed aboriginal workers. On 26 January 1936, in a ceremony contrasting with contemporary Survival Day festivals, the APA marked the 150th anniversary of the white man’s seizure of our country with a Day of Mourning and Protest in Sydney, which was attended by 100 delegates.

In 1939, 200 residents of the Aboriginal reserve at Cummerangunja, NSW, walked off the reserve after two-year dispute with the NSW Protection Board. Two thirds of the reserve community crossed the Murray River and established a camp at Barmah, Victoria, and thus withdrew their labour from the Board. 1946 and 1950-51 were also marked by strikes by Aboriginal workers, this time in the Pilbara region in Western Australia and Darwin.

In 1963, the Yolngu people of Yirrkala in the Northern Territory sent two bark petitions typed in English and Gumatj and framed by traditional designs, to the Commonwealth Parliament. The petitions, which became the first traditional documents to be recognised by Parliament, called for recognition of the Yolngu people’s rights to their traditional land. The failure of the Commonwealth to recognise the Yolngu’s claim to their land led to the 1968-1971 Gove Land Rights Case in the Northern Territory Supreme court which, while unsuccessful, set the scene for the Commonwealth’s response to growing political pressure generated by indigenous activists in the late 60s and early 70s.

In 1965, Charles Perkins, inspired by the US civil rights movement, organised a highly publicised Freedom Ride, when a bus-load of Sydney University students travelled to outback NSW to expose expose racism and discrimination in towns including Walgett and Moree. In 1966, Gurindji workers walked off Wave Hill pastoral station in the Northern Territory, in a protracted strike that added significant political pressure to the call for a referendum on Aboriginal citizenship and, ultimately, led to the first legislation for Aboriginal Land Rights in 1976.

Following the recognition of Aboriginal citizenry in the 1967 referendum, pressure was mounting on new Prime Minister, Harold Holt, to introduce land rights legislation. Following the failure of the Gove Land Rights case in 1971, Holt proposal to introduce a system of general purpose leases, ignoring Aboriginal demands for freehold title. In response, four young activists from Sydney’s Redfern travelled to Canberra to erect what was soon dubbed the Aboriginal Tent Embassy outside Parliament House. It was at the Tent Embassy, which stands today despite repeated eviction attempts, that the Aboriginal flag was first flown.

Following the sacked Whitlam Government’s failure to pass land rights legislation through the upper house, in March 1976, 1000 Aboriginal people marched in Alice Springs in support of land rights; in June, the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976, introduced by the Fraser Government, was passed by Parliament.

The occupation of Oyster Cove, in Tasmania, between 1983 and 1985 led to the ownership of this and several other culturally important sites being returned to the Tasmanian Aboriginal community in 1995. 1985 also saw more than 1,000 Aboriginal people march on Parliament to demand a stronger model for land rights legislation, and in 1988, approximately 20,000 Aboriginal people marched in Sydney to mark 200 years of survival. An occupation and picket at the old Swan Brewery in Perth between 1989 and 1992 successfully prevented re-development of a culturally significant site.

In 1996, the Mirrar people of Kakadu initiated a campaign to stop the development of the Jabiluka uranium mine within their traditional lands. National speaking tours, public meetings and banner drops were organised, and in 1998, around 5000 people travelled to Kakadu to join a blockade to halt construction of the mine. 530 people were arrested at the blockade, including Senior Traditional Owner Yvonne Margarula. Plans for the mine have since been abandoned.

In 2000, an estimated one million non-indigenous and indigenous people marched across the Sydney Harbour bridge in support of reconciliation. In November 2004, indigenous activist and ex-footballer Michael Long walked 400 kilometres to gain an appointment with Prime Minister John Howard, and in December, Redfern activists promised to adopt the tactics of Gandhi and Martin Luther King to prevent forceable acquisition of Aboriginal land in Redfern.

Environmental Struggles

Australians had participated in nonviolent campaigns to disrupt French nuclear testing in the Pacific throughout the 1970s, and the establishment of the first local Greenpeace 1977 brought the Quaker inspired techniques of bearing witness in high-speed inflatable boats to a successful campaign to end what remained of Australia’s whaling industry.

But it was the 1979 blockade of logging operations at Terania Creek in Northern New South Wales that set the scene for the rise of nonviolent direct action in the environment movement over the next decade. The blockade lasted more than a month and triggered the government enquiry that led to the rainforest’s protection. According to Terania Creek veteran John Seed, it was the earliest direct action in defence of rainforests in the world.

The Terania Creek blockade was followed, in 1980, by six months of protest action against sand mining at Middle Head, and in 1981, by protest action to protect the Nightcap range from logging.

While, at the earlier protests, nonviolence training was not even though of, it would be fundamental to the strategy for mass civil disobedience employed by during the Franklin Dam blockade in 1982.

According to Ian Cohen, the Tasmanian Wilderness Society (TWS)’s approach to nonviolence training was influenced by members’ observations at the Nightcap blockade:

Judgements were not made by observing actions in the forest but by witnessing the dynamics of the base camp, which was dominated by the loony fringe who did not participate in campaigning, were often drunk and violent and disrupted the camp.

Cohen believes that this led TWS to make nonviolence training compulsory for all who participated in the Franklin blockade. Nonetheless, TWS sought practical help from veterans of this first wave of environmental direct action, and a small group of activists, including John Seed, travelled fro Northern New South Wales to Tasmania to help organise the blockade.

The Philadelphia-based Movement for a New Society was almost certainly a key influence upon the Franklin blockade trainers. In 1975, the Quaker-funded Donald Groom Peace Committee began supporting Australian nonviolent activists through a fellowship program. One of the first fellowships was awarded to Jann Bennett, who travelled to Philadelphia to spend 9 months with Movement for a New Society, and who shared her experiences widely in Australia. The 1980 fellow, Rachel Bloomfield, established a trainers network in New Zealand after having learned nonviolence training with MNS, and in 1981, Diana Pittock and the Melbourne Non-Violence Training Collective worked to build a nonviolence training network around Australia, which was used as preparation for actions at Franklin River, Pine Gap & Roxby Downs.

The Franklin Blockaders handbook also drew heavily on the MNS-authored Resource Manual for a Living Revolution, quoting extensively from sections on working in groups and decision-making.

One notable characteristic of the Franklin blockade that influenced the role of training was that TWS, as organising body, was able to control access to protest site. This put blockade organisers in the unique position of being able to impose compulsory training on all who attended the blockade. Quite simply, if you didn’t do the training, you couldn’t join the blockade.

Despite the striking success of the blockade 1272 people were arrested, the action had been wholly nonviolent, people felt involved in a history making event and the Franklin was saved – some organisers and blockaders were ambivalent about the role that training had played. Writing, some years later, in the pages of the magazine Nonviolence Today, and later still in his book Green Fire, Ian Cohen is scathing in his criticism of the Franklin blockade’s orthodox NVA trainers:

The practice of orthodox NVA training fails in that it refuses to cater for the unexpected and aims for the safe option of stereotyped behaviour. It teaches passivity and acceptance of rules, producing compliant, productive adherents to the doctrine.

Cohen nonetheless acknowledges that the training at the Franklin was of great assistance to those needing skills, confidence and a key to deal with potentially violent situations.

For many, gaol was a new and daunting experience; the bonding that occurred during training helped create the support needed to deal with confronting situations.

Even blockade organisers like Cathie Plowman were in two minds about the role of training:

A non-violent blockade was essential and it was an excellent blockade. We got what we wanted: worldwide attention and support … I didn’t agree with the way NVA was used but it did provide a means of control.

At the same time, some of those involved with nonviolence training for the blockade were frustrated with a pragmatism in the campaign that seemed inconsistent with the big picture, long-term approach of principled nonviolence. Trainers wondered what sort of change they could have achieved in an organisation based on non-hierarchical principles with a long-term campaign perspective, based soundly on nonviolent principles.

Networking for Nonviolence

Whatever tensions may have existed concerning the role of nonviolence training, the Franklin blockade and the earlier wave of direct action for the environment was one factor in the groundswell of enthusiasm for nonviolence. One of the spin-offs of the Franklin blockade and the increased interest in nonviolence it generated, was the formation of a national nonviolence network that named itself Groundswell. The first national gathering was held in 1981, and a magazine with the same name began publication in 1982.

From 1983, nonviolent activists in Australia turned their attention to three related issues: US-bases, US-warships and uranium. A nonviolent action workshop in Western Australia sparked a series of water-based actions against warships visiting Fremantle, and women’s peace camps sprung up at US bases. Those with a commitment to nonviolence found themselves in conflict with other activists:

One such movement, known originally as the Nomadic Action Group, travelled around different actions in Australia, charging into ongoing campaigns with little if any respect for those already involved, and usually causing havoc, before moving on as the self-appointed saviours of the Earth.

One such confrontation at Roxby Downs in 1983-4 served to discredit the idea of nonviolent action for several years, according to some of the nonviolent activists involved.

1988 marked another turning point for nonviolent activists in Australia. Groundswell changed its name to Nonviolence Today to give new readers a clearer picture of the magazine’s content and several individuals within the network began to work on campaigns in small, intentional affinity groups with an explicit principled, nonviolent approach.

Nuremberg Action Brisbane, a warship action group, and the Melbourne Rainforest Action Group (MRAG), characterised the new approach. The new affinity groups would work on campaigns with a limited duration, follow a code of ethics and have clear agreements about roles. Nonviolence training was an important part of the new groups’ approach.

MRAG, which was established as a group with a clear commitment to action based on nonviolent principles, carried out more than 25 direct actions against imports of tropical rainforest timber in 1989 and 1990. The actions were planned openly and intentions communicated to media, police and the public in advance of each action. MRAG was successful as a training group for new activists; more than 100 people participated in nonviolence training over the course of the campaign, and weekly meetings were regularly attended by around 65 people.

In 1990, the Gulf Peace Team Project brought nonviolent activists from around the country together to support a team that placed itself between Iraq and Saudi Arabia in the lead-up to the US bombing of Iraq. This spurred on the re-establishment of a network, which went by the name Australian Nonviolence Network (ANN). The re-vitalised national network held its first National Nonviolence Gathering in 1992, with subsequent gatherings each year until 1997.

In 1994, the National Nonviolence Gathering attempted to formulate a set of principles for ANN, similar in form and content to the nonviolence guidelines used to guide behaviour during nonviolent action. This and subsequent gatherings proved unable to agree on an appropriate set of principles; conflict around questions of gender and patriarchy was a recurring stumbling block.

While Nonviolence Today continued to be published during this period, the annual gatherings ceased. ANN members participated in the 1998 Jabiluka blockade, but energy to sustain the Network was low. By 2000, when the final Gathering took place in Brisbane, global justice mobilisations were spreading around the world, sparked by the 1999 WTO demonstrations in Seattle. The final edition of Nonviolence Today was published in August 2000, when the editorial collective decided it was time to retire after 15 years of service.

Nonviolence since 2000

In the intervening period, nonviolence training and activism has continued in different forms. In the mid-1990s, the Pt’chang Nonviolent Community Safety Group was formed in Melbourne, applying the principles of third-party nonviolence intervention (TPNI) at a community level. For more than eight years, Pt’chang has fielded community safety and peacekeeping teams and occasionally legal observers at dance parties, community festivals and rallies, and has developed specialised training modules for its peacekeeping trainings.

Around the same time Pt’chang was founded, Alternatives to Violence Project (AVP) groups were being established in Australia. AVP volunteers facilitate experiential workshops in prisons, schools, and the wider community; AVP workshops focus on the development of skills for interpersonal conflict resolution.

In 1999, Peace Brigades International (PBI) opened an office in Australia. PBI is an independent NGO which specialises in providing nonviolent, protective accompaniment to human rights activists, clergy, union leaders and others threatened by political violence. All PBI volunteers participate in an orientation and selection process culminating in a training program which includes safety procedures, nonviolence, consensus decision-making, dealing with stress and fear, conflict resolution, cultural sensitivity, country-specific information and political analysis.

In recent years, the From Violence To Wholeness (FVTW) training program, developed by Pace a Bene, has been offered in Australia. FVTW training focuses on nonviolence as personally and socially transformative force.

While the nonviolent methods have been used by a diversity of groups in the Australia-Pacific region since (at least) the 1880s, organised nonviolence training appears to have only played a significant role in developing since the Franklin Dam blockade in the early eighties. From this brief overview of the relationship between training, nonviolence and social change, it would appear that organised nonviolence training has usually been delivered in Australia through one of the following channels.

1. An organising body has made participation in nonviolent action conditional upon activists participating in training. The Wilderness Society, Greenpeace provide are examples of groups that have adopted this policy, either permanently or intermittently.
2. NGOs involved in an ongoing campaigning have requested training from activists with experience in nonviolent action, at times supported by a more or less informal network (such as the ANN).
3. Collectives have been established specifically to provide nonviolence training to the activist community, usually by activists who have developed a strong commitment to nonviolence as a philosophy of social change.
4. On occasions, activists with a commitment to nonviolence have attempted to influence the approach of groups of activists with divergent philosophies at events such as blockades or camps.
5. Affinity groups campaigning on a particular injustice have made a conscious choice to employ nonviolent methods and work only with people who agree on this approach. Trainings have usually been open to people interested in becoming involved with the group.

All of these avenues for providing nonviolence training offer significant challenges. Compulsory training during the Franklin blockade proved effective in delivering a successful nonviolent action involving thousands of people, but was in all likelihood only possible because the organising group had the means to determine who could or couldn’t participate in the blockade. Greenpeace also requires all participants in actions to complete at least a one day training in nonviolence before taking part in direct actions. However, the high level of nonviolent discipline achieved comes at the cost of the limited scale of action; Greenpeace actions are not generally publicised beforehand, limiting opportunities for participation by large numbers of people.

While requests for training from existing groups provide a valuable opportunity to work with groups and individuals on the coal-face of social change, trainers may need to be aware that the experiences, perspectives and approach of the group may be different to their own. As the account of a trainer invited to assist TWS during the Long Hot Summer campaign of the early 90s demonstrates, campaigning organisations have their own culture and history which will influence their approach to nonviolence and nonviolence training. Robert Burrowes’ Nonviolence Matrix is one tool to assist trainers in appreciating divergent approaches to nonviolence.

The history of Groundswell and the Australian Nonviolence Network would suggest that attempts to educate divergent groups of activists engaged in protests, occupations or blockades have been problematic; nonviolent activists who have participated in convergence-style protests at US-bases, arms fairs or refugee detention centres would appear to have been most effective in sparking interest in nonviolence through action rather than words.

The affinity groups of the early 90s offer a valuable model for planning nonviolent action campaigns which incorporate training. The Nuremberg Action Group and Melbourne Rainforest Action Group proved effective in involving and training relatively large groups of activists within the context of a live campaign. However, efforts by nonviolent activists many of whom were involved in NAB, MRAG and similar groups to develop structures to support training and nonviolence in general appear to have stalled as the focus shifted from campaigning on specific issues to questions around group maintenance and fundamental principles.

Download Resource

• Nonviolence Trainer’s Resource Manual
  The excerpt in this article is page 19-28. See the Reference notes on pg. 28.
  The web links and image have been added by the Commons Librarians.

Explore Further

• More resources from the Pt’chang Collection
• The Story of the Australian Nonviolence Network
• Blockades that changed Australia
• How movements build strength through training
• Nonviolent Direct Action (NVDA): Start Here
• Activism and Campaign History: Start Here
• Directory of Social Change Organisations, Networks, Trainers and Hubs