It's 1am on July 20th 2010 at Parliament Square in the heart of London. Camped in the square are a group of activists concerned with a wide range of issues from electoral reform to climate change and an illegal war. They've been there since May. It's a convergence space, it's a symbol, and it's right under the noses of the establishment that has failed and failed again to represent the views of those who were corralled into supporting it.
Convenient then that that very establishment had made it illegal only 3 years previously to protest within a certain radius of Parliament. Presumably, this legislation having been part of the Serious and Organised Crime Act, the concern was that protesters would be launching RPGs into the House of Commons if they were allowed close enough.
Fortunately the state never had to arrest a campsite full of citizens on suspicion of being terrorists because Boris Johnson did all the handy work instead by declaring that the land was owned by the GLA, and that the spectacle was "nauseating" before proceeding to take legal action against those occupying the square. Those that remained in defiance of the subsequent eviction order are now to be evicted physically. On cue, bailiffs and police enter the square and begin to forcefully remove demonstrators, treating their possessions with contempt and their dignity with unabashed antipathy. Such is the determination to stay and get their message heard that it takes almost 2 hours to clear the site of 50 activists.
According to Colin Barrow, leader of Westminster council, it was wrong for the square to be "hijacked by vociferous minorities" who had turned it into "a squalid campsite". He was furthermore "relieved this dreadful blight of Parliament Square has finally come to an end, and look forward to it being restored to its previous condition so all Londoners can visit and enjoy it".
Brian Haws, longstanding anti-war protester who has camped on Parliament Sq since British troops were sent to Afghanistan in 2001, is the latest would-be victim of a High Court eviction order c/o Boris Johnson. All to ensure any form of dissent was covered up before the heart of London becomes the centre of attention across the world for one day only on April 29th. Unfortunately for Boris, the order only covers Parliament Square Gardens, and not the pavement around it which is owned by Westminster City council. It's now too late to get rid of Brian, even if it means he must sleep on the pavement. Colin Barrow must be fuming.
Such a blight does Westminster Council find those sleeping outdoors that it is also trying to make homelessness illegal.
Funny then how it has no problem with those who want to camp outside Westminster Abbey for a week to get a good view of Prince William and Kate Middleton getting hitched.
It is easy to see that there is a double standard being applied here. If you're willing to pander to a ceremony of state power and the reinforcement of social division, if you're willing to lap it all up like a sick puppy and come back for seconds, if you're willing to accept that we are More Important than you and always will be, then you can camp where you want.
If you're here because you've got an issue with the way we're running things, if you're here because you're not represented, not considered, and not counted, if you're here to embarrass us in front of our chums then we will crush you. Look how powerful we are.
What's shocking though is that in effect the law is being used to facilitate the enforcement of the politics that the establishment deems as good and right. To crush dissent and to distract from the issues that people should be rightfully angry about. If you don't fit into the mold that they have carved out, you'll find your life incredibly difficult.
Because really, as far as the law is concerned, (specifically Westminster's by-laws which don't allow the erection of a structure in a public place - i.e. tent) what is the difference between camping outside Westminster Abbey and camping on Parliament Square? There is no difference.
The difference is only in how the law is applied. Clearly a village of tents covered in Union flags and pictures of William and his darling are not "unsightly" whereas, according to the established powers, tents covered in peace symbols and home truths are.
The thing is, and I think a lot of people are coming to realise this, we can only protest where they say it's okay. We can only demonstrate in a manner that is acceptable to them. We will only change what they deem to be reasonable (and tokenistic) and then we will be expected to show gratitude and satisfaction despite the fact that all they are are our representatives and not our overlords. Unfortunately, they've been bought out, and now we've got nobody but ourselves to rely on to make change that matters.
I've used this case of undoubted hypocrisy in Westminster as a vehicle for a broader idea that I've been trying to put in words for quite some time now. What's happening in Westminster is disgusting, but it's only an example. It's an example of how we've been manipulated by the system that we thought was supposed to be doing what is in our best interests.
Unfortunately this system only serves the best interests of an elite few, and I'll bet my bottom dollar that they're not the ones being endlessly fucked over by cuts to education, health, social care, youth services, transport and emergency services. They're almost certainly the ones profiting from the privatisation of some of these bodies (Like Colin Barrow, whose thinktank, Policy Exchange, has advocated almost complete privatisation of education in the past, or who has earned millions betting on the misfortune of others as a notorious City hedgefund manager), however, and that is sickening.
Tell you what, though - Democracy Village really pissed off those elite few.
0 comments:
Post a Comment