Skip to content or view screen version

Hidden Article

This posting has been hidden because it breaches the Indymedia UK (IMC UK) Editorial Guidelines.

IMC UK is an interactive site offering inclusive participation. All postings to the open publishing newswire are the responsibility of the individual authors and not of IMC UK. Although IMC UK volunteers attempt to ensure accuracy of the newswire, they take no responsibility legal or otherwise for the contents of the open publishing site. Mention of external web sites or services is for information purposes only and constitutes neither an endorsement nor a recommendation.

Temporary Social Centre Illegally Evicted by 'owners'.

IMC Reporter | 09.06.2005 15:44 | G8 2005 | Anti-racism | Free Spaces | Birmingham

G8 - themed social centre evicted - illegally, by owners - after one day of occupation.

Report with comments.

Recently, a collective of people in Birmingham decided to facilitate a temporary social centre in the heart of the city, to highlight issues surrounding the G8 protests, make poverty history, global human rights and DIY culture.

A building - 117 Digbeth High Street - was spotted, but after 18 hours of occupation two people turned up outside the building claiming to be the owners. Several minutes of negotiation occured, during which it was explained that the occupiers had no legal obligation to open the door and that the persons claiming to own the building had no legal right to threaten or use violence to open the door. Despite this the persons claiming to own the building indeed threatened violence if the door was not opened, and decided to kick down the door. This achieved, the occupiers agreed to leave, while having a discussion with the illegal invaders about the legality of their actions and about the plans for the social centre. The 'owner' appreciated all the work that had been achieved in the 18 hours in the abandoned building, including extensive cleaning, but seemed locked in a capitalist and beurocratic attitude of mind which to some extent precludded meaningful discussion of these issues. Later on, when someone turned up with a new mop and bucket to find the social centre evicted, she had an extensive discussion with the new occupiers/'owners' in which they continually insisted that squatting is illegal, when it is not, and even offered the person a job painting the building! She replied that she had a job, and the new occupiers were very much confused by her status as a teacher. The 'owners' calimed the squat would be 'taking food from their children', when in fact there was a plan to offer free food at the social centre, as well as refurbishing the building. If the owners had been less prejudiced against squatters and agreed a licence, their dilapidated plaster ceiling would have been repaired! A number of different community groups had planned to use the building, including Birmingham LETS and the local campaign for the closure of the Guantanamo Bay internment camp.

Earlier on, during the eviction process, the social centre occupiers were collecting their belongings from an upstairs room when seven or so young men turned up, formed a semicircle and backed the three social centre facilitators towards the back of the room, pushing them around in an ineffectual attempt at intimidation. Soon they bored of this and the facilitators continued on their course, collecting tat and going for a nice walk.

The new occupiers were quite happy for people to return later to collect some other items. Despite this I'm reminded of a term introduced to me recently by an anglo-indian friend: 'coconuts', meaning those who are brown outside but white inside. The questions of the gentleman leading the eviction showed extreme prejudice towards the poor - when told that the social centre was not interested in profit making, he replied that that was obvious becasue we were poor. When offered a peppercorn rent, he argued that the building had something called a '24 hour food licence', which would raise the rent to high levels. He would therefore seem uninterested in the idea that people might not need permission from an elitist white power structure we call 'government' to prepare and serve food to hungry people!

Can we as a movement challenge this problem of conciousness by which positive social change is countered, not by governemnts or big corporations, but by private citizens acting in their percieved best interests? How can we act to change conciousness first and foremost? Does anyone have any interesting research to share on this question?

Incidentally, plans for events this weekend and next are
still in full effect - get involved now to cre8 future reality!

IMC Reporter
- e-mail: brumg8dissent@riseup.net
- Homepage: http://stuffit.org/brumcre8/

Comments

Hide the following 9 comments

.......

09.06.2005 20:29

Still mulling over all the issues surrounding what happened
yesterday, but leaving was the best thing to do imho.

space is space. the community, the collective
and its aims are whats important.

Thankfully noone was hurt

next time aye ;) .....

lots of love and rage





Kidda
- Homepage: http://stuffit.org/brumcre8


Very fair and accurate description of events

09.06.2005 20:54

Great article. Only bit i might disagree with is "seven or so young men turned up, formed a semicircle and backed the three social centre facilitators towards the back of the room, pushing them around in an ineffectual attempt at intimidation". I remember 7 large muscularly-advantaged males scaring the living shit out of me.

soy-lidarity
mail e-mail: soy-lidarity@riseup.net


resistance

10.06.2005 15:14

why wasn't the place secured in the 18 hours(!) it was occupied? boards on windows and barricades ready to go up on doors are pretty much de rigeur for young social centres, aren'\t they? =\

confused


Everyone ok?

10.06.2005 15:47

Is everyone okay? No one too badly shook up about what happend?

Chris
- Homepage: http://www.wmanarchists.org


Resistance would have been futile not fertile

11.06.2005 19:34

hello confused. Your points you make are valid in some contexts but in this case i think it would have been extremely unwise to wage a pitched battle against a group of very angry people.

It wouldn't have formed the basis of a very sustainable and open social centre. Part of the intial occupation was to sus out the situation, to see the lay of the land if you like, and in this case it was successful. It soon became clear that an apparently empty and abandoned building was actually being used. I don't think it would have been much of a political statement to remain in occupation of a building that is actually being used by other individuals. It was good practice for a crew of people to get together and cr8ting something quickly. A bit too temporary a social centre but there will be a next one thats for sure.

stevo


Can you not see?

13.06.2005 13:52

IMC Reporter stated: The 'owners' calimed the squat would be 'taking food from their children', when in fact there was a plan to offer free food at the social centre, as well as refurbishing the building.

Can you really not see that the lackeys sent to move you along would have put their jobs on the line had they negotiated with you?

If they were the owners, then are you REALLY surprised that they didn't want them taking the place?

You state that the place would have been turned into some sort of soup kitchen. Do you really expect them to be happy to send their kids there rather than feeding them at home in the style to which they are accustomed?

Why the mock outrage?

Abu Burkan


why

13.06.2005 23:59

why has this been hidden?

someone


Why have you hidden this?

14.06.2005 12:29

Why has this article been hidden? Because the author dared to use the term 'coconuts' to describe an Imperialist white man's attitude? You should be ashamed at your ludicrous attempts at being PC. I dont think the comment was racist in this context at ALL; controversial - obviously.

Confused in Brum


Article hidden because of racist comments

14.06.2005 16:00

The above article was hidden because of its racist content.

"The new occupiers were quite happy for people to return later to collect some other items. Despite this I'm reminded of a term introduced to me recently by an anglo-indian friend: 'coconuts', meaning those who are brown outside but white inside."

As far as I know the colour of someone's skin shouldn't be an issue in this context and nor should their 'blackness'.

Unfortunately this comes across as being racist and flouts our editorial guidelines.

Can I suggest whoever wrote the article re-write it without making a reference to someone's skin colour or how 'black' they are and re-post it to newswire.

Brum imc volunteer