last week, i filmed maria (peacestrike.org) being told by armed protection officers outside new scotland yard that the counter terrorism command unit (SO15) confirmed the flag she was waving was NOT that of the proscribed tamil tiger liberation organisation, and so they could not process or arrest her under the terrorism act. (vid at  http://london.indymedia.org.uk/videos/1478).

since then, police in the square have come up with various new decisions and interpretations of the law. over the weekend, they decided a flag on a fixed pole was legal but anyone carrying one would be liable for arrest - bizarre.

on monday, the politicians finally returned from their easter holidays (remember easter?!), presumably to count their money again. as predicted, someone went spare about the flags on show in parliament square, and at lunchtime, police ripped them down, breaking one of the poles in doing so.

maria then displayed the symbol on a t-shirt, and stopping short of ripping that off her, the police then arrested her, and held her for six hours, where she was questioned by officers from SO15.

she was then released on police bail until september, with no conditions.

some have suggested that the tamil eelam flag is illegal because it shows guns, but thanks to research by matt from 'bear witness films', we have found two examples of nation states with similar imagery on their flags.

if you go to the mozambique embassy in london, you will see an image of an kalashnikov AK47 proudly displayed on their flags outside the building. similarly the guatamalan embassy displays its flag with guns outside their embassy.

the red tamil eelam flag was established in 1990, and represents the whole of the tamil people. in its imagery, as well as the tiger which represents fearlessness and freedom, the colour yellow was chosen to represent that their freedom must be obtained through humanity and human honesty.

to demand the removal of the flag is to strip the tamil people of their symbol at the very time when they have also been brutally stripped of their de facto state. it adds to our government's complicity in the war crimes of the sri lankan authorities.

the uk licensed £7m worth of military exports to sri lanka in the first quarter of 2007 alone. we also agreed in 2005 to £41m debt relief over the next ten years. police have complained that control of the tamil protests in parliament square have cost a few million pounds. all this would not be necessary if our government stopped being complicit in the genocide through arms sales and aid.

finally, while we're on the subject of flags, the sri lankan national flag shows a golden lion holding a sword. this has been interpreted as the lion being the only beast that can defeat the tiger, and slaying the tiger with its sword.

perhaps a fittingly genocidal symbol for a genocidal regime?