a long brewing rift between protestors in parliament square has recently emerged very publicly in articles, comments, and malicious disinformation on uk indymedia. the arrival of the democracy village in the square has brought to a head a serious communication breakdown between the 'parliament square peace campaign' which brian haw established almost a decade ago, and the 'peace strike' which is maria gallestegui's separate protest. she of course supported brian for many years, but he now describes her on his website as having withdrawn from his campaign 'by mutual consent'. as other journalists have recently alluded to the problems, and as there has been an orchestrated campaign to sabotage the democracy village, i felt it was time to put on record my own knowledge of the situation, and to suggest to some of the new villagers and others considering joining the protest to be aware of the history and context and to take care not to inflame the situation, and also to avoid conduct that might jeopordise either or both protests.

since the arrival of the 'democracy village' in parliament square, there have been occasional disparaging remarks posted on indymedia, and in the last 24 hours there have been several attempts at disinformation, suggesting that the village will be closing down on wednesday morning. a spokesperson for the village has confirmed that these postings are unfounded and mischievous.

i think a look at peter marshall's excellent and balanced article on indymedia might provide some background, and may point to the possible source of this disinformation. 
http://indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/450774.html

i have over many years formed tremendous respect for brian haw (parliament square peace campaign - PSPC) and his fellow campaigner, barbara tucker. followers of indymedia will know i have supported them with an enormous archive of work in the past (see the socpa section on indymedia)

barbara and brian have over the last couple of years formed the deeply held belief that others in the square are acting on behalf of the police (and peter marshall's article tells of the 'mutual decision' to split the protest into the PSPC and the 'peace strike').

i don't personally share that view myself, and although i have been open to receive any evidence to support the notion, and have actively requested it on many occasions, none has ever been forthcoming. i have also engaged in a genuine and sincere attempt to organise some mediation in this rift, but the PSPC is now set in its beliefs and the attempt has unfortunately failed. sadly, barbara and brian have now lost trust in me - a trust built over many years.

another effect of this situation is that one or two of the few remaining PSPC supporters have taken things to extreme. some of these people tend to assume guilt by association, and so anyone supporting the peace strike must in their eyes also be working for the authorities or, bizarrely, are accused of zionist beliefs. even partners or friends of people seen as supporting the peace strike have on occasion been maligned, despite not having any affiliation.

now the democracy village has appeared on the square (associated with the peace strike), and the tension has increased.

there have been some errors of judgement by a small number of 'villagers' and peter marshall's piece mentions the drinking of alcohol. as with any public protest, it's unwise to openly flaunt laws or bye-laws that have no connection with the issue you are campaigning on. it creates an easy target for the authorities to find a reason to close you down, and so it's just handing defeat on a plate.

perhaps those responsible are unaware of the history of hardship, assault, legal battles, and corruption that brian and barbara have fought to retain their tenuous place in the square and indeed in history. protesting in parliament square is not a party, it's not a joke - it's a hard-won, heart-felt struggle in the face of draconian laws put in place by arrogant and so-far untouchable politicians. those politicians are seeking any excuse to clear the square of the protest that daily reminds them what war-criminals most of them are. david cameron is on record as promising that if he comes to power he WILL move them on.

so i beg those new 'villagers' to consider this and let it inform their actions while they are in the square. the PSPC is quite right to be concerned that such behaviour might directly affect them - this is not a paranoid view, and the villagers would do well to respect it. the villagers should be very careful to do nothing that might bring harm to a protest that has now been running for nearly a decade. clearly no-one can tell them what to do, but i hope they will pause to consider the possible repercussions on others that their actions might cause.

having said that, i also ask that if it is indeed well-meaning supporters of PSPC that are posting the disinformation about the democracy village, well, frankly, stop being so childish. one of the stated aims of the village is to stop the war in afghanistan and bring the troops home. this supports the PSPC's aims. another aim is to take power from unaccountable politicians and to establish a more democratic system. again, this would give the people the power to stop our government from ever instigating an illegal war again. these are areas of total agreement surely, and these attempts to sabotage the village can only end up with lost support for BOTH camps.

i've so far stayed silent about the rift in parliament square, but as other journalists have now alluded to it, and as disinformation is appearing on indymedia, i feel it's important to make public what has been happening.