Last week-end I toddled up to London to participate in a peace camp in Parliament Square. The camp lasted from noon Saturday until noon Thursday, straddling the death throes of the Blair administration and the early wailings of the Brown era (“The King is dead! Long live the… errrm. No, actually, down with the next king too!”)
The camp was entitled “War is still the issue” (
http://www.warisstilltheissue.org ). The aim was to ensure that our focus remains very much on the tragedy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the change of administration. Blair/ Bliar has been the central bogeyman in UK protests against Iraq and we need to ensure that now he’s gone we don’t let his successor off the hook.
The camp was also designed to support Brian Haw who has camped outside Parliament Square for more than 2200 days. His protest is an ongoing inspiration to peace activists, a high profile reminder to thousands of passing tourists and a significant irritant for establishment politicians.
There has been substantial coverage of the camp on IMC UK (as well as some in the mainstream media):
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374524.html
I want to highlight two significant things that came out of the camp for me.
Firstly the fact that there was very little police interference. The camp was illegal as it contravened SOCPA. In particular all protests within 1km of Parliament Square require permission from the police – this permission was never sought by the campers. (The one possible exception to this is Brian Haw’s support camp. The legal battles continue but, because his camp predates SOCPA, he has been able to successfully argue that he is exempt from its provisions).
I for one fully expected the police to come and clear the camp away very quickly – they have been very heavy handed about enforcing SOCPA to this point. This did not happen and it suggests a sea change in the thinking of the police and the government. Indeed a recent article from The Times suggests that SOCPA may soon be repealed – a significant victory for freedom of speech:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374322.html
Incidentally at one stage the police released a statement in which they stated that, as far as they were aware, permission had been sought for the camp. Don’t believe a word of it!
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374429.html
The second significant thing for me came out of a discussion amongst participants in the peace camp around the notion of “loving your enemies”. As I mentioned above the anti-war movement has (rightly) targeted Tony Blair as being personally responsible for the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. My feeling is however that the structure of mainstream politics in this country is such that any prime minister would have made decisions within parameters that are utterly unacceptable. Perhaps a different prime minister would not have gone to war against Iraq but it is almost certain that any other prime minister would have continued the policy of sanctions and would have reserved the right to use military force to defend the elite’s economic interests.
So my gripe is with the system and culture of mainstream British politics and this is something on which I want to remain very focussed. I do not want to be distracted by personality politics (a constant preoccupation of the mainstream media) when there are much deeper issues to consider.
Thinking around this also caused me to reflect on my fundamental opposition to the two wars, in particular to the war on Iraq. There have been many arguments put against the war – people have pointed out that it is illegal due to the lack of a Security Council resolution, that Blair et al lied to the parliament and the people on a number of significant issues, that strategic planning for war was ill conceived etc etc. I suppose those opposing the war are well advised to put across all the arguments at their disposal. Nonetheless were none of the above true I would still oppose the war!
My objection to the war on Iraq (and the war on Afghanistan) is on moral and humanist grounds – I believe that we have no right to kill people for pretty much any reason whatsoever. I don’t believe in dropping exploding lumps of metal from the sky.
Perhaps it is conceivable that a people may be so dreadfully oppressed they feel compelled to take matters into their own hands (and in this case who am I to condemn?) but this is clearly not the situation of the UK government. For them the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan have been, from the start, wars of aggression. And they are wars which continue to destroy lives with every passing day. We must oppose them in every way we can.
http://www.warisstilltheissue.org ). The aim was to ensure that our focus remains very much on the tragedy of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, despite the change of administration. Blair/ Bliar has been the central bogeyman in UK protests against Iraq and we need to ensure that now he’s gone we don’t let his successor off the hook. The camp was also designed to support Brian Haw who has camped outside Parliament Square for more than 2200 days. His protest is an ongoing inspiration to peace activists, a high profile reminder to thousands of passing tourists and a significant irritant for establishment politicians.
There has been substantial coverage of the camp on IMC UK (as well as some in the mainstream media):
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374524.html I want to highlight two significant things that came out of the camp for me.
Firstly the fact that there was very little police interference. The camp was illegal as it contravened SOCPA. In particular all protests within 1km of Parliament Square require permission from the police – this permission was never sought by the campers. (The one possible exception to this is Brian Haw’s support camp. The legal battles continue but, because his camp predates SOCPA, he has been able to successfully argue that he is exempt from its provisions).
I for one fully expected the police to come and clear the camp away very quickly – they have been very heavy handed about enforcing SOCPA to this point. This did not happen and it suggests a sea change in the thinking of the police and the government. Indeed a recent article from The Times suggests that SOCPA may soon be repealed – a significant victory for freedom of speech:
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374322.html Incidentally at one stage the police released a statement in which they stated that, as far as they were aware, permission had been sought for the camp. Don’t believe a word of it!
http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2007/06/374429.html The second significant thing for me came out of a discussion amongst participants in the peace camp around the notion of “loving your enemies”. As I mentioned above the anti-war movement has (rightly) targeted Tony Blair as being personally responsible for the atrocities in Iraq and Afghanistan. My feeling is however that the structure of mainstream politics in this country is such that any prime minister would have made decisions within parameters that are utterly unacceptable. Perhaps a different prime minister would not have gone to war against Iraq but it is almost certain that any other prime minister would have continued the policy of sanctions and would have reserved the right to use military force to defend the elite’s economic interests.
So my gripe is with the system and culture of mainstream British politics and this is something on which I want to remain very focussed. I do not want to be distracted by personality politics (a constant preoccupation of the mainstream media) when there are much deeper issues to consider.
Thinking around this also caused me to reflect on my fundamental opposition to the two wars, in particular to the war on Iraq. There have been many arguments put against the war – people have pointed out that it is illegal due to the lack of a Security Council resolution, that Blair et al lied to the parliament and the people on a number of significant issues, that strategic planning for war was ill conceived etc etc. I suppose those opposing the war are well advised to put across all the arguments at their disposal. Nonetheless were none of the above true I would still oppose the war!
My objection to the war on Iraq (and the war on Afghanistan) is on moral and humanist grounds – I believe that we have no right to kill people for pretty much any reason whatsoever. I don’t believe in dropping exploding lumps of metal from the sky.
Perhaps it is conceivable that a people may be so dreadfully oppressed they feel compelled to take matters into their own hands (and in this case who am I to condemn?) but this is clearly not the situation of the UK government. For them the wars on Iraq and Afghanistan have been, from the start, wars of aggression. And they are wars which continue to destroy lives with every passing day. We must oppose them in every way we can.
Homepage:
Comments
Hide the following comment
a couple of slight corrections and a plug
30.06.2007 00:41
the government appealed, and by a majority of 2 to 1, three high court judges ruled in may last year that time could somehow be bent and that brian's demo would come under the provisions of the act.
this meant the commissioner could impose conditions on brian's protest. police ordered that his placards be reduced to a mere 3 metres (from some 40 metres originally along the front of parliament square), and although his solicitors were in negotiations with police, in a night raid on 23rd may last year the police removed all but 3 metres and brian was charged with failing to comply with the socpa conditions.
it came to court in january this year, and brian successfully argued that there was no case to answer. this was because the law states that the "commissioner may impose conditions", but the conditions had been actually imposed by a mere superintendent, peter terry (who had no more authority to do so than a sewer rat). the police lamely produced a letter from the commissioner 'delegating' authority to mr terry, but the letter was mysteriously undated (and they couldn't explain why). judge purdey ruled that only a commissioner, an assistant commissioner, or a deputy commissioner could have the authority to impose conditions, and this power was not delegable. so there was no case to answer, and the night-time raid had been illegal. charges of obstruction against campaigners who had tried to stop the eviction were subsequently dropped.
last week, district judge workman agreed with brian haw's resulting complaint against the police, and he has issued a summons to the commissioner, sir ian blair, who is charged with the theft of brian haw's property on that may 23rd night. summonses have also been sent to the chief superintendents at charing cross and at hendon (where the container is stored full of brian's possessions including two valuable banksy artworks), for 'receiving stolen goods'. all three are due to appear at horseferry road magistrates court on the 24th july.
on the day that judge purdey ruled on the conditions, police served brian a new letter signed by an assistant commissioner giving similar conditions to the unlawful ones that superintendent terry had written, so brian's demo still remains constrained to 3 metres.
gordon brown's "announcement" has been very difficult to find properly fleshed out. it was basically a single line in a list of things he intends to do in the first 100 days of his premiereship, and was puffed in a press release as he came to power. there is no substance to it yet, and indeed, non-attributable comments by supporters of brown raise serious concerns about the plans he has in mind. far from being a repeal of socpa, i fear a new tighter law that will not fall foul of the problems in enforcement that socpa suffered. this is just a hunch, so watch out for the actual announcements.
in the meantime if you'd like to know more about the battle over socpa, come and see my documentary "socpa - the movie" which is being shown at the london anarchist resource centre (LARC) as part of the 'state of emergency' film night next tuesday 3rd july at 7pm. it's an hour-long review of the law and the fight against it. although the issue is looked at very seriously, the film is entertaining, and had the audience rolling in the aisles at its premiere at the renoir cinema in london a couple of weeks ago. LARC is at 62 Fieldgate Street, Whitechapel, London E1 1ES
if you can't make that, future showings will be announced on indymedia, so watch out for those.
rikki
e-mail:
rikkiindymedia@googlemail.com