Britain’s Tarpaulin Revolution: the Green Party and the return of Occupy
In the debate / 27/10/2014
The UK’s new ‘Tarpaulin Revolution,’ led by a revived Occupy
movement and featuring many Greens, hopes to capture the imaginations of
people across Europe – in cities and countries also suffering the
impacts of inequality, austerity and ‘democracy’ weighted to benefit the
1%.
Author
In the shadow of Parliament’s Big Ben, a
global symbol of democracy, I spent the evening of the 23rd October
holding hands with protesters standing together to reclaim Parliament
Square outside the Palace of Westminster in London to fight for a fairer
democracy in the UK. The event was part of the Occupy Movement – a
peaceful protest taking place across nine days to show solidarity with
protesters in Hong Kong and to highlight the impacts of austerity,
inequality, neoliberalism and a lack of liberty on our society.
Parliament Square has long been used as a site of protest and is both historically and symbolically an important site of demonstrations. The square is directly visible from the Houses of Parliament, meaning that the space is relevant to protesters to communicate their message to the decision makers inside. Despite the symbolic role that this area holds to the British public, it has been illegal to demonstrate here since 2005, after a new by-law was created to stop an ongoing demonstration by long-term activist Brian Haw who camped out in the square against the Iraq war. Brian’s protest lasted 10 years until his death in 2011. Brian was able to stay at the camp due to the wording of the by-law which said that protesters need permission from the police when the “demonstration starts” – and since Brian’s protest started in 2001 he won a judicial appeal that allowed him to remain on the square – although his life there was filled with constant police harassment.
This law inhibits citizens’ rights to free speech and the right to assemble within a half-mile radius of the Houses of Parliament, and has been challenged under the European Convention on Human rights. The experience of Brian and the current Occupy protesters have shown that the laws that protect the square and property in the area have been given preference over the civil rights of citizens. Fundamentally, while policing Parliament Square, the police do not take a human rights approach to policing, but instead use a property rights approach, such as evicting people to ensure that the grass of the square was protected, and arresting anyone who stood against this order.
No politics outside Parliament…
Despite being peaceful, the protesters have been constantly harassed by the police, resulting in a number of warnings being issued for a range of acts including having an umbrella, wearing a hood, and sitting on a sheet of tarpaulin. As a result, the protesters have dubbed the event the “#TarpaulinRevolution”. But why have the police been so heavy-handed, and what has the role of the Green Party been in this movement?Parliament Square has long been used as a site of protest and is both historically and symbolically an important site of demonstrations. The square is directly visible from the Houses of Parliament, meaning that the space is relevant to protesters to communicate their message to the decision makers inside. Despite the symbolic role that this area holds to the British public, it has been illegal to demonstrate here since 2005, after a new by-law was created to stop an ongoing demonstration by long-term activist Brian Haw who camped out in the square against the Iraq war. Brian’s protest lasted 10 years until his death in 2011. Brian was able to stay at the camp due to the wording of the by-law which said that protesters need permission from the police when the “demonstration starts” – and since Brian’s protest started in 2001 he won a judicial appeal that allowed him to remain on the square – although his life there was filled with constant police harassment.
This law inhibits citizens’ rights to free speech and the right to assemble within a half-mile radius of the Houses of Parliament, and has been challenged under the European Convention on Human rights. The experience of Brian and the current Occupy protesters have shown that the laws that protect the square and property in the area have been given preference over the civil rights of citizens. Fundamentally, while policing Parliament Square, the police do not take a human rights approach to policing, but instead use a property rights approach, such as evicting people to ensure that the grass of the square was protected, and arresting anyone who stood against this order.
No comments:
Post a Comment