Where New Labour led, the Tories follow
1:20 pm - July 18th 2010
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |
It’s so long ago it gives me a little warm glow of nostalgia, but time was that New Labour tried to ban the largest demonstration in British history, all for the sake of some grass.
No, not the sort Ministers stuff into their crack pipes, the grass in Hyde Park of course.
The demonstration, which eventually attracted over a million people, making it the largest mobilisation in the history of the UK, was to be cancelled because the grass issue may also mean…
People can get crushed, people can break their legs – there are a lot of things that happen at this time of year and it would be very unwise of us to take such a risk
That, as an official statement, reads more like a local mafioso saying “Shop windows can get…. broken… if you’re not careful.”
This all flooded back to me when I saw that Boris Johnson had made these comments about the eviction of the “Democracy Village” camped outside Parliament.
I think it’s wonderful that as a city we can protest. But it is nauseating what they are doing to the lawn.
Quite correctly Johnson has identified that democracy is a lovely idea, but not when it comes at the price of a nice bit of the green stuff. You need to pamper your pampas, after all. (Evening Standard has pics of the great grass massacre, here)
However, while I have little sympathy for the argument that grass has more rights than people, I am slightly more concerned about the rights of individuals to permanently rob everyone else of common land.
It’s not simply the uber-hierarchical model of moralising protest that Brian Haw typifies, it’s also the fact that if you’re opposed to, say, privatising public property, you shouldn’t then claim personal ownership over common land yourself.
These protesters made the Square unusable for everyone else, and they hoped to do this on a long term or permanent basis. Is that democracy or simply giving yourself property rights over land that was held in common? Is it wrong for the State to sell off public property but ok for a self-appointed group of randoms to rock up and claim our land for themselves?
Even those poor little blades of grass were part of the common treasury until this small squad of elitists squatted on them. I’m not entirely sure I 100% approve.
I’m certainly not saying that these issues are not complex and, usually, require some sort of negotiation but I am saying that democracy is not just about everyone being allowed to do whatever they like, no matter how anti-social.
| Tweet | Share on Tumblr |  |
Jim Jepps is a socialist in the Green Party and formerly blogged at the Daily (Maybe). He currently writes on London politics, community and the environment at Big Smoke.
· Other posts by Jim Jepps
Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties ,London Mayor
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Reader comments
Put it this way, Jim-bob; yes they were preventing the grass from being used by anyone else. I suppose on principle, when taken out of context, that is wrong.
However, does anyone really care about what that patch of grass is used for, and would they do anything particularly productive with it if the Democracy Village wasn’t there? I for one am glad that the space directly opposite Parliament is used to remind MPs of war crimes they (and some of their former colleagues, particularly in the Labour Party) voted for. Even if it was just a bunch of squatters, I’d say good on them for sticking two fingers up at the real scroungers, the guys sitting on the green and red benches.
Feck, I’ve just had a look at that aerial photo of the Square.
Blimey. I thought they just put up some tents, I didn’t realise they turned it into a dustbowl. It is a bit ghastly.
Also, I’d prefer if the space was available for temporary protests, like the ones Sri Lankans made last year.
So kick the dirty hippies out, I say.
Liberal. Ha Ha ha! What a thin veneer of tolerance some people have!
Aye, said this on Robert’s post about this the other day. I absolutely support the right to protest in Parliament Square, and still have my “permission” note from the Met allowing me to do so from a couple years back, but I’m not sure I support the right for any number of people to turn any area they like into a campsite.
If it was just a bunch of people deciding to camp there for a few months, and there was no protest, we wouldn’t even have this discussion, they’d be moved on quickly to an actual campsite. But they put up a placard, it becomes a protest, so we have to allow it by default?
Where does the right to occupy a bit of land you don’t own indefinitely end?
My rule of thumb here would be to say that protesting should never be a crime, but if you do something illegal while protesting, the fact that you were protesting shouldn’t let you off the hook.
However, this does leave you somewhat open to innocent-sounding laws and bylaws being passed with the intent of making it difficult to protest effectively. Guess we’re back to constant vigilance.
Why would anyone smoke weed in a crack pipe?
“Where does the right to occupy a bit of land you don’t own indefinitely end?”
It would be deeply ironic if anyone in the Camp was protesting Israel’s indefinite occupation of the Palestinian territories.
Reactions: Twitter, blogs
-
Liberal Conspiracy
Where New Labour led, the Tories follow http://bit.ly/auRvnH
-
James Brown
RT @libcon: Where New Labour led, the Tories follow http://bit.ly/auRvnH
-
Kevin McNamara
where nu labour led, the tories follow http://bit.ly/azBuCB #ukpolitics
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
