[diggers350] Why did Democracy Village declare war on Brian Haw?

Tony Gosling tony at cultureshop.org.uk
Thu Jul 1 00:24:22 BST 2010

The Democracy Village disorganisers made one of 
the most selfish decisions in recent protest 
history by deciding to place their camp on Parliament Square.
They could have chosen just about anywhere, not 
necessarily even in London, but decided to 'piggy 
back' their campaign on to Brian's. It shows a 
triple inability 1, to think creatively,  2, to 
throw light on an interesting place (say a dodgy 
funded far right think tank such as Policy 
Exchange) which would throw light on how 
democracy is being eroded and 3, a total 
disregard for Brian's immense efforts and committment.
That misguided and stupid decision was akin to 
squatters breaking into an existing squat and 
insisting it is their squat. Just plain parasitic 
and part of the problem not the solution. 
Bringing the entire movement into disrepute.
How was the decision made to locate 'Democracy 
Village' on Parliament Square therefore messing everything up for Brian?

At 19:21 30/06/2010, you wrote:
>Definitely some provocateurs in the mix but 
>surely not in the direction specified? Maybe 
>from the accusers or maybe from others who like 
>the idea of a fight within the movement. Maybe 
>it is a sign of our progress. Anyhow, difficult 
>to know the truth, obviously lots of smoke and 
>mirrors and people caught in the secret 
>crossfire. People imv should spend real time 
>with Brian, Barbara, Charity and Maria, and then 
>decide where they are coming from. And probably Tony too.
>On 30 June 2010 12:02, Tony Gosling 
><<mailto:tony at cultureshop.org.uk>tony at cultureshop.org.uk> wrote:
>Why did Democracy Village queer his pitch ... and declare war on Brian Haw?
>Good riddance.
>Peace protesters ordered out of Parliament Square – but Haw can stay
>By Andy McSmith
>Wednesday, 30 June 2010
>Democracy Village, as it is called, has 
>attracted backing from campaigners for free 
>speech, but Mr Justice Griffith Williams ruled 
>that it is a health hazard and disrupts the 
>right of others not involved in the protest to 
>have access to the green in Parliament Square, 
>London. He delayed the order to clear the camp 
>until 4pm on Friday, to give the protesters time 
>to apply to a Court of Appeal to intervene.
>The order does not affect the right of London's 
>best known protester, Brian Haw, to continue the 
>lone vigil he has conducted on the pavement in 
>Parliament Square for nearly 10 years.
>But Mr Haw does face the risk of having an 
>injunction served on him if he trespasses on to 
>the grass without the London Mayor's permission. 
>However, he can stay on the pavement because 
>legislation introduced to remove him was not 
>brought in retrospectively and a judge has 
>previously ruled it would be illegal to force him out.
>Mr Haw had been sleeping on the grass because of his health.
>One of the revelations of the nine-day court 
>hearing was the intense ill feeling and mutual 
>suspicion between different groups squatting in 
>Parliament Square. There are two warring camps – 
>there is Mr Haw and his immediate neighbour, 
>Barbara Tucker, who has been camped alongside 
>him since 2005, and there is Democracy Village, spread over the adjoining lawn.
>Not all the occupants of Democracy Village are 
>peace protesters. Some are taking stands against 
>genocide or for the environment, though 
>Afghanistan appears to be the main focus of protest.
>In one raucous interlude in the court hearing, a 
>defendant named Charity Sweet, who is allied to 
>Mr Haw and Ms Tucker, applied to have the 
>proceedings stopped on the grounds that the 
>founder of Democracy Village, Maria Gallastegui, 
>is a government agent tasked with creating a 
>provocation to give the authorities a pretext to 
>evict Mr Haw from his pitch. "The application 
>was patently absurd. She adduced no evidence 
>that Ms Gallastegui may have been an agent 
>provocateur," Justice Williams said in yesterday's judgement.
>Rebecca Hall, a student at London's South Bank 
>University, headed the list of defendants in the 
>case. She joined Democracy Village on 1 May. She 
>told the judge that it is not a protest but an 
>assembly of people "in which ideas are 
>discussed". Meetings are held twice daily, meals 
>are communal, tasks like cooking and picking 
>litter are shared out, there is a welcome desk 
>for visitors, and relations with police are good.
>But Simon Grinter, head of facilities for the 
>Greater London Assembly, complained that flower 
>beds had been trampled, part of the lawn had 
>been dug up to plant an oak tree, flowers and 
>vegetables, there was a makeshift shower with no 
>drainage, and a urinal consisting of a foul 
>smelling bale of hay. He reckoned the damage came to around £50,000.
>In his findings, the judge added that: "There is 
>also evidence that the Democracy Village is 
>acting as a magnet for attracting the homeless 
>who are taking advantage of the lack of control and there is heavy drinking."
>Some protesters appeared ready to back up and 
>leave before the court imposed deadline expires. 
>But others vowed to stay and resist police attempts to move them.
>+44 (0)7786 952037
>"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."
>"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic 
>poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
>"We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong 
>and sweet /Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street.”

+44 (0)7786 952037
"Capitalism is institutionalised bribery."

"The maintenance of secrets acts like a psychic 
poison which alienates the possessor from the community" Carl Jung
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://mailman.gn.apc.org/mailman/private/diggers350/attachments/20100701/52faf661/attachment.html>

More information about the Diggers350 mailing list