[TheLandIsOurs] Peace activist Maria Gallestegui defies new PASRA law & eviction from Parliament Sq protest

[Ram Selva]

Surely the Olympic food growing in bus tops courtesy of Dow Chemicals, 
Coca-Cola and McDonald's etc. too has some input in to this well time 
operation.

Whats different to the Hackney appearance of the Olympics juggernaut is 
that its not just clearing the city of unsightly 'mess' and what not 
that are now traditionally recognised as Olympics related land grab

-- its the self censorship of the overrated environmental activist set 
up in the UK.

Good on Maria. What a bright star.

Ram

On Sat, 05 May 2012 11:54:47 +0100, mark at tlio.org.uk wrote:
> On Thursday 3rd May, the High Court lifted the injunction against
> Westminster council preventing them from removing the last tent and
> the large 'peace strike' box from Parliament Square. The police
> arrived in Parliament Square later on that day to enforce the
> controversial new PASRA law and clear the square before the state
> opening of parliament next week.
>
> After Peacestrike's HQ The Peace Box, and tent were seized, veteran
> peace campaigner Maria Gallestegui heroically bedded down for the
> night on the pavement in peaceful defiance of the law. Last night
> (3.am) police officers came and confiscated Maria's sleeping bag and
> roll mat, leaving her with nothing but a bin liner to brave the cold.
> A court summons has been issued for a alledged breach of the PRASRA.
>
> Photos here: http://london.indymedia.org/articles/12184
>
> There is talk that the new PASRA law can be adopted by any local
> authority to criminalise occupations. This needs to be verified.
>  Certainly, the same law is now being utilised by Westminster council
> on other locations in the borough, such as the Royal parks and
> Trafalgar Square.
>
> Report by Rikki from Indymedia below:
> Source: https://london.indymedia.org/articles/12178
>
> For years, parliament square has been the site of continuous protests
> against the government's unlawful waging of war in Iraq, Afghanistan,
> and Libya, and linked issues such as the illegal occupation of
> Palestine.
>
> Brian Haw lived in the square for a decade, repeatedly seeing off
> legal attempts to have him removed. He became an icon for peaceful
> protest throughout the world, although he was often maligned by the
> right-wing press here.
>
> The new Con-Dem regime has gone further than any previous government,
> producing the 'police reform and social responsibility act' (PRASRA),
> which for anyone with knowledge of the previous legal history of the
> square, might as well have had a section called the 'brian haw
> legislation', as it is so specifically framed to address the earlier
> failed attempts to prevent 24-hour protest outside Parliament.
>
> Replacing the previous SOCPA legislation, covered on indymedia in 
> much
> detail, the new legislation focusses on the two issues that
> politicians found most galling outside their place of "work". first,
> it bans any sound-amplification equipment, (so badly drafted that it
> may include hearing aids!), and second it bans tents, or any 
> structure
> or any sleeping equipment designed or adapted to facilitate a stay
> overnight or for any length of time.
>
> One of the protestors, Maria Gallestegui, worked with and supported
> Brian Haw for many years, before setting up her own campaign 
> alongside
> (the 'Peace Strike'). when the new law came into force, she asked for
> an injunction against westminster council, pending legal arguments
> over the lawfulness of the new rules and their compatibility with the
> human rights act.
>
> For a while, that temporary injunction stood, while high court judges
> tried to work out whether they could challenge primary legislation
> before it was even used.
>
> After several weeks, they decided they could not, but the injunction
> still stood for one more week pending a hearing into whether an 
> appeal
> would be granted. that final hearing was this morning, and the court
> has decided that the law must stand, on the basis that, in drafting
> the law, a declaration of human rights compatibility was signed, and
> so any further challenges should now occur after the law is enforced,
> rather than before.
>
> Within hours of the hearing, police have just arrived at parliament
> square, and accompanied by officials from westminster council, they
> are dismantling and seizing maria's tent and the remaining box (she
> had two until recently sending one to america with a view to raising
> money for children in iraq by selling it).
>
> The boxes have stood on parliament square for several years, after
> maria had the idea of playing with the SOCPA conditions imposed on
> her. those conditions were that her protest should take up no more
> space than 3m x 3m x 1m, and so she decided to build a huge edifice
> with exactly those dimensions. using them for banner storage and
> security, the two boxes (under two separate SOCPA authorisations),
> attracted decoration and donated art from several underground 
> artists,
> and one has recently sported a mock door to number ten, while the
> other is painted like a 'dr who' style police box (subverted to a
> 'peace' box).
>
> Maria has already donated one of the boxes to an american art
> exhibition, with a view to auctioning it and raising money for a
> children's hospice in iraq. she had been attempting to negotiaite a
> similar auction for the remaining box should she lose the legal case,
> but westminster have, under intense pressure from members of
> Parliament, now moved unilaterally to seize the box the moment the
> injunction was lifted.
>
> The PASRA rules have already been enforced on the Brian Haw peace
> campaign, and they have continued their protest with immense
> determination remaining overnight under umbrellas and wrapped up in
> layers, denied the comfort of shelter or a tent.
>
> The new law means that a continuous 24-hour protest outside 
> Parliament
> will be the preserve of only the most incredibly determined (facing
> sleep deprivation, hypothermia, and trench foot!), or the
> independently wealthy.
>
> The arrogance and petty selfishness of this unelected minority
> government appears to know no bounds. the PASRA clauses governing
> protest appear to have no other function than to protect the corrupt
> and genocidal ruling classes from embarassment. their hypocracy is
> breath-taking.
>
> [end]
>
>
> Background:
> by Rikki, 15/01/2012
> Ref: https://london.indymedia.org/articles/11456
>
> For more than ten years, Parliament Square has been the site of an
> historic and continuous peace vigil and protest, which began when
> Brian Haw set up banners to highlight the sanctions introduced 
> against
> iraq, which independent analysis (including UN reports) has now 
> shown,
> led to the unnecessary deaths of between half a million and a million
> innocent Iraqi children.
>
> Soon after the beginning of the protest, the US and UK used the 11th
> Sept 2001 attacks in New York as an excuse to invade Afghanistan,
> despite no known connection between the attackers and that country.
> The Parliament Sq protest continued, adding the afghan war as a new
> focus. Then in 2003, the 'coalition' once again waged an aggressive
> war - this time after manufacturing fictitious evidence against Iraq.
> The results of that attack, we know now, more than a million killed,
> huge destruction of infrastructure, the very long-term poisoning and
> ruination of soil and water table through the use of depleted uranium
> munitions, the further destabilisation of the middle east, and a
> country left with a notional democracy which is crumbling into
> factional and repressive chaos by the day. Brian publicly displayed
> huge photos of the disfigured children born, according to more and
> more reliable scientific evidence, as a result of chromosomal changes
> due to depleted uranium. brian was one of the first campaigners to
> regularly highlight this heinous war crime.
>
> The authorities attempted to remove Brian Haw using obstruction laws,
> but, forced to sleep under tarpaulin, perched on the small strip of
> wall that marked the border between royal-owned grass, and
> council-owned pavement, he saw them off in court, enforcing and
> entrenching his right to peaceful protest. His display of banners 
> grew
> larger as people donated to his protest, and it even attracted 
> artwork
> by banksy and others, until it stretched across the length of the
> square opposite the gates to parliament and became known around the
> world. he also used a small megaphone to great effect, embarrassing
> devious politicians with facts and figures as they entered and left
> Westminster. Again, he managed to see of legal attempts to stop his
> megaphone use, although restrictions were made on the hours he could
> broadcast, forcing him to start shouting instead.
>
> So, the morally-bankrupt, corporate-owned, and self-satisfied suits 
> of
> westminster got restless, and demanded new laws to deal with the
> embarrassment that brian caused them. as a result, in 2005, they
> enacted the SOCPA legislation ('serious organised crime and police
> act'), part of which introduced new restrictions on protest in the
> area within one kilometre of parliament. those restrictions, badly
> formulated, attracted a lot of attention and derision. comedy 
> activist
> mark thomas based his act
> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M&feature=related) for a
> while on his mischievous dalliance with the new laws, and he even
> ended up in the guinness book of records for the most demonstrations
> by one person on the same day, part of an attempt to flood the
> authorities with paperwork inspired by the new requirements to gain
> 'authorisation' for protesting. other campaigners played with the law
> by regularly holding picnics on the square, surrounded by blank
> placards to signify that they weren't holding unlawful protests about
> anything.
>
> More seriously, the police made an arbitrary restriction on the size
> of brian haw's protest, and then enforced it with a night-time swoop
> by more than 70 officers, who unceremoniously broke up his displays
> and stuffed them into a large container, which drove off as
> politicians arrived at westminster the next morning. it turned out
> later that this act of repression was outside the law as SOCPA gave 
> no
> power of seizure.
>
> The illegal snatch incensed british artist Mark Wallinger so much,
> that he set about producing an exact replica of the whole length of
> brian's display, and won the turner prize for his exhibition of it
> (which he called 'State Britain') on the very edge of the SOCPA zone,
> at Tate Britain.
>
> Brian had always attracted a handful of staunch supporters since
> beginning his protest. one of those early and committed supporters 
> was
> maria gallestegui, but after five years, and a divergence of approach
> over SOCPA, she decided to begin her 'peace strike' protest alongside
> brian's continuing vigil. a strong-willed and brave australian woman
> named Barbara Tucker, incensed by SOCPA restrictions, had recently
> joined Brian's protest. she became a close confidante and ceaseless
> supporter of brian, constantly challenging SOCPA and ending up in 
> jail
> on more than one occasion for her efforts.
>
> Maria Gallestegui carried on her 'peace strike' protest, but rather
> than concentrating on challenging SOCPA, she decided to comply with
> authorisation procedures, which caused annoyance to her 'neighbour'
> Barbara. This annoyance, over the years, turned into something of an
> obsession, with Barbara telling anyone who would listen, that Maria
> runs an apparently ten-year long undercover operation in league with
> the police, MI5, and perhaps even the lizard people. While to all
> those in the know, the accusations are ridiculous, they do wreak 
> havoc
> on would-be support for either campaign. Oh, and the conspiracy
> against Barbara extends to virtually anyone who speaks to or supports
> the peace strike, so this author is also apparently portrayed as yet
> another agent for the state. I am not.
>
> Maria played with the SOCPA restrictions in her own way by accepting
> the same conditions that were imposed on Brian, (namely that the
> protest area must be no larger than 3m x 3m x 1m), taking out two
> separate authorisations, and building two great huge boxes comprising
> those dimensions, which have remained in place with impunity despite
> an outcry from politicians, even surviving the royal opening of
> parliament and the royal wedding.
>
> When the 'Democracy Village' set up in parliament square, (with what
> was in effect a forerunner for the world 'occupy' movement), Barbara
> claimed that Maria had orchestrated it, along with the arrival of 
> more
> and more homeless people, in order to provide the authorities with an
> excuse to clear away all the protestors in the square.
>
> In the event, Westminster Council managed to obtain an injunction
> against the 'Democracy Village' and after evicting them, erected the
> huge fences around the square which have despoiled the 'world 
> heritage
> site' far more effectively over the last two years than any 
> democratic
> protest might have.
>
> Under the guise of restoring democratic rights, but mainly because 
> the
> law had actually failed in its initial purpose of seeing off Brian
> Haw, new Labour leader Gordon Brown promised its repeal within 100
> days of his taking office. Along with most politicians' promises this
> turned out to be a lie, and the law remained, with police still
> utilising it when they chose, its chilling effect on legitimate
> protest useful to an ever more corrupt administration.
>
> Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (PASRA):
> So it was against this background that PASRA was born, sections 142 
> to
> 149 of which provide particular powers designed wholly to finally rid
> Parliament Square of any effective continuous protest, and to close
> loopholes in SOCPA.
>
> The law gained Royal assent in September last year, but the 
> Parliament
> Square provisions commenced on 19th December, while strangely 
> (perhaps
> to give time to try out the new law and overcome any legal 
> challenges)
> SOCPA (which it was meant to replace) remains in force until the end
> of march this year. On top of this, while the law claims it is
> liberalising the excessive restrictions of SOCPA by minimising the
> area to the grass and pavements of Parliament square, this is a
> sleight of hand, because as mentioned in my earlier article,
> Westminster has just completed a 'public consultation' with a view to
> introducing similar restrictions throughout the borough, and both the
> Dept of Culture and the GLA are also running consultations ending in 
> a
> few days, for similar proscriptions in the Royal parks and at
> Trafalgar Square.
>
> PASRA makes it a criminal offence to attempt to sleep overnight as
> part of a protest, and also outlaws the use of loud-hailers and
> amplifying equipment at ANY time in the proscribed areas. Laughably,
> Westminster claimed in its consultation papers that it doesn't want 
> to
> restrict the right to protest. I wonder what powers they would dream
> up if they did! The laws and proposed byelaws also correct a SOCPA
> failing (in the eyes of repressors), by explicitly introducing powers
> of direction, seizure by force, forfeiture, and even exclusion 
> orders.
> This corrects the situation that all previous seizures under SOCPA,
> when challenged in the courts, have later been shown to be unlawful,
> including the theft of Brian Haw's whole display in 2006.
>
> On the day that the law commenced, the Parliament Square protestors
> received enforcement notices from Westminster, warning them to remove
> tents and other structures or face arrest, seizure and forfeiture.
>
> Maria then asked the high court for an injunction pending a hearing 
> as
> to whether she could get a judicial review of the proposed
> enforcement. The injunction was granted (which held for several 
> months
> pending a hearing into whether an appeal would be granted based on
> legal arguments over the lawfulness of the new rules and their
> compatibility with the human rights act, the last of a series of 
> which
> happened on Thurs 3rd May -ed). I understand that Barbara's campaign
> also applied for a judicial review on the 16th, but they claim, and i
> have no reason to doubt it, that their application has been ignored 
> by
> the high court.
>
> It certainly suits the authorities to conflate the two protests, 
> along
> with any other unattended or homeless people's tents, and even the 
> now
> vacated 'Democracy Village', and this may be what they have done in
> this case. The conflation has two effects: first, it helps the courts
> to avoid specific legal arguments that may be different - Brian Haw's
> campaign has a longer legal history including some landmark rulings,
> and it may indeed suit the court to side-step them where possible, 
> and
> second - it feeds Barbara's paranoia that the 'peace strike' is
> somehow in league with the authorities. I am not suggesting that 
> there
> is no conspiracy against the Brian Haw peace campaign - as the maker
> of "SOCPA - the movie" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol9hcQlVX9M), 
> I
> spent years supporting Brian and Barbara, and saw first hand how
> corrupt the legal system was, with a long catalogue of missing court
> papers, unlawful searches, fabricated police evidence, vicious
> assaults, illegal seizures, unlawful imprisonment, and more - but I
> maintain my belief that Maria has no involvement in any such
> conspiracy.