Parliament Square anti-war protestors evicted

[Brixton Hatter]

all over twitter right now...

http://london.indymedia.org/articles/11466

 

[Ground Elder]

despite high court hearings today and the PASRA law effectively on hold

PASRA law? What's that?

 

[Riklet]

shit man

 

[ddraig]

PASRA law? What's that?

more info on this article (half way down the page)
http://london.indymedia.org/articles/11456

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.

 

[ddraig]

and here is the legislation
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/13/contents/enacted

 

[Brixton Hatter]

This was in an article on the BBC London website:

The removal comes after the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill came into force, preventing encampments in the square... The Bill, which received Royal Assent in September, gives authorities more powers to tackle protests such as the Parliament Square camp.
It also bans protests in areas including Whitehall, Bridge Street, the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre and Westminster Abbey.

 

[Pickman's model]

This was in an article on the BBC London website:

couldn't see in the act anything about whitehall etc

 

[Mrs Magpie]

On the way home from work tonight, me and a colleague saw loads of police vans drawing up around House of Fraser on Victoria Street. We wondered what on earth was going on. Now I know why.

 

[editor]

The BBC London TV reporter had to abandon his live broadcast because a woman was repeating his words loudly and 'correcting' certain claims

 

[Brixton Hatter]

couldn't see in the act anything about whitehall etc

me neither...the act says "For the purposes of this Part, the “controlled area of Parliament Square” means
the area of land that is comprised in—
(a) the central garden of Parliament Square, and
(b) the footways that immediately adjoin the central garden of Parliament
Square."
So it doesn't appear to cover the pavements around the outside edge of the square, or anywhere else...

E2A: although there is a reference to the "central garden of Parliament Square" being designated by the Parliament Square (Improvements) Act 1949. And I can't find the original wording of that act yet. So it might include those others places....

 

[Brixton Hatter]

It's a sad day. The protest has been there for nearly 10 years. Fairplay to everyone who was involved.

 

[brixtonvilla]

It's a sad day. The protest has been there for nearly 10 years. Fairplay to everyone who was involved.

I'm not trying to be a tedious consistency seeker here, but do you think you would feel the same sadness about a 10-year anti-abortion, or anti-civil partnerships protest?

 

[nino_savatte]

 

[xes]

I'm not trying to be a tedious consistency seeker here, but do you think you would feel the same sadness about a 10-year anti-abortion, or anti-civil partnerships protest?

it's hardly the same thing, is it. OK, if you ignore the reason of the protest, and just go on the right to protest, then yes, that would be just as bad. A supression of the freedom to express opinions or protest is bad, no matter what the subject being squished. Wether or not someone agrees with a protest is irrelivent, the right to do it is far more important.

 

[Guineveretoo]

Surely there were other protestors still there, and not just anti war ones, who would also have been removed last night?

 

[Brixton Hatter]

I'm not trying to be a tedious consistency seeker here, but do you think you would feel the same sadness about a 10-year anti-abortion, or anti-civil partnerships protest?

My point really is that some very principled people (and a few nutters tbf) spent a good many years of their life devoted to protest there. That should be celebrated. Its fucking sad that twitter etc is full of comments from people agreeing with removal of the protest because 'the place looks tidier now, nice + clean, glad those smelly hippies have been moved on' etc.

 

[brixtonvilla]

I'm not arguing with their sincerity, or their devotion to what they believe. I think that's admirable, even when I don't agree with the cause. I'm just not sure I believe in the right to peaceful protest ad infinitum. Protest, make your point, and go home. Everyone else with something to protest about does that, so what makes this cause so special as to be exempt? Whenever I've been through Parliament Square recently, I felt sad that the heart of our country's democracy had to be fenced off and shut down in the way it was.

 

[Guineveretoo]

I'm not arguing with their sincerity, or their devotion to what they believe. I think that's admirable, even when I don't agree with the cause. I'm just not sure I believe in the right to peaceful protest ad infinitum. Protest, make your point, and go home. Everyone else with something to protest about does that, so what makes this cause so special as to be exempt? Whenever I've been through Parliament Square recently, I felt sad that the heart of our country's democracy had to be fenced off and shut down in the way it was.

I kind of agree with the sentiment of this, except that, as far as i can tell, Parliament Square was only fenced off and shut down in response to the protests, not by them, iyswim.

 

[brixtonvilla]

I think it was fenced off to stop the rest of the grass bit being taken over by other protestors. Quite rightly, in my view. The protests had to end sometime, and it clearly wasn't going to be done voluntarily, so...

 

[Brainaddict]

Why on earth do so many people think the only reason for a protest is 'to make a point'? Who came up with this bullshit notion? Politicians I suspect. And people go round repeating the words of the politicians the protest is against. Because that makes sense. Think about where you get your phrases from people.

Maybe the point of this protest was to be a pain in the arse to the people fucking up the world. That's not quite the same as making a point is it? There might be many other reasons too. You can't follow the logic of politicians about what protests 'should' be for or 'should' be like and still pretend we have the right to protest. The protests are often against those very politicians, see?