Survey Says…Keep our Forests Public
The ConDems have it in their heads that they should sell off our forests. All of them. And noone agrees with it:
- 84% of Brits think that England’s forests should stay in public ownership for the benefit of future generations, and 58% are in strong agreement
- Just 2% disagree with keeping the forests publicly owned
- A substantial 75% actively oppose the Government’s measures to sell off some, or all, of England’s forests and woodlands
- Only 6% were in favour of the plans to sell
Environment Secretary Caroline Spelman argues:
“State control of forests dates back to World War I, when needs were very different,” she said.
“There’s now no reason for the government to be in the business of timber production and forest management.
“It’s time for the government to step back and allow those who are most involved with England’s woodlands to play a much greater role in their future… and we will make sure that public access is maintained and biodiversity protected.”
Bollocks. It’s all part of the government’s ideological rape of public services and assets, and withdrawal from its responsibilities.
It should be resisted by everyone. Sign the petition.
Keep the Forests Public
by Caroline Lucas MP, leader of the Green Party
Coalition plans to sell off swathes of England’s publicly-owned forests have been published in the face of widespread public opposition and questions over the economic case for the proposals.
Private owners could be allowed to take over management of nearly half a million acres of land previously owned by the Forestry Commission. Some 15% of the forest estate, worth an estimated £100m, is already being sold. This latest consultation could lead to the sale of the remaining 85%.
Caroline Lucas, Brighton Pavilion’s MP, will try to amend the Public Bodies Bill – which would enable the sell off – when it comes to the Commons. She said:
“There was a public consultation on the Public Forest Estate less than 18 months ago. We don’t need another one.
“The public have already made it clear that they want to maintain public forests – and many are now concerned that the Government’s misjudged and short-sighted plans pose a serious threat to whole swathes of our much loved woodlands.
“Despite Caroline Spelman’s belief that the Government should not involve itself in forest management, there are very good reasons for our woodlands and forests to remain under public ownership.
“The Forestry Commission has a proven record in environmental protection and managing sites of special scientific interest. It is highly unlikely that the same kind of long term care and protection would be afforded to the land once in private hands.
“Furthermore, access rights on Forestry Commission land go far beyond the basic rights of access that the law offers.
“And if the Government’s claims about environmental protection are true, the sell-off makes no economic sense either. Who will want to buy this land unless they can develop it into a profit making enterprise?
“The fact is, the plans are unlikely to make any money and may even cost the taxpayer extra, as those who take our forests apply for Government grants that may match or even exceed the value of the sale.”
Caroline added: “The Government is now on the back foot as a result of the public campaign against their ill judged plans. But we still have a fight on our hands to resist the legislative changes that would make the sell off a reality – which is why I will be seeking to amend the Public Bodies Bill in the Commons.”
David Miliband Supports Third Runway
Didn’t I argue the other day that David Miliband realises his route to power is to cement the ‘pact’ John Kampfner refers to in ‘Freedom for Sale’? He’s now come out in support of the defunct third runway project at Heathrow:
He believes that it could boost London‘s economy and businesses, sources close to him insisted, and it should go ahead as long as the climate change consequences are addressed. His leadership rival and brother Ed opposes the runway.
He has repeatedly said that Labour‘s Heathrow policy was an example of how the party had misjudged the public.
But business groups and trade unions have long lobbied for more aviation capacity for the south east, claiming it boosts jobs and overall trade.
Baroness Jo Valentine, Chief Executive of business group London First praised Mr Miliband. She said: “At last a politician prepared to publicly acknowledge the vital importance of international transport links to London and UK’s economic success, though the critical question is not whether to make Heathrow bigger but how to make it better.”
As Blair before him, he’s putting the argument together piece by piece that he and Labour can & should do entirely as they please for their corporate buddies in the public sphere, then implicitly allowing almost unlimited freedom from government intrusion for the middle classes in the private sphere in return. That’s the ‘pact’ – he’s counting on most people not being bothered enough to put up a fight should he resurrect the third runway project as Prime Minister. I wonder.
Of course David isn’t going to look into why unlimited air growth should be necessary, because he’s fundamentally as wedded to the neoliberal model (another cornerstone of the ‘pact’) as his mentor. Unrestricted wealth creation is much harder if you change the economic system, so best not to ask whether unlimited air growth actually makes economic sense, nor to ask where the growth would come from to boost the economy if it’s not already there…
General Election: Rational and Irrational
It was an awful night wasn’t it? I mean what happened to the rise of the Liberal Democrats? How on earth could so many polls have picked up such a seismic shift in British politics for so many weeks, for it to drop right back off the bottom of the scale again? How could so many rational people vote Tory again, given what they did last time, and considering how awful their policies were this time? It wasn’t all doom and gloom though:
Caroline Lucas’ triumph in the Brighton Pavillion constituency was despite the first-past-the-post voting system, and really should be celebrated by anyone involved in progressive politics in the UK, particularly those who are looking for a genuine alternative to the neoliberal consensus offered by the three main parties. Sadly in my constituency the Green vote melted away – Joan Ruddock was returned as MP yet again, and the council went overwhelmingly back to Labour.
Elsewhere the Commons lost Dr Evan Harris, which quite frankly is a disaster, although you wouldn’t know it from the Torygraph:
A stranger to principle, Harris has coat-tailed some of the most vulnerable and weak people available to him to further his dogged, secularist campaign to have people of faith – any faith – swept from the public sphere. The Lib Dems served the purpose of providing him with a parliamentary seat, but his true love was the National Secular Society. For a doctor, he supported the strange idea that terminally ill people should be helped to kill themselves. He pretended to defend Roman Catholics by attacking the Act of Settlement, with the real aim of undermining the established Church of England. A drab, secular determinism was his sole motivation; his parliamentary career consequently a one-trick pony.
Now he’s gone to spend more time with his NSS pamphlets and the House of Commons is better for his passing. His political demise will be mourned only by those with a strange fascination for death, those euthanasia enthusiasts whose idea of care for the elderly and infirm is a one-way ticket to Switzerland. But now Dr Death cannot bring a malign influence to bear on the legislature any longer. Bye bye, Evan.
Nasty, nasty, just plain nasty, and that was written by an Anglican priest, who’s supposed to believe in charity. Evan Harris’ parliamentary career (which will surely resume after the next election in 6-12 months) was marked by an emphasis on science, rationalism, evidence-based policy making, compassion and common sense. Whatever the issue you knew the moment he was interviewed about it you knew he would be the one, often the only Member of Parliament who would actually make complete sense. On parliamentary reform:
The recent Coroners and Justice Act – to mention just one of many – contained significant amendments to the law on murder, mercy killing, manslaughter and assisted suicide. While the media debates these matters and the public expects its MPs to, these weren’t even discussed in two days of debate because of the way the government organised the guillotines, as I protested, with no consultation and without regard to the lack of propriety involved in seeing the elected house passing laws “on the nod”. No other self-respecting democracy would tolerate this control of the agenda by the government.
On free speech:
On maintaining a secular NHS:
But maybe Ben Goldacre puts it best:
Recently we were comparing hate mail, and it occurred to me that you could only really pay tribute to the vital contribution Evan has made by listing all the groups who despise him, and the vicious hate campaigns they have mounted. The antivaccination conspiracy theorists hate him, because he drove for more and better evidence on the MMR and autism hoax, and helped expose it through the GMC. The animal rights protestors hate him, because he has dared to stand up for necessary and well-regulated animal experiments, an unpopular cause even among those who quietly benefit from their results. He is despised by fundamentalist christians, because he defends stem cell research and a woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body when she is pregnant. Homophobic christians (not all christians, but the homophobic ones) despise him, because he is clear that if you run a B&B, you have to let a gay couple stay, the same as any other (and although nobody ever mentions it, if you’re gay and run a B&B, you have to let a christian stay too). He is despised by homeopaths because he dared to examine the evidence for their magic beans, he is despised by climate change denialists for the same reason, and alongside all of this, he has led the field on libel reform and on free speech, on disentangling church from state while remaining respectful on religion, he has stood up and been a clear thinker on the role of scientific advisors and evidence on policy, and much more.
But of course he was up against the likes of this:
@Nadine4mp: Do my eyes and ears deceive me? Has Dr Death really lost his seat ?
Evangelical Christianists are on the march, demanding special rights in employment, and now in politics seek to supplant progress, equality and reason with myth, superstition, fear and hatred. That’s not the politics I recognise in this country, that’s not even the way I see this country at all. Make no mistake it’s a triumph that the BNP had such a catastrophically bad night on Thursday night, and that the Green Party is now represented in Westminster, but that chamber is not the place for those who seek to turn the clock back on modernity itself. I myself will continue to argue against religious extremism in any area of civic life, and for the diversity agenda to continue to operate against bigotry and discrimination, not to uphold rights to discriminate. I’ve long been a fan of Dr Harris and hope very much for his political career as an MP to resume with as short a gap as humanly possible. I hope my readers who agree that the principles of the Enlightenment should be fought for at all costs will join with me in making sure we get this vital asset to our lives back in parliament soon.
Don’t Have a Break?
Nestlé is fighting a PR battle with Greenpeace over claims that it is continuing to source palm oil from Sinar Mas, the Indonesian company accused of illegal deforestation and peatland clearance.
Greenpeace alleges that plantation expansion by Sinar Mas is endangering orang-utans by encroaching on their habitat. Its latest campaign features a video of an office worker inadvertently biting into an orang-utan finger instead of a Kit Kat chocolate bar.
Ian Duff, a campaigner for the environmental NGO, said: “this is something we’ve brought up with Nestlé time and time again and they’ve failed to act.”
In late 2009, Greenpeace released a report alleging that Sinar Mas was clearing rainforest and peatland without permits from the government. Unilever and Kraft both suspended contracts with Sinar Mas subsidiaries as a result. At the time, Nestlé said it would make its own investigations into the matter.
Nestlé was quick to respond to the latest campaign, saying it had found a new supplier. However, it admitted that it still sources palm oil from Sinar Mas through its supplier Cargill and that a full review of its supply chain would take until the end of April 2010.
(source)
High Speed Two Moves Closer (by 15 Years)
With high speed rail we’re behind France, behind Germany, behind Spain, behind Japan, but maybe just maybe that gap is about to narrow:
A new rail terminus could be built in central London under plans submitted to ministers as part of the proposed high-speed rail connection to replace short-haul flights in the UK.
The station would cater for commuters travelling to the West Midlands on the 250mph trains that form part of the government’s plan to get domestic air passengers a year to switch to the north-south rail line. If approved, the line aims to open towards the end of 2025.
Under the plan, to be submitted this week by High Speed 2, the company charged with identifying possible routes and stations, the new London station would handle up to 18 trains an hour, with each train capable of carrying more than 1,000 passengers.
The proposals are part of the initial plan to build a link to the West Midlands, and then to extend the line to Scotland. HS2 also aims to link the station to Heathrow airport and to the channel tunnel rail link, now known as High Speed 1 (HS1).
That’s still a hell of a long way away, but it would be about time if HS2 were to be approved. It’s been strange that a government which has publicly aspired to cutting the country’s carbon footprint hasn’t yet embraced strategies to move away from short haul air travel, and it makes you wonder whether this would finally fit in with viewing all government policies through a prism of their likely impace on the climate. Andrew Adonis has said:
“For reasons of carbon reduction and wider environmental benefits, it is manifestly in the public interest that we systematically replace short-haul aviation with high-speed rail. But we would have to have, of course, the high-speed network before we can do it.”
I hope then that when HS2 is approved he signals that the third Heathrow runway is dead. Cynical? Me?
Why Protest at Ratcliffe-on-Soar?
A Climate ‘Swoop’ protester explains the direct action protest at the Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal fired power station.
It Wasn’t Just Ivory Coast…
The impression has no doubt been given that the whole Trafigura/Carter-Ruck affair has centred around the dumping of toxic waste in Abidjan, Ivory Coast. But identical waste was shipped to Norway that year too:
Oil-trader Trafigura is under police investigation in Norway, accused of illegal import of waste. The waste was brought to Norway on the Probo Emu in 2006, and is identical to the waste that Trafigura shipped to the Ivory Coast on the Probo Koala.
The Norwegian police have been investigating Trafigura for more than a year and a half, but so far nobody in the company has been willing to give statement or answer questions from the Norwegian police.
– We are surprised, and have the impression that Trafigura is not interested in assisting in the investigation, says Hans Tore Høviskeland, head of prosecution in Økokrim.
It’s not just allegations of the illegal import of identical waste. Because of a ‘blunder’ by Trafigura’s subcontractor Vest Tank, similar waste from on-shore caustic washing exploded, with severe consequences:
Trafigura, the British oil trading giant which agreed to pay £30m to the victims of one of Africa’s worst pollution disasters, has failed to co-operate with an investigation into an explosion in a Norwegian fjord involving waste from one of its ships, The Independent can reveal.
Hundreds of residents of the Norwegian village of Slovag fell ill in May 2007 when a huge tank holding waste from low-quality oil processed on behalf of Trafigura caught fire and exploded, leading to one of the worst pollution incidents in Norway’s history as a cloud of sulphurous smoke rose over the surrounding area.
A prosecution of three individuals linked to Vest Tank, the Norwegian company which ran the processing operation on Norway’s west coast, is due to begin in November and will hear evidence of how Trafigura sent six shipments totalling 150,000 tonnes of cheap and dirty coker gasoline to Slovag in 2006 and 2007.
The Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation (NRK) report that Trafigura have so far refused to answer why they chose to perform caustic washing in Sløvåg, when it’s illegal in the EU (which Norway is not a member state of). They also have refused to answer why the Probo Emu failed to apply for import permits for the earlier waste, and failed to notify Norwegian environmental authorities of its arrival.
So before you start believing their backtracking from the legal mess they’re responsible for in the UK, with their super injunctions, crude attacks on parliament and the freedom of speech, consider where their responsibility for both disasters lay. The Norwegian authorities claim Vest Tank didn’t even have the correct permits to carry out caustic washing and waste processing, which Vest Tank deny - it’s all remarkably similar to the situation in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, where Trafigura have also denied any responsibility for their subcontractor there dumping the identically toxic waste in populated areas. Solomon Ugburogbu’s company Tommy didn’t even have the facilities for treating the toxic waste which ended up dumped instead.
In both instances Trafigura bought extremely cheap, low grade refinery gasoline at a profit, and turned this coker naptha as cheaply as they could through a process called caustic washing, into a petrol which wasn’t even legal to sell in the EU, in order to sell it on to Africa (where it was legal) at a further profit. The toxic waste resulting from the earlier caustic washing at sea ended up dumped in Abidjan; in the case of Sløvåg it appears to have been illegally imported, although caustic washing was done on land there as well. Trafigura knew when they tried to offload the waste which ended up in Abidjan in Amsterdam, how expensive it would be to treat the sludge legally, yet its final destination was Tommy. In Sløvåg the sludge blew up, even though Trafigura knew of the dangers of storing it for more than a few days. Deaths in Abidjan and serious health problems in Norway – Trafigura at the centre of it, making huge profits. Pierre Lorinet, the oil trading firm’s CFO said:
“We decided that our best course of action at the time was to get the [initial, super-] injunction, because we didn’t want more inaccurate reporting on things which are very clearly wrong effectively. It is a heavy-handed approach, absolutely. With hindsight, could it have been done differently? Possibly. The injunction was never intended to gag parliament or attack free speech.”
They never wanted to gag parliament or attack free speech, just wanted to stop ‘inaccurate reporting’? Given the mountain of evidence underpinning said reporting, make your own mind up, and make sure you read the Minton Report. The Basel Convention bans the export of toxic waste to developing countries – it’s no wonder Trafigura have stopped at nothing to suppress even a mention of it.
Twitter Did Not Win It
Wikileaks, a site at the centre of the fightback against Trifigura and Carter-Ruck’s attempt to prevent the Guardian reporting on Jack Straw’s response to attempts to suppress the Minton Report in parliament, suggests Twitter didn’t end up saving free speech:
This ill-informed back-patting follows the dropping of a secret UK High Court gag order blocking the Guardian’s reporting of parliamentary questions by Paul Farrelly MP. Farrelly’s questions related to press freedoms and in particular, a leaked WikiLeaks report, the so-called “Minton report” which exposed a toxic dumping disaster inflicted on the Ivory Coast by oil trading giant Trafigura, which is reported to have hospitalized over 100,000 people.
However, a more substantive secret gag order against the report, granted in September, entirely prevents the reporting of its contents and remains in effect. It is not the only one. Last month, the Guardian revealed that it had been served with 10 secret gag orders—so-called “super-injunctions”— since January. In 2008, the paper was served with six. In 2007, five. Haven’t heard of these? Of course not, they are secret gag orders. The UK press has given up counting regular injunctions.
To understand the crucial events in this case, we need to go back to September when commodities giant Trafigura obtained the original “super injunction” preventing discussion of the leaked Minton report into the Ivory Coast disaster.
During September and the preceding months, investigative reporters from the Guardian, Norway’s NRK TV, the Independent, the BBC’s Newsnight, the Dutch press, Greenpeace and lawyers for the victims were collaborating to show Trafigura’s culpability.
It’s a blistering editorial, which everyone who cares about the freedom of the press and free speech in general should read as a priority. In essence the Guardian (amongst others) was hit with a gag order preventing reporting on the Minton Report on September 11th. Paul Farrelly MP was then understood to have intended his parliamentary question to draw attention to the order, given that libel laws are not applicable in the Houses of Parliament, so Carter-Ruck went for a second injunction in effect to shut him up too, and against all expectation succeeded. The Guardian made the second gag the national issue and drew the worldwide blogosphere in on its side, but Wikileaks believes the second injunction fell despite the massive Twitter intervention (the subject of earlier posts); with politicians amongst the targets it was inevitable. The lawsuits and gags in place before the attack on Farrelly remain untouched, and politicians are now largely disinterested in the subject. Free speech in the UK remains laughable, when it can be suppressed with a big enough chequebook, even over matters of vital public interest such as Trafigura’s dumping of toxic waste in Ivory Coast.
The Minton Report can be found here.
Climate Activism is NOT Terrorism!
It was always likely that the run-up to the December UN climate summit in Copenhagen would see the British police revert to their repressive ways, after their charm offensive in the summer. It’s already begun:
UK border police used anti-terrorist legislation to prevent a British climate change activist from crossing over into mainland Europe where he planned to take part in events surrounding the forthcoming United Nations summit in Denmark.
Chris Kitchen, a 31-year-old office worker, said he feared his treatment by police could mark the start of a clampdown on protesters, hundreds of whom are planning to travel to Copenhagen for the climate change talks in December.
Tonight he will make a second attempt to reach Denmark, where he plans to take part in discussions organised by a network of protest groups coming together under the banner Climate Justice Action.
He said he was prevented from crossing the border yesterday at about 5pm, when the coach he was travelling on stopped at the Folkestone terminal of the Channel tunnel.
Kitchen said police officers boarded the coach and, after checking all passengers’ passports, took him and another climate activist to be interviewed under schedule 7 of the Terrorism Act 2000, a clause which enables border officials to stop and search individuals to determine if they are connected to terrorism.
The passports were not initially scanned, Kitchen said, suggesting the officials knew his name and had planned to remove him from the coach before they boarded. During his interview, he was asked questions about his family, work and past political activity. The police also asked him what he intended to do in Copenhagen.
When Kitchen said that anti-terrorist legislation does not apply to environmental activists, he said the officer replied that terrorism “could mean a lot of things”. By the time his 30-minute interview had concluded, Kitchen’s coach had gone.
This should surprise noone. The reason why the police’s behaviour was different to normal throughout the summer was because the interests of the state weren’t seen as being threatened. Granted there is clearly a widely held attitude amongst the police that climate activism is tantamount to terrorism – there’s little other explanation for their unprovoked and unwarranted violence against Climate Camp at Bishopsgate earlier in the year. But a camp in Blackheath, with the occasional forays into Canary Wharf and the City for PR stunts is hardly the same as a mass demonstration to coincide with the G20 leaders’ visit to London, or a ‘swoop’ on a power station like Ratcliffe-on-Soar. So nothing happened in the summer, whilst harsh scenes are likely in three days’ time, and ever more the closer we get to December. The violence in April was unwarranted and unacceptable – it’s equally unacceptable that the police should choose to use anti-terrorism legislation against environmentalists. Just don’t expect any major party to be able or want to unpick this mess any time soon.
Greenpeace go to Parliament
As we speak there are ‘over 40′ (Greenpeace and Jason claiming 55- but will use BBC just to be sure…) Greenpeace protesters on the roof of the Palace of Westminster waiting to welcome politicians back from their holiday tomorrow. They have put forward a list of 12 policies to save the climate. It’s a really interesting read – and one that at some point soon would make an interesting blog to pull apart what is and isn’t viable at the moment.
What it did make me think of, however, was something I had spotted a few weeks ago, an idea I really like, Solar Roadways. Now bear with me here, I know that this idea is slightly Sci-Fi but the more I think about it the more brilliant a solution it becomes.
Essentially some clever boffin types have produced a solar panel which can double up as road – it has a similar amount of grip to tarmac, heats itself, has LEDs to flash up messages and change road routes and puts electricity into the grid. They come in a kind of Lego type square 12′ by 12′ sheet that connects up and lasts for around 21 years (as opposed to current tarmacs life expectancy of around 7) and based on a 15% efficiency they think they can produce 7.6kWh per day. I quote from their site:
Our hypothetical 4-lane, one-mile stretch of road would require 1760 Solar Road Panels™. That means that, each day, this stretch of Solar Roadway™ would produce at least 13,376 kWh of electricity. That’s 4,882,240 kWh per year – enough to take 500 homes completely “off grid”. You don’t get that out of asphalt!
Essentially then, you could get the main road through smaller towns kitted out with these things and power the town itself not to mention that they then can sell any left over power to other countries or electricity suppliers at a nice profit going straight back into government coffers!
Anyway that just scratches the surface of the whole idea, I’d recommend you go and have a look – although these guys may be a little over their heads when you start delving into the depths of the website, surely ideas like these are things we should be considering for future climate action. As always would love to hear you thoughts and ideas, have you spotted anything similar we should be trying to bring to peoples’ attention?
Change the Politics, Save the Climate
As I type 55 Greenpeace activists are on top of the Houses of Parliament. From their site:
Fifty-five Greenpeace volunteers have scaled the walls of the Houses of Parliament and are now occupying the roof to call for for a new style of politics in Britain, one capable of rising to meet the challenge of climate change.
Tomorrow MPs return from their summer break and the government’s own Committee on Climate Change will publish a progress report on UK carbon emissions. They make it clear that Britain is not doing enough to meet its commitments, and insist that a “step change” in emissions cuts is needed. With just 60 days go until the critical climate summit in Copenhagen – which faces a very real chance of failure as things stand – Britain has yet to show true commitment to making the process a success. We need politicans who are thinking about the next generation, not just the next election.
The climbers have unfurled a banner on the roof of the Palace of Westminster’s Great Hall which says: “CHANGE THE POLITICS, SAVE THE CLIMATE.” They are vowing to stay on the roof overnight so they can welcome politicians back in the morning.
Before breaching Westminster security they told police officers exactly who they were, making it clear that they were about to embark on a peaceful protest.
Five of the volunteers – all of them experienced rope access experts – then climbed up the building’s 15m lightning conductor to the roof’s apex. They are now out of reach of security guards, and plan to stay up there for the next 24 hours.
Anna Jones is on the roof of Parliament and says: “We need a green economy that will create jobs and bring prosperity while helping us beat climate change. We need politicians to be fighting for the next generation, not just the next election.”
The other protesters are on a lower roof, equipped with tents and enough food and water to maintain an overnight occupation. They’ve issued a climate manifesto and are asking all politicians to sign it. It lists twelve simple steps our politicians could take to quickly cut Britain’s carbon use, and to provide the help poorer countries need to develop clean energy, adapt to the impacts of climate change and protect their rainforests.
Our manifesto includes ruling out all emissions from new coal-fired power stations, ending airport expansion and delivering on the clean energy revolution that would see Britain harness the huge natural resources of our wind-swept island to build employment, develop new green industries and cut pollution. People say they get into politics to make a real difference. Well here’s their chance.
The clock’s ticking down to the big climate summit in Copenhagen, but politicians are still treating the most important issue of our time as a political plaything. We need a green economy that will create jobs and bring prosperity while helping us beat climate change.
NUJ Condemns Attack on Photographers
How ironic to find no reports of harassment of the Climate Camp protesters at their Blackheath camp or on their direct actions in the City and London’s Docklands by the Metropolitan Police, but instead to read about an alleged protester attacking the press:
Jonathan Warren, one of the freelance photographers who was assaulted, wrote on his blog: “As my colleague Marc Vallée and I were leaving climate camp we found a group of people arguing around the SWP stall that was selling newspapers and leaflets outside the entrance to the camp.
“As we went in to take photographs the group arguing with the SWP quickly turned their attention to us, shouting loudly that we had not asked their permission before photographing them.
“They were immediately aggressive and threatening, I managed to calm the ones around me and walk away, however, one young man was persistently threatening towards Marc.
“He repeatedly threatened to grab Marc’s camera and delete the pictures himself or smash the camera.”
Jonathan continued: “After a while we felt that the situation had calmed. Marc said that they should both shake hands and walk away and offered his hand. The man did not take it and as we turned to leave he tried to grab the camera off Marc’s shoulder.
“I stepped in shouting ‘Oi’ and as I did the man took a step back and kicked me hard in the stomach.”
(via Marc Vallee)
I was up there myself on the day they arrived in Blackheath, and remember feeling uncomfortable. I remember getting abruptly turned down for photographs, which for such an event I thought was quite strange. It’s even more strange that journalists should find themselves on the receiving end of alleged protester violence, considering their shared recent enemy. Was it one of the anarchists or were nerves running high during what was clearly, in part, a siege mentality? It’s ironic that it should seemingly have been protesters with prejudices against photographers, when it’s been photographers who have recorded the violence against them in the recent past. Could this even have been an expression of anger against the police’s forward intelligence teams (FIT), after the Met appeared to want to photograph every protester surreptitiously on their way in?
The Metropolitan Police’s active indifference to the Climate Campers throughout this event, and the media’s resulting lack of response to them, has shown just how sensitive the push and pull mechanisms are for 21st century protest movements. With the camp struggling to retain the media’s attention without police violence, did resentment against the mainstream media bubble over and get aimed instead against freelancers? What a pity. We’ll see where this goes next on October 17th.
Does Climate Camp Need Confrontation?
Following news of Marc Vallée’s assault by someone whom he describes as a Climate Camp protester, I’m forced to reevaluate this piece:
And that is the greatest threat to the campers: that their political relevance is defined not by a meaningful encounter that challenges both the political mainstream and a wider community, effecting change, but is defined, as it increasingly appears to be, by the act of protest itself.
Because the reality of an organisation for successful political change is that it requires a mass movement behind it, drawn not just from those who already passionately believe in it but from those who have been persuaded. And those who may be persuaded.
Climate Camp, with its often hazy message and complex inner negotiations, with its indulgent obsession with its own workings, its insularity and the suggestion of elitism of its direct-action hard core, is in danger of becoming about Climate Camp, the institution, rather than about the wider fight to halt global warming. With all its energy and motivation, that would be a shame.
And here’s the question – without their grudge match with the police, what are Climate Camp? Camped in Blackheath, with largely unnoticed (but well-meaning) direct actions in Bishopsgate and Canary Wharf, fenced off to protect themselves from the Metropolitan Police (who haven’t so far cared two hoots about them), are they not in danger of becoming parodies of themselves? There are so many honest and motivated people, particularly young people, but after Kingsnorth and G20 can they only define themselves by conflict, rather than by the validity of their arguments and principles? It’s great that they’re taking a stand on perhaps the most important issue in modern society, but I can’t help but wonder if there is now a siege mentality taking over, which is drowning out their positive message.
Climate Camp’s Climate Casino
The Blackheath Climate Camp has gone ahead with its first direct action, setting up a climate casino outside the European Carbon Exchange in Bishopsgate, scene of the now-infamous attack against them by the Metropolitan Police in April:
