A Climate ‘Swoop’ protester explains the direct action protest at the Ratcliffe-on-Soar coal fired power station.
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.
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.
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:
Jonathan Warren reports from Blackheath’s Climate Camp:
As Climate Camp set up on Blackheath in south London yesterday I got hold of a copy of the code of conduct that journalists will be asked to sign if they want to stay on the camp outside of media hours (10am-6pm) and it makes for fascinating reading.
Most of it reinforces the camp’s existing media policy such as asking for everyone’s permission when taking a photograph. The code says ‘When you want to take a picture or a video and it includes people, always, always ask first. If you can’t ask don’t take the picture.’
The camp’s organisers claim that all decisions are made with consensus from everyone. But reading through the minutes of the national meetings before the camp, the code of conduct is only ever mentioned in passing. There is never a discussion about what it should be and what it should contain.
So what has resulted is the media team’s moral view on what the press should be allowed to do being imposed on everyone at the camp and on journalists. We do not allow the police to impose their moral view of what should be photographed on us, so why should journalists subscribe to the media team’s views?
Warren makes the salient point about this year’s camp being on public land, making it even more remarkable that the Climate Camp organisers should feel able to impose rules on anyone. I was up there last night and when on ‘their’ space always asked for permission to take people’s photograph – it’s a common courtesy after all. But ‘informing on camp activities’ – would the brief audioboo I submitted count? – is that as much a sign of paranoia as the highly unusual fencing they’ve encased themselves in?
(via Marc Vallee)
He’s my local mayor, but I won’t be voting for Sir Steve Bullock again. Staggeringly he compares the Climate Camp protesters occupying Blackheath for a week with football hooligans, before saying:
The problem with the Campers is that no matter how well intentioned and nice they are what they are doing is counterproductive. It will be seen as self indulgent by lots of people who are struggling through the recession and could even make it harder to win support for some of the difficult measures that will have to be taken in the future. And who do you think is going to have to pay to take the rubbish away, provide water and repair the Heath when they’ve gone? That’s right you and me – the taxpayers of Lewisham who were never asked and never agreed to the camp being here.
Being angry with the Climate Change Campers doesn’t mean you don’t care about the issue – for me they are a distraction from the real task of changing how we behave and persuading ever more of our fellow citizens to change the way they behave too.
I’d say Bullock is part of the problem. Speaking as a resident of Lewisham their ‘measures to reduce the impact of climate change’ are undetectable. It’s the same mentality which permeates the top level of the entire Labour Party – protest and you’re a hooligan – it’s only those in authority who can (read: ‘should’) make change, except they never seem to. It’s a cheap political shot, which I suspect most of his constituents won’t agree with. Is he really claiming Lewisham’s council tax will go up as a result of climate protesters occupying common land for one week? Speaking as someone entirely happy with my new, temporary neighbours, I know who’s really coming across as patronising and selfish!
Don’t forget what the Metropolitan Police did in April at the G20 protest:
Police officers’ notebooks lodged at the high court tell how they punched people in the face and beat others with riot shields during the G20 demonstrations in April.
The notebooks, which have been lodged as evidence in an action brought by three protesters, also disclose how Metropolitan police were given no restrictions on the use of force when they were ordered to move protesters attending the Climate Change camp in the City of London on 1 April. The accounts were written up the day after the demonstrations.
In one notebook, a police constable recounts how when he saw a protester pushing against officers’ shields: “I punched him in the jaw and he moved backwards.”
Another officer describes how he hit people with “shield strikes both flat and angled. I also delivered open palm strikes to a number of individuals and fist strikes as well.”
A third constable logged: “To get the protesters who would not move, I needed to hit the flat part of my shield to get them to move back. I also used open-handed palm strikes. Once the protesters were moved back to the required distance, we remained in a closed cordon until relieved.”
The Met insists that this time they’ll engage in ‘community policing’, but what evidence is there that they’ll keep their word? Their operation last time in Bishopsgate promised (and for a time delivered) ‘community policing’, but entirely peaceful protesters still faced the brutality mentioned above. After all Chief Superintendant Helen Ball, in command of policing Climate Camp’s swoop and camp (beginning as I write) has said:
“At the moment we will be photographing people on arrival at the camp because it is important for us to know if there are people coming who want to cause violence and disorder.
“We will not be routinely stopping and searching everybody going into the camp and we have briefed officers carefully on searching people and what the spirit of the operation is.”
In other words the first tactic will be to use Forward Intelligence Teams (FIT) from the outset. Given that FIT teams used for protest are never used to track people who might cause violence and disorder, how can we possibly believe that the stop and search tactics used at Kingsnorth won’t be reappearing, not to mention the suppression and attacks on the media? The jury’s out and the country is watching…
Today’s Climate Camp ‘swoops’ have taken off. Destination: still unknown…
© Copyright 2010 | Cosmodaddy | All Rights Reserved
Recent Comments