Category Archives: Corporations

Guest Post by Ian Beck: If You’re Not Pissed Off You’re Not Paying Attention

So the youth of Worthing are restless. The UK creeps towards a police state, with public order measures concocted to combat terrorism and riot deployed to stop the yeomen of Worthing congregating after dark. Or at least an order under Section 30 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, providing for “dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence.” I’ve been to Worthing many times, generally just passing through on the A27. It’s no hotbed of sedition. I’ve always thought of it an elephants’ graveyard, where the well-heeled bourgeois of conservative Sussex buy expensive coastal retirement bungalows to quietly await the inevitable. Of course this is a caricature, and unfair. I’ve also heard, anecdotally, of a small but seething youth counter-culture down there; if you know the right people, you can have a surprisingly good time. After all it’s not far from Brighton, most people there have money. Apparently Worthing’s not as dull as it looks.

I heard about the Worthing Freedom Campaign on Twitter from @SchNews, the Twitter account of an organisation known to have a nifty line in radical political satire, and to be supportive of direct action against the kind of criminality and immorality that the rightwing and mainstream media don’t tend to highlight. Their by-line: “If you’re not pissed off you’re not paying attention.” Well, I too am disturbed, not to mention angry, at the way things are going in this country. Those responsible for the current, worsening, financial and economic crisis have not been held to account. They appear to continue as if nothing has changed, for they are insulated from the consequences of their mistakes, indeed these same mistakes would seem to result, for them, in ever larger bonuses and other rewards. Austerity is clearly failing, the coalition’s mandate is uncertain. A lot of other bad stuff is going on here and in the wider world that needs to be challenged. There’s a big international crisis, on several fronts (in case you weren’t paying attention.) Though I’m no spring chicken these days, have a job to hold down, and live far from Sussex, I would hope to make common cause with a lot of what SchNews do.

Surely to win any challenge from a position of material weakness you must win the argument first? You must choose your weapons carefully. I wasn’t that impressed with the Worthing Freedom Campaign’s blog, with its links to other news sheets sporting brutish satire. Not terribly edgy, not terribly original, not terribly funny, and not awfully constructive. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so harsh? The authors of Pork-Bolter could well be kids; at least they take an interest, exercise creativity and are asking questions. But in my experience the police are far more open to negotiation and reason when treated like the human beings they in fact are. A respectful and constructive attitude tends to be reciprocated, though you may take issue with the laws the police are enforcing, or whether their methods are always proportionate and lawful. But a report from the Brighton Evening Argus – it has to be said a paper not noted for political neutrality or detailed factual accuracy – linked to by @SchNews caught my eye, the reported use of the Nazi swastika by this Worthing Freedom Campaign.

At this point I should confess that I think about the Nazis a lot. More than most people do, and possibly more than is healthy. But that’s a function of my day job as a history teacher, and because a lot of dark, evil and perverted stuff happened during the brief but spectacular period the Nazis inhabit. So what sort of “Freedom Campaign” deploys the swastika? To me, that’s an interesting question. Hitler’s concept of “freedom” was somewhat different to that understood by @SchNews, and, one would hope, the Worthing Freedom Campaign. What Hitler meant by freedom was, in the first instance, the freedom of ethnic Germans and other “Nordics” (if they were up for it, though in the end choice would not apply) to join the same big or “Greater” Germany, regardless of the wishes of other peoples who happened to dwell thereabouts. To achieve this collective “freedom” Hitler’s people would need an invincible war machine that would ultimately enslave or exterminate their enemies and rivals. Individual Germans wouldn’t have any choice about participating in this “freedom” project either. Hitler’s idea of freedom was not freedom at all.

A side issue, then, to the main event, but an important one to this interested party. @SchNews did not at first respond to my questions. Snubbed and disappointed, I provoked them to respond. I’m new to Twitter. Once their “hive mind” had worked out what on earth I was on about, they said the story wasn’t true, they wrongly blamed the Argus. @SchNews did then concede that the swastika had been used on a leaflet which was “not the cleverest we’ve seen” but in the end no big deal. The image itself is no longer available but reportedly the swastika had been used in juxtaposition with a Sussex Police badge, so as to suggest, ironically or not, that Sussex Police are Nazis. Soon @Sussex_Police were in touch too. They said that this Nazi emblem had appeared on the Worthing Freedom Campaign’s website too, but had been removed. The message left by Sussex Police to complain had been deleted. The police account made the glib but fair point that censorship was hardly in the spirit of freedom too.

Scrapper Duncan has blogged about all this already, and very well. My point with @SchNews was that this use of the swastika was at best inflammatory and hysterical, hardly likely to help the credibility of the campaign. At worst, it’s lot more disturbing than that. Their defence was that the use of the swastika was by a couple of silly individuals not representative of  the campaign, and was a bit of an irrelevance. Worthing’s Freedom Campaign seemed to have thought better of it, which must be a good thing? Just when I thought I was making some progress with @SchNews, edging them towards a condemnation of this sort of imagery, they made the questionable assertion that the meanings of these symbols change over time. The hive was perhaps not in harmony. My understanding of the symbols of Nazism is no longer current, then. It doesn’t really matter. These days the Nazis aren’t so bad.

Here’s how they responded to Scrapper Duncan’s post (unfortunately Jo Makepeace’s remains incomplete, and seems set to remain so. Two further comments in response by Scrapper Duncan and by me are also reproduced):

Jo Makepeace 11 June 2012 at 12:45 pm

Wow – our first Twitter row! #welcome to the 21stCentury.

Thanks for the fulsome praise in the first few paragraphs by the way!

Our remit is definitely to defend grass-roots groups trying to resist authority, although it seems unfair to charge us with ‘fundamentalism’ on this basis. We stated that we didn’t think it was the cleverest of leaflets, although no doubt we’ve been guilty of equally crass behaviour in the past in pursuit of some splendidly satirical objective or other.

Ian’s point struck us as nitpicking – having a go at a small group trying their best to stand up to over-weening police power by pointing out an exaggerated claim in a single leaflet.

Ian seemed to be suggesting that an ‘even-handed’ approach be taken between the Worthing Freedom Campaign and Sussex Police, which given the power imbalance between them is laughable. The fact that the cops have the power to sweep you off the streets and incarcerate you (with increasingly little redress) is precisely why they shouldn’t be welcomed into the rhizomatic world of twitter and blogging as equals. Certainly they shouldn’t be shedding crocodile tears about hurt feelings!

There may have been a point in the past when Naziism wasn’t trivialised but that’s long ago now. I don’t think that the Worthing Freedom Campaign are responsible for Allo, Allo, the Download spoofs etc etc. The meanings of symbols do change and the power of the Swastika emblem to shock has been eroded over time.

Cultural saturation with the idea that Naziism represented some black hole sui generis apex of evil that effectively stands outside history has ironically aided that erosion. Without an…

Scrapper Duncan 11 June 2012 at 2:07 pm

Thanks for your comment. You seem to have been interrupted by the character limit? Imposed to stop time wasters, which are definitely not one. Still, same rule for everyone! If you finish elsewhere, I’ll publish your pingback.

@ian_bec 11 June 2012 at 3:29 pm

Thank you Duncan for this post and your support in this matter. My interest here was purely to query and challenge the use of the swastika by no doubt a small minority of these protesters in Worthing. I was not attempting to question or pass judgement on the basis of the protest, nor the tactics of Sussex police. From the point of view of Schnews this is not an important issue and I was “nitpicking.” This would explain why my first two questions to Schnews about this were ignored. Neither is the association of protesters – who no doubt would regard themselves as on the left and supporters of liberty -the narrative Schnews would want to propagate.

The fact that the swastika was deployed on a single leaflet only, and quickly removed from the website of these protesters, indicates that they thought better of it. Good. Though there’s enough in Jo Makepeace’s response here to take issue with, I’d rather see the whole comment before responding item by item. It was just getting interesting, though I’m not sure the Latin (or Greek?) adds to its clarity. So I’ll leave it a few hours in the hope that the full comment is published.

If you want to debate Nazism, its implications, and the real meaning of their symbols I’m happy to do that, Jo Makepeace. If you don’t, then just say, clearly and unequivocally, that the deployment of the swastika in this context was wrong.

Ian Beck

More than a few hours later, I’ll continue. Jo Makepeace here concedes that this use of the swastika was “crass“, but then in mitigation implies that this is the sort of oversight anybody (radical left activists?) “in pursuit of some splendidly satirical objective or other” could make. It remains a bit of a joke. I was “nit-picking” and “having a go at a small group” trying to stand up against “over-weening police powers“. I’m not disputing that incidents where the police obtain restrictive public order powers, on what appear slender justifications, need to be questioned or challenged. The authoritarian trends initiated by the New Labour government continue, as society becomes more unequal our privacy and our rights to protest are increasingly curtailed. This is not in dispute. But by saying this use of Nazi symbolism was “an exaggerated claim” Jo Makepeace also implies that the police in Sussex are not so very far from Nazism, that the problem is one of emphasis. You do not condemn the use of this imagery, Jo. You think the right of kids to assemble as they please in Worthing is the more important issue. Ultimately, you do not get it.

Jo Makepeace may believe that by discussing issues with the police I’m siding with them. I’m accused of failing to acknowledge the “power imbalance” between police and protesters by advocating an “even-handed approach.” Why not discuss the swastika in an even-handed way? I do not buy the implication that because I’m criticising the protesters I’m taking sides with the cops, and by extension buying into “their” value system by being shocked at the swastika. You assert that the “power of the swastika to shock has been eroded over time.” I’m not sure that’s true, and if it is, it needs to be challenged. You also contend that I shouldn’t be communicating with the police on social media “as equals” even in serious discussion, however constructively. A superficial grasp of the historiography leads you to argue that because ‘great minds’ have ‘discovered’ that Nazism does not stand “outside history” (whatever that means), and because of ‘Allo, ‘Allo and the “Download spoofs” (sic), Nazism is now “trivialised” and has been for some time. You say that ultimately the Nazis were a pretty normal sort of evil, nothing unique (which is how I understood your “sui generis apex of evil“). Summary: I don’t hate the police enough, and I hate the Nazis too much.

Well, for my part I was just saying people should treat each other with respect. It’s an essential component of resolving any dispute without force. Further, that this trivialisation of Nazism is problematic, and in this case counter-productive for your protest, and your credibility. It’s ridiculous, wrong and offensive to excuse the use of the swastika in this way. I would say that if you had paid any attention to the Nazis, Jo Makepeace, you would be a good deal more “pissed off” with them. For a “hive” of radicals @SchNews is really nowhere near angry at the Nazis enough. I think you should get your ideas in order. There’s a lot more to the symbolism of the swastika than the abuse of authority. To throw that symbol around is to cheapen it further, and to cheapen yourself.

In a very clumsy way, I suppose you are accusing the police of fascism. If the Worthing Freedom Campaign had chosen a symbol of fascism to associate with Sussex Police I wouldn’t have agreed, but also wouldn’t have bothered to query it with @SchNews. The symbols of “fascism” do not quite resonate like the swastika. Meanwhile fascism is notoriously difficult to define, partly because it doesn’t, in the end, make a lot of sense nor stand up to very much scrutiny. We should perhaps pay heed to Mussolini, who coined the term. He defined fascism as “state power plus corporate power”, a marriage of capitalist and state interests in which the concerns or ambitions or rights of individuals had no intrinsic value. Into the mix also: a bellicose, imperialist nationalism and obsessive militarism, a fondness for uniforms, command hierarchies, discipline, machismo, aggression, hardness, strength, self-sacrifice, traditionalism, and obviously violence.

Perhaps this is a persuasive definition? If you consider the way the USA conducts its foreign policy, or the way the London Olympics is being organised, you could soon be peppering your after-dinner conversation with “fascism”, and sounding quite authoritative. There’s always the narrative of the threat to civilisation, too, to justify the restriction or suspension of civil liberties. For Mussolini and Hitler the primary threat was communism. The Bolsheviks and their enemies had indeed brought catastrophic upheaval and millions of unearned deaths to a society already strained to crisis by the First World War in the wake of the Russian Revolutions of 1917. Communism was and is an international conspiracy against the capitalist order. What little was known about events within Russia in the early 1920s made Revolution a frightening prospect to those with wealth or status or values to lose. In our time the primary recent threat has been Islamic terrorism. But there are always others: organised crime, the internet, mass immigration, the collapse of the banking system and so on. These are all in some ways threatening. The fascist way is to exaggerate the gravity and to lie about the nature of the threat, then ignore human values in pursuit of a forceful and total victory.

Scrapper Duncan blogged some bad photographs I took a few weeks ago. The Olympic Torch relay passed directly outside my home. At 6.30 am there was no ignoring it. It was certainly an “event” as the Council had even swept the streets in this unglamorous neighbourhood. So I suppressed my principled reservations and went to take a look. Now, like Scrapper, I’m all in favour of the sport but have misgivings about a lot of the other stuff that’s going on. As we all know the Torch relay is no ancient Greek ritual but a practice invented for the Berlin Games of 1936, an event the Nazis used to showcase their achievements to the world. The Nazis were very good at this sort of thing. It would be facile to suggest those taking part in the Torch Relay were pro-Nazi. But, overall, the parade, lasting a good 20 minutes, was a distinctly hostile spectacle. In cocktail terms maybe 4 parts police, 1 part Corporations, and a dash of athletics – a single runner near the back, who’d probably paid for the privilege, and appearing late in the parade as if an afterthought. A terrorist threat to the Torch could be real enough, who knows? I suppose we must trust that the Torch needs such an impressive police guard, and be glad that they are very careful indeed to look after it. The torch relay looked like fascism to me. It did not make me feel good about the Olympics. But even in early morning there were people cheering and waving flags so it was popular, and mine was the minority view.

I don’t dispute that there are valid reasons to be concerned about policing matters in this country. On the corporatisation front, our esteemed Home Secretary’s plans to open more policing and prison services to private companies smells of fascism, certainly. But the police themselves are hostile to and angry at that prospect, and in common with all other public sector workers other than regime itself and its corporate donors and cosseted beneficiaries, are up in arms about jobs, pay, pensions, and the insidious process the politicians call “reform.” (This word could do with re-definition.) Meanwhile, and specifically with regard to the Metropolitan Police, the Leveson Enquiry continues to cast light on the corruptible nexus between political leaders, the right-wing media, and the police. The cases of Daniel Morgan, Stephen Lawrence, and Ian Tomlinson are amongst a number of open wounds for the Met’s credibility. Of course there are also the important issues surrounding the policing of protest. SchNews will know about those.

In the real world, at our current stage of ethical development, we need police. There are bad people out there who do bad things, and it’s definitely necessary to stop some people from mixing freely with the general population. Be realistic: there are accidents, horrible crimes, acts of terrorism, tragic events. Policing is a tough job, and stressful, who else should deal with this stuff? We should not be surprised that the police defend the rights of property and companies, of those who produce wealth and provide jobs. Neither should we be surprised that from their perspective, more sweeping powers would make their task easier. Would SchNews suggest instead a force of ordinary citizens as right-on vigilantes in some ‘Big Society’ dystopia? Or, people more to their liking doing much the same service, in a similar structure, and vulnerable to the same institutional and cultural problems as the current police? If you have an ideological objection to capitalism or the government or the law or whatever, fine. Don’t confuse that with a justification for hating every individual police officer. Don’t be stupid. Really – and I admittedly bear fewer grudges against the police, based on personal experience, than some – any opportunity for constructive dialogue in any media should be used to persuade them of the justice of your cause, and to display humanity and respect. Are those not the values you stand for?

But we’re being self-indulgent building this argument that the police are a bunch of fascists, and serve a fascist system. We are letting fascism off the hook. To really “get” fascism we have to see it on an emotional level, the vast number of its adherents could never be accused of thinking too hard. We see this in the EDL. The ‘original’ fascists in Italy and Germany and elsewhere had some sort of excuse, as they were veterans of the Great War of 1914-18 and many were quite frankly unhinged by the things they had experienced. In the modern parlance many had PTSD. Suffering in defeat, as the Germans did, and believing the defeat and the chaotic aftermath to have been born of conspiracy was particularly traumatising. The root of fascism is a mess of boiling fears and hatreds, an urge to destroy. There was hatred of communists, obviously. Also hatred of socialists, anarchists, liberals, free-thinkers, eccentrics, homosexuals, feminists, protesters, the workshy, the poor, the weak, smart-alecs, non-conformists, uncooperative priests, foreigners, and anybody they took a dislike to, even each other. They would certainly hate SchNews and work to destroy the hive. Getting beaten up – in Italy perhaps they would have made you drink castor oil and stab you playfully in the backside – would be the very least you could hope for. If Sussex Police really were fascist this is what they would be doing. If SchNews has evidence of this, publish it.

But the swastika is not actually a symbol of fascism. The Nazis shared the superficial characteristics of fascism, certainly, but they were actually something different, and far worse. Jo Makepeace takes her cues on the Nazis and their meaning these days from ‘Allo ‘Allo and from Downfall spoofs. I’m no fan of the former, though clearly many have differed, but for a while the Downfall spoofs could be funny. “Every joke is a tiny revolution,” as Orwell said, and in telling good jokes about difficult topics we are asserting our freedom, and examining assumptions that need to be tested. I’m not above a snicker at Herr Flick or a titter at Bruno Ganz ranting about the football dressed as a late-period bunker-bound Hitler. But neither of these are actually about Nazism, they’re about the war, and in losing the war the Nazis become ridiculous, mad, defeated, no longer a threat, denatured, emasculated, pathetic, a joke. This image does not describe what the Nazis actually were. It’s more about us.

We British are obsessed with the Second World War. The point of “cultural saturation” was reached long ago, before my time. We have to keep on reminding ourselves that we won. 1940 is the British national foundation myth: the Dunkirk spirit, Churchill, standing against Hitler alone though massively outgunned, Spitfires and Hurricanes the blitz and all that. We should indeed be proud of the stand we took in 1940 and our broader contribution to victory, and what it hopefully says about us. Hitler could not believe we would be so stupid as to risk our Empire, suffer austerity and terror bombing from the air, maybe end up a bankrupted satellite state of the USA if we survived at all. Hitler was right about something then, but he was wrong to believe the UK would make the sensible play and fold. He saw no pressing need to invade Britain, though for obvious reasons he was keen for us to believe he would. Beginning new conflicts against the USSR and the USA in 1941 without first neutralising our little stepping-stone on the edge of Europe was a catastrophic strategic error. Hitler was wrong about Britain because he, like Nazism, was blind to morality and incapable of ethical judgment.

There does come a point when all this forced British jocularity about the Nazis hits the wrong note, causing offence to those who do not share our smug view of the war, and becomes morbid. The villagers of Haworth must still be scratching their heads at why members of a German delegation from their twin town burst into tears upon sight of some clown prancing about in an SS uniform. No doubt they’re still chortling down at the Golf Club. Obviously there is a long history now of the misappropriation of more specifically Nazi symbols, like the fine Hugo Boss tailoring of the SS uniform (which was certainly a selling-point for aspirant SS at the time). The Nazis did look kind of cool by the standards of 1930s paramilitary couture. There is certain brand of Russian neo-Nazi who in their ignorance forgets that Hitler tried to wipe out the people of that land, and all sorts of nutters in the USA of course, but let’s restrict ourselves here to stupid British people. We all laughed at Prince Harry’s notorious Nazi fancy dress incident. We’re not laughing with Harry, or because the Nazis are amusing these days, are we? We’re laughing at Harry because of his lack of knowledge and awareness, and what he may be unconsciously revealing about the values of his class and his family. Edward VIII’s sorry little clique were not the only Windsors enamoured of Hitlerian order and dynamism before 1940. What did those communists and those Jews matter anyway?

Sid Vicious Wears Nazi Swastika in Jewish Quarter in Paris

Sid Vicious

If these incidents provoke ironic detachment, what of Aidan Burley MP (Conservative, obviously), and that unfortunate stag party? There are laws about this sort of thing in France, it’s not such a triviality over there. And what peculiar company Mr Burley keeps. Company Jo Makepeace might find convivial, perhaps, as they too would have it that Nazism and its symbols are trivial these days, or irresistibly cool? Or a punk statement of irreverence? I hope you’re not going to tell me it was cool for Sid Vicious to stumble around the Jewish quarter of Paris sporting a swastika t-shirt? There was nothing cool about Sid, actually. He was a derelict heroin addict, he used to attack people in nightclubs with a bicycle chain, couldn’t play the bass, was culpable – along with the idiotic management who put him in the band and egged him on – for the swift derailment of one of the greatest English rock’n’roll bands. Worse, Sid was responsible also for the death of his girlfriend, most probably, and his own demise at the tender age of 21. He tarnished the punk movement with violence, heroin, racism and neo-Nazism. Not cool, but at least Sid had the integrity to preserve the association of the swastika with death. Make no mistake, the Nazis brought death in unimaginable quantities.

Like our humour, British myths about the war don’t always translate too well. At root, we were white people from the north, Nordics with a strong Saxon strain, not a priority in the Nazi order of things. As a result we were fortunate to not experience Hitler’s war in the same way it was experienced on the Continent, and worst of all by the peoples then resident in Poland, Russia, the Baltic States, Ukraine, and ultimately Germany too. We did not suffer occupation and repression, armies fighting through our landscape, the horrors of forced labour, mass starvation, racial extermination (beyond the indefensible Channel Islands at any rate). Just compare the figures, brutally: the UK lost 0.94%, just under half a million, of its pre-war population; Belarus, to pick just one area of intense combat and lengthy occupation lost 25.3%, more than 2 millions. Then check the figures for the whole Soviet Union as was, for Poland, and Germany. The large majority of these deaths are civilians, people who did not always choose to fight but were unfortunate to be in the way as across Eastern Europe the Nazis made war against humanity itself, indiscriminately. Perhaps I should apologise for linking to the Daily Mail? But I make no apology for linking to Wikipedia. On controversial subjects like the Nazi crimes of WW2 it’s reliable, because (ahem) it is ‘policed’.

A single human death is a tragedy, a million a statistic” said Stalin, who knew quite a lot about this topic, as a prolific mass-murderer himself. We do not have the ability to process the truth of the destroyed human beings represented by these numbers, and we’ve heard it all before. Maybe we are lucky that we can’t feel this flood of human misery and tragedy as those who lived then did. We forget, too, that the truth of the war cannot be simply measured in deaths. There were refugees by the tens of millions, displaced people, traumatised people, people who fought and people who suffered, people who survived. We forget, too, that many of this generation remain alive. We forget that this is the living past. We seek respect for our own youthful preferences without a care for this dying generation’s memories, sacrifices, and struggles. We forget respect is a two way street. We would pretend that the rights of kids to assemble in Worthing are on a par with all this. What savage injustice.

The swastika is also a symbol of the most pernicious and destructive racism. Hitler’s radical Social Darwinism not only normalised war and conflict, but also established a racial hierarchy in which those adjudged inferior were not merely deprived of rights, but of the right to exist. The swastika is specifically anti-semitic, anti-Gypsy, and anti-Slav. This is reason enough to refrain from its careless use. During Hitler’s war the Nazis and their allies conducted a quite insane industrialised mass murder campaign against Europe’s Jews, wiping out between 6 and 8 million of them by means of starvation, forced labour, mass shootings, and the gas chamber. The legacy of this baleful tragedy lives on, it is a key motor of the most intractable and dangerous conflict in the world today, in Palestine. Without the Nazis, there would be no Israel. Every year thousands of young Israelis visit Auschwitz and they are told: “this is what happens when we don’t fight back.” It’s not so very long ago either that millions of Eastern Europeans lived under repressive communist regimes, as a direct result of Nazism. When you deploy the swastika you are directly insulting those who were destroyed, those whose families were destroyed, those who struggled to defeat this thing, and those whose lives were determined or blighted by the consequences of this destruction.

We can draw banal lessons from Nazism: be nice to minorities, be tolerant, don’t invade Poland. Or we can draw more disturbing warnings much more relevant to the now. You can go read Ian Kershaw and discover that as a result of a disorderly system of government, a lazy leader who did not deal in detail and spoke in visions, the abrogation of humane values, and problems on an ever-increasing scale, they were making a lot of it up as they went along; the lesser bods were “Working towards the Fuehrer.” It’s been a long time since Hans Mommsen identified a unique vector of “cumulative radicalism” in Nazism: the longer it lasted, the madder it got. From 1933 they murdered communists, socialists, trade unionists, people like SchNews; at this stage usually murder wasn’t necessary as a short spell in Dachau would often get the message across. After all the communists would have done the same. Nazism progressed to destroy Protestant sectarians, turbulent priests, some Jews; disobedient women were sterilised and died under the knife by the thousand. By 1939 German doctors were murdering disabled people in hospitals on their own initiative, more or less, finding their own little work-arounds to make life less bureaucratic. During the war itself the really big crimes occurred, and very large numbers of people made them happen. Go read Zygmunt Bauman on the role of a modern bureaucracy, not so different from our own, in this, and how responsibility was spread so thinly that nobody really had to feel guilty as an individual, and through a process of double-think could even claim a clear conscience or that they were just following orders. Or go look in the street at the Mercedes and BMWs and ponder the amorality of capitalism. How with barely a step-change these corporations went from dealing in mass murder and the machines of destruction back to making luxury cars for rich people.

SchNews should be standing against all this and not excusing, humorising, or normalising its symbolism. Even if you accept that it ever went away, this kind of sickness is on the way back. In Greece at the weekend the vote for Golden Dawn held up. It takes an economic crisis, an authoritarian mindset, a normalisation of violence, a scapegoating of immigrants and foreigners to set this ball rolling. Golden Dawn are not yet Nazis, though we can see their contempt for humanity in the behaviour of Ilias Kasidiaris in that well-publicised TV incident. We should be disturbed too, that Kasidiaris was not quickly arrested and that the police in Greece are playing, reportedly, a big part in their electoral success and legal impunity. We cannot say where Golden Dawn will go. We cannot be sure the same conditions that have brought them to the forefront of Greek politics will not, in time, happen here. We must be watchful. There can be no accommodation, no normalisation, no negotiation with the likes of Golden Dawn because we know where this road can lead. We should remember.

No kid in my class will get too hard a time for footwear or a hairstyle or even the odd expletive, if they treat me and their peers right. But if they draw a swastika on their exercise book I’m going to remind them what it means, and whether they understand what they’re doing. If they do, it’s a whole different set of problems for us all.

Ian Beck, Cardiff, June 2012
Follow @ian_bec on Twitter

From Scrapper Duncan: I’ve located a copy of the image used by the Worthing Freedom Campaign, which comprised of a Nazi Swastika superimposed on the Sussex Police Logo and included it in my previous post on this topic.

The advantages of state surveillance, if we’re allowed to have them

image

Some years ago I wandered the streets of Oval and Vauxhall, with a friend, in the supposed footsteps of William Blake. He had greatly enjoyed the area according to my friend. Back then it was all fields and country lanes. Since then it has been developed into something appalling. After a few hours of struggling with the juxtaposition between our ugly surroundings and the beautiful words in the edition of Blake we carried with us to read along the way, my friend admitted that there were prettier parts nearby. Soon we were standing in a delightful square with only one entrance, a mound of well cultivated lawn and a beautiful old tree. With no through traffic it was delightfully quiet. A single police officer stood on the other side, idling. It was an excellent spot to skive off in. My friend and I dipped back into our book and took turns to read aloud again. On reflection, perhaps that did look rather suspicious, especially as our attention was rather obviously drawn repeatedly to the police officer. He carried a gun. After a while, he walked towards us and politely enquired what we were doing. I read him some poetry. My friend politely enquired as to what the police officer was doing. He proudly reported that he was guarding someone under the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 but refused to say who. We teased him a bit about his gun but he stayed calm. Definitely he wasn’t getting it out for us. After a while we left, feeling a bit guilty that we’d given the lonely copper such a hard time. A few days later the flat in the legendary large scale squat Bonnington Square which my friend was looking after was burgled. He called the police. Whilst they were taking finger prints, he chatted amiably with them. “I was talking to one of your colleagues the other day”, said my friend, “and was surprised that he carried a gun. Just around the corner in…”. “Oh yeah, he’s guarding Jack Straw!”

That sums up the problem with the state holding information. It is utterly impossible to prevent its servants from sharing it whenever they like. People talk to one another, freely. Data cannot be locked down. The best hope is that an audit trail will exist to track down where a leak occurred. The same principle applies to the private sector too, of course. The difference seems to be that people working in the public sector feel less loyalty to our government than private sector employees do to their companies. To the intensely patriotic this situation must appear baffling. Some may regard it as a consequence of the contempt our elected politicians treat us with. After all, we are their paymasters. Whatever the reason, it is obviously true.

The recent political argument about how much data the state may collect about us largely overlooked this problem. The civil liberty crowd cried foul at the prospect of the state knowing too much but ignored the secondary and potentially far more serious problem of the state being a coarse grade sieve. At least the state is accountable, sort of. Much of the pub talk on the issue assumed that the security agencies collect this sort of information anyway without permission. That is the level of distrust of government. Perhaps such open distrust is a symptom of a healthy democracy. Assuming, for a moment, that the spooks do behave in this underhand manner, the problem is that they can’t admit to it in court.

The private sector already holds this data. It has to. Otherwise it couldn’t operate its business. Furthermore, it buys and sells data about who we communicate with, what we look at online, for how long etc., Companies gather this data in a variety of ways. Data mining is a large industry. You might innocently believe giving your phone number to one company but not your address is a clever tactic but there’s a good chance that later on an algorithm will connect the two together. The company selling data has nothing to lose. The lone employee has everything to gain. Whether it is illegal for the state to buy openly traded data must be a matter of debate. Certainly it could provide useful leads in the fight against tax evasion, although it would probably not be admissible in court. It would be analogous to the police paying an informer for his trouble and then investigating independently. The modern proverb, “If you’re not paying for something, you are the product”, neatly sums up how social networks like Facebook, Twitter and Google+ make money from their ostensibly free services. I’d go further: “if you’re not selling your data, someone else will sell it for you”.

This morning the UK government is talking about restricting the Freedom of Information Act. Unsurprisingly, ministers wish to have parts of their public work protected from the public. They want their privacy back. The unsung issue is about how to extend the Freedom of Information Act so that we can discover what the state knows about us. If the state’s data mining operation allowed individuals to discover what information was held about themselves, would that not cure many of the concerns? Of course, the spooks could apply for court orders to restrict some data being released for certain individuals. The principle being that if others are allowed to track us, we should be allowed to track ourselves. It’s too difficult to remember everything. That’s what spreadsheets and databases are for. Lots of civil litigation would be resolved more fairly because we’d be able to obtain our own records. Countless court cases turn on whether a certain telephone call was made, to give just one example. Granting us each access to the data we’d be paying for the collection of, would save lots of money, time and effort. If private companies, many of whom have more wealth than some nations, are allowed to retain this data for their private advantage, why shouldn’t we also be able to access it on our own account? It is our data.

Whether these measures will combat serious, organised, crime must be severely doubted. Circumventing data tracking is relatively easy. Professionals will stay a couple of steps ahead of the authorities. Only amateur criminals will be caught by these extra intelligence gathering powers. People like Jack Straw, the UK’s Foreign Secretary who blatantly supported an illegal war in defiance of his own legal advice. We know what he did, we know where to find him and one of these days we’ll see him in court.

The mighty Cathedral which dare not speak out

For quite some time I have been led to believe that senior clerical figures inside St Paul’s Cathedral would give witness statements in support of Occupy London Stock Exchange (OccupyLSX) to defend the eviction proceedings brought by the City of London Corporation. I haven’t spoken to them personally. I haven’t had any dealings with these men of the cloth myself. However, those that did speak with them, spoke to them regularly.

The High Court: too much trouble for the Churchmen?

Having initially saved us from the police, Giles Fraser later resigned his post in the Cathedral when it was on the point of joining the City’s eviction proceedings. Immediately the Cathedral reversed its position and announced that it would not join in any legal action against OccupyLSX. From that point onwards, various figures inside the Cathedral indicated that if the City did pursue a legal case, they would be witnesses for the Occupation. Yesterday, it finally became clear that they would not. Here’s the list of witnesses for OccupyLSX: no-one from the Cathedral is on it. They had plenty chances to make good their promises. Over the weekend a series of phone calls and meetings took place, with them being pressed to keep their word. In the end, they couldn’t manage it.

2nd from left: Giles Fraser wrapped up in warm clothes

Yesterday, Giles Fraser, now free of loyalty to the Cathedral wrote in the Guardian that the strength of Occupy was its pure democratic values. He praised the lack of leadership yet even he could not stomach the thought of maintaining that praise in a court of law. His problem is a love of the publicity of being the leader he praises the Occupationists for not having. He’s a regular writer in the Guardian and captured the front page when he apparently saved the Occupation.

St Paul's Cathedral door: opens, shuts, opens, shuts.

Meanwhile, the Cathedral offered to permit OccupyLSX a post-eviction tent somewhere on its land. The idea presented to the people camping outside its massive wooden doors is that after the encampment is cleared away, it will be allowed to remain, as if to physically prove that you truly cannot evict an idea. The City has taken umbrage at this proposal and served both OccupyLSX and the Cathedral with breach of planning notices, to prevent this outcome. If the Cathedral authorities attempt to keep their word on this promise, they certainly will find themselves in the conflict with the City which they have been so keen to avoid.

Ever since 15th October 2011, when the Occupation began, the authorities in the City, both legal and clerical, have mishandled events. Untested in dealing with popular protest, they have shown themselves to be muddled and disorganised. Much of what has been done by the Occupationists was predictable to anyone with any knowledge of the politics of Britain’s long established direct action movements, yet both the City and the Church have been constantly caught by surprise. Occupy is a movement of people, far larger than the numbers braving London’s freezing streets. Every day Londoners turn up in support, physical, food and financial. Although the movement is not religious, it contains many religious activists. The Cathedral has betrayed these people who now feel very angry towards it. It has also created the impression for many of the rest that it naturally supported them as campaigners for the poor. There is now considerable anger towards the Cathedral for this act of betrayal.

Having decided not to speak out when called up, these troublesome priests are about to learn a few home truths. Firstly, whatever friendship they might have garnered amongst the campaigners has now been squandered. Secondly, the more youthful elements are likely to seek vengeance; unfortunately that may well result in damage to their precious building, which they just spent so much money restoring. Thirdly, it is too late for them to restore the trust they asked for. Fourthly, whatever tent they permit on their land will not be permitted by the City. They will lose any battle with the City about that. Fifthly, even if they allow a tent for a short period, it will be seen as their tent, not Occupy’s tent. Sixthly, St Paul’s Cathedral will be remembered for cheating on their promises. I would offer more advice but prefer to suggest instead that these people rest on the seventh and meditate on what they have done.

Hack your own phone to prevent corporate surveillance

I’ve hacked my phone. I didn’t personally write the computer code which allowed me to do that. Why would I? It is already written. The hackers who worked out how to do it simply published the instructions online for free. Allow me to explain. If you want the really technical details, follow the links. For everyone else, just read on. If you aren’t at all technically minded, there may some passages with jargon you are unfamiliar with but don’t worry, I keep this explanation fairly simple.

Phone hacking has been much in the news recently. The phrase has been coined by journalists to describe other journalists from obtaining access to other people’s voicemail. The technique is remarkably simple. Your mobile phone’s voicemail will activate when it is called by your number. To spy on someone else’s mobile voicemail, all you have to do is phone their number from their number. To do that, specialist software is available online, which allows you to declare what number you are making the call from. The spies just type in their target’s number and bingo! I would have called this activity “spying”. Journalists do not like to use a nice old fashioned word when a more frightening one is available. Over many years the established media has run scare stories about computer hackers. They have distorted the original meaning of the word so much that they have given it a second meaning. Having whipped up a fear of hackers, they now use this word pejoratively whenever they can.

Hacking is actually quite an old word, which has obtained several meanings. Here goes:

  1. Cut with rough or heavy blows.
  2. Ride a horse for pleasure or exercise.
  3. A contentious term used in computing for several types of person

Techies call the person who circumvents a computer security system a cracker. Journalists prefer not to educate their readers so rather than use the word cracker, they just call them hackers even though hackers actually do something different. There are two types of computer hacker. Firstly, there are those who make innovative customizations or combinations of retail electronic and computer equipment and, secondly, there are those who share an anti-authoritarian approach to software development now associated with the free software movement. The established media are terrified of people discovering the last group of people because they help undermine the proprietary systems which make so much money. These vested interests have much in common with the privately owned media. There’s no need to be a conspiracy theorist about this. This is well established fact.

CyanogenMod's logo

My new phone was delivered on Tuesday: a Samsung Galaxy S II (SGS2). It’s a beautiful piece of kit. I followed these instructions from CyanogenMod which taught me how to install a customized aftermarket firmware distribution onto my new phone. In other words a new operating system made by hackers! This operating system is open source which means that anyone can download the computer code, examine it and modify it. Open Source software is always free.

Despite knowing that mobile network companies’ warranties do not allow this sort of carry on, Samsung actually sent one of their first SGS2s to the CyanogenMod hacking crew (there are about 45 of them at the moment, producing open source firmware for dozens of devices). The physical architecture of the SGS2 is impressive. We might need capitalist companies to make these devices but we need socialists to make them work better. Hackers are effectively socialists: they give what they can and share it with anyone who feels the need.

Before and after a hacker changed the operating system (results not from my SGS2)

On Wednesday, after a busy day working for the legal team at Occupy London, I was relaxing in the evening in a City pub. One of my fellow Occupationists had also just obtained the SGS2. His phone was running on the operating system provided via his phone company. This is called a stock rom. We both downloaded the same benchmarking software from the Android Market: Quadrant (the standard edition). A benchmarking app performs a series of technical tests on your phone and produces a score. My phone tore through the tests visibly quicker than my friend’s but the real proof was in the score. My SGS2 now scores 3,314 which was a little over 10% higher than my friend’s. That is proof that the open source operating system I have installed on my phone performs significantly better than the stock roms.

As well as wanting the best operating system for my new phone, I also wanted root access so that I could install apps which allow me extra freedom. Having sold you the phone the mobile network wish to save themselves the hassle of dealing with you after you from mistakenly turn your phone into poor quality paperweight by deleting files that you wouldn’t normally have access to. Root access gives you access to every part of the file system on the phone. I wasn’t entirely sure whether Cyanogen’s instructions gave root access or just changed the operating system so I followed some other instructions to obtain root access first. In particular I use the Titanium Backup, Rom Manager and the incredible SetCPU, all of which are free.

This week a scandal broke in America: 41 million mobile phones were revealed to have embedded software called Carrier IQ. This software was hidden from the user, who does not have root access and cannot see the source code for the operating system used on their phones. The software is apparently used to assist the mobile networks in gathering information about when apps crash on phones. The scandal relates to independent research which says that the software can also record lots of other information about how the phone is used. The most pressing concern is that it can record keystrokes, which means that phone user’s passwords and other confidential information could have been conveyed to the mobile networks. Trevor Eckhart made the discovery.

This week Wikileaks has revealed the full extent of industrial surveillance around the world. It is massive. Julian Assange announced at a press conference two days ago that if you use an Iphone, a blackberry or gmail you are “screwed”. Wikileaks says, “Mass interception of entire populations is not only a reality, it is a secret new industry spanning 25 countries It sounds like something out of Hollywood, but as of today, mass interception systems, built by Western intelligence contractors, including for ’political opponents’ are a reality.” I dare say that they’ve got my number but luckily they do not have my behavioural metrics because CyanongenMod have confirmed that Carrier IQ will never be included in their open source operating system. They can’t lie about this because all of their source code is public. The moral of this story is that we need the hackers to prevent the spies.

Talking & Fighting

Yesterday afternoon the City of London Corporation served notice on Occupy London’s encampment at the London Stock Exchange. This is a precursor to legal proceedings. The City claims to want to fight and talk simultaneously but doesn’t listen, an essential condition for talking with another. Say what you like about the Occupy London general assemblies but we discussed the City’s “offer”, dressed up in its over reaching drafting, in huge detail in our many hundreds. By what right do we do this, the 1% ask us? By the right of being alive, we reply and we fiercely argued every last bloody detail of the City’s offer, over four days, in what can be only described as the most rigorous political debate seen in the UK this century, before rejecting it.

We issued a counter offer: that we will do a deal with the City, if they comply with three laws which are already applicable throughout the rest of the land. They refuse to even acknowledge the existence of the demands, begging the question what have they got to hide? Freedom of information, cash account disclosure and publicising campaigns/lobbying. Everywhere else these are completely open but in the City secret.

The City is anti-democratic. They want to fight, not talk. Occupy London has been prepared for one month now, largely thanks to the Corporation’s practical incompetence (Born out of centuries of easy control – when was the last time the City of London had to deal with persistently troublesome civil disobedience?). We are ready to go. Bring it on. Game on. We have only just begun, the biggest Occupation in the world. Expect us.

Health & Safety considerations for the City of London Police

It seems that never an hour goes past these days without us hearing about how we’ve been stopped from enjoying something because of Health & Safety considerations. The established media loves to continually ram home that message. As Billy Bragg sung, “the people who own the newspapers also own this land.” They harp on about this issue because Health & Safety prevents them from getting away with killing people in the pursuit of profits. The safety records on British building sites has been vastly improved because of the continual strengthening of Health & Safety regulations. I use that example because the construction industry is the most dangerous area of work. There is no doubt that the regulations have cost industry more than their absence would have done. The massive corporations that win the giant contracts to undertake public and other building contracts have experienced some higher costs because of Health & Safety regulations which protect their workers. We know what happened before these regulations came along: industrial accidents were far more common place. The capitalists did not care about their workers, they did not continually review safety procedures, unless it protected their profit margins. Trades unions had to fight for the safety of their members and we, the people, had to force through laws to protect ourselves. Now, around the fringes of that legislative regime, there are examples of what is commonly called Health & Safety gone mad. Common sense does have to be applied in some scenarios but this does not justify the wholesale attack that is daily visited on the subject by the 1%.

Very often these regulations are relied upon by organisations and people who have succumbed to a fear of litigation. Their fear is driven by what insurance they can obtain. The UK insurance market is often said to be one of the most competitive in the world. Highly competitive industries drive down their costs fiercely. In much of my later years of barristerial practice, my fees were paid by insurance companies, because I fought hundreds of road traffic accident trials. These were civil claims for damages, funded by the insurance industry. They instructed and paid for solicitors to fight the cases, who then instructed me. Routinely, the insurance companies lost paperwork, including documentary evidence. They deliberately delayed cases by between 18 months and two years, with the result that the eventual trial result depended not so much on the recollection of witnesses but as much by who just sounded more convincing in court. They had no idea how to keep their solicitors costs down and made no real attempt to monitor how well their solicitors served them. They paid for repair work at garages at massively inflated prices, without any attempt at questioning that. The list of cost control failures by the UK insurance industry is so long that it begins to read like a deliberate attempt at self-sabotage. (I’ll post more about my experiences with that industry another time.) Being incompetent at basic business procurement procedures, they cut costs by dissuading their customers from taking risks.

The whole point of insurance is to cover yourself in the event of risk! Of course, there has to be a balance between what an insurance company is prepared to cover and what it is not. However, insurance companies milk British industry and create fear of litigation. Their customers – that’s us – rightly fear litigation as being something of a lottery. The risks involved in litigation will always be present but they are exacerbated by the UK insurance industry, which holds the whip hand on the conduct of litigation. They instruct solicitors and then undermine their ability to function. This fact of modern life combines with a particularly pernicious Blue Labour policy. Early on in the Blair government, legal aid was removed from claimants in personal injury cases. Instead lawyers were permitted to take cases on a no win no fee basis. That development directly led to a blame culture, hitherto unknown this side of the Atlantic. Suddenly we had firms of solicitors advertising for people who had suffered accidents. TV adverts, press adverts, web adverts; everywhere we look nowadays there are these tawdy ambulance chasers, sniffing out easy to win cases. The combination of a slipshod insurance industry, ripe for rigorous regulation on standards, and a blame culture has inevitably been a widespread fear of litigation.

Consequently we are being continuously told that we can’t do something because of Health & Safety regulations. For the overwhelmingly most part, this is specious excuse. Sometimes is proffered by someone who can’t be bothered to check the facts or to take responsibility for something. Sometimes is said because an insurance company has no to something. Sometimes it is driven by pure financial fear. Only very rarely is it because there is an genuine example of a Health & Safety rule which has ‘gone mad’.

Under cover of this blanket of fear and confusion, various authorities now deploy Health & Safety reasons as an excuse to do something which they can’t otherwise work out how to do. Recently, we saw St Paul’s Cathedral try this method on with Occupy London. They actually closed their own doors for a week and blamed the people camping outside, protesting in solidarity with the world’s poor. They cited an internal Health & Safety report, which they have never disclosed. (Understandably, some people doubt its existence.) Instead of being frightened off or put on the back foot, the Occupationists sleeping on the cobblestones between the Cathedral and the London Stock Exchange took responsibility for the situation. They recruited their own Health & Safety advisor, a professional with long experience, and took advice. They contacted the London Fire Brigade and took advice. They met that advice and reorganised their encampment accordingly. Shamefaced, the Cathedral reopened and began to ask what would St Paul have done? By that time it had become common knowledge that St Paul was a tent maker. Shortly afterwards the Church of England was bounced into the fray with the Archbishop of Canterbury calling for a Tobin Tax (sometimes called a Robin Hood tax). Why did he have to wait for the Health & Safety strategy to fail before making a judgment on the issue? When great church leaders around the world have been faced with a choice between high capital and the poor, they have always sides with the poor. Clearly Rowan Williams is not in their enlightened company; he has found it too difficult to be decisive.

A month ago the Occupationists encamped in Zuccotti Park in Manhatten, who have called themselves Occupy Wall Street, were told by the Mayor of New York that they had better leave because of sanitation issues. He said that they needed to clean the park up. Thousands of extra people turned up at the park and they cleaned it themselves. The Mayor backed down. Occupy Wall Street went back to its revolutionary work. In the middle of last night, the police turned up at Zuccotti Park again. They broadcast a warning to leave with ten minutes notice. They had already barricaded the park to prevent the Occupationists from leaving with their tents. The police used sound cannons and pepper spray against the people inside the park, who have been peacefully demonstrating their since 17th September 2011. They came in riot gear and destroyed the encampment. The reason? Health & Safety considerations – sanitation specifically. This was a blatant excuse to commit violence against people asleep.

Clearly, evicting people in the middle of the night does carry some pretty serious Health & Safety risks. Night time evictions in themselves are risky. When people are tired, accidents are more likely as they are when it is dark. Shining extremely bright lights at people also carries greater risks than relying on natural sunlight. Moving in on people asleep in tents, who have been threatened with violence from the EDL, carries risks of its own. The list goes on and on. I’m not going to assist the City of London Police in carrying out the risk assessment that they will have to perform to protect people in the event of an eviction. They will have to weigh up whether it is safer to evict people in the day time or in the night time. If they attempt an eviction of any of Occupy London’s encampments in the night time, they’d better be prepared for some pretty heavy consequences: they will be pursued all the way through the courts, with high definition video evidence, for damages. Careful consideration of the whole of Occupy London’s encampments reveals that there will be only one advantage to a night time eviction: the police will initally only have hundreds of people to deal with, rather than thousands. They won’t have the advantage of surprise because Occupy London’s night watch patrols will alert everyone immediately.

I’m warning the City of London Corporation and their police force right now: do not attempt to evict Occupy London at night. There are very likely to be disastrous consequences. Amongst us we have people in wheelchairs, people with various disabilities. Your arc lights will cause me personally a visual migraine, which is a form of blindness. We expect you to recruit support from the Metropolitan Police, as you did when we arrived. (In fact it was you who chose the location of our camp because you kettled us exactly where we are through the night.) Your police officers will be violent towards us; even the tame Cathedral accepts that, which is why they withdrew their support for an eviction. Only last night, the police were violent towards some of us again. I’m getting reports of “Broken finger, injured ankle, sexual assault, general battering” as result of our peaceful direct action outside the Guildhall. Inside the Lord Mayor was entertaining the Prime Minister with a banquet.

There have been many discussions inside Occupy London about what to do when the police come to evict us. We are all as one. We will call out to London to come and support us. Thousands more will appear at very short notice; we know this because they have promised to come. We will be completely peaceful, as we have been all along. Some of us will likely retreat to the Cathedral’s land, which we have been reluctantly welcomed on. When you come for us, we know you will be brutal towards us. We have prepared ourselves. Our conversations revolve around the facts of police brutality. Individually, we have put our affairs in order. We have told our loved ones to expect your police force to break our skulls on the Cathedral steps. We know that, for all your talk, you don’t give a damn about Health & Safety.

You will not succeed in evicting us. After you have cleaned us out, our survivors will return. We will hold vigil in this site and others until our corrupted authorities cave in. We have massive public support and our cause is just. We want to, as Julian Assange declared on Day One of our Occupation, construct law. The new law must protect democracy against the ravages of predatory corporatism.

For many of us, the recent decision by our corrupt government to privatise our national health service was the final straw. This place and the time of your choosing, we will make our stand. You will have to arrest us in our thousands. If you de-arrest us around the corner or a mile away, we will return. We are prepared to sacrifice our lives to win back control from the corporations. You are not prepared for anything on this scale. If you don’t cooperate with us, you will be completely undone. Your own staff contact us each day, with offers of support and practical assistance. We have detailed information about the machinations in the the corridors of your power. Cooperation grants you an honourable exit. City of London Corporation, your days are numbered.

Occupy London’s jester is the perfect fool

The people occupying the land between St Paul’s Cathedral and the London Stock Exchange and all the other hundreds of occupations around the world have pushed a serious debate about the ills of predatory corporatism onto the political agenda for the first time in decades. Had we all turned up for a day, marched a bit, maybe gone to a rally and the pub afterwards no-one would have heard about us. However, these unprecedented numbers encamping have created a space where real debate can happen. Our persistence is something new. The frustrated disillusioned people who wouldn’t normally express support for any political movement have found their expression in the occupations. We know this because of the vast support we get. We get practical help every day at St Paul’s, with people turning out to help every aspect of the occupation. They turn up with food donations for the kitchen, batteries for our lighting and tech systems, books for our library and in person to speak at our university.

Being in occupation in the heart of the City of London is a serious matter. We’ve pitched up centre stage in the heart of the capitalist system. We work hard to make our occupation the success it is but when we’ve exhausted ourselves with this work, like everyone else we like to relax. What better way to relax with than a decent comedian? Luckily we have our very own unofficial jester in camp. Here he is:

Village Idiot

He’s always on duty, performing his harlequin role with all the diligence displayed by the old artisans of the commedia dell’arte in the glorious days of Italian theatre. His particular take on the craft is an unusual combination of stream of consciousness nonsense mixed up with the persona of a courtroom derelict. You know the people I mean. They sit in the public galleries watching the trials, picking up on snippets here and there but never grasping the meaning of anything they witness. Then they spout whatever confused nonsense they feel like at whoever would listen. Our jester entertains us royally by marvelously confusing even the simplest legal concepts and complicating them beyond belief.

He likes to start with his own name, which I’m told is Dominic Lohan. He takes objection to the words “Crown Copyright” written on the form used to register births. I need hardly point out that the Crown claims copyright to all the forms it issues so that only it can produce them. Dom’s routine often begins with a simple jump to the conclusion that the Crown is therefore claiming copyright to his name! That jump is then quickly smothered with more humourous gymnastics. The tumbling becomes quicker and quicker until the listener can hardly keep up. Swiftly he denies that his name is owned by him but only by the Crown. Refusing to use one word where many will do, he prefers to be known as “the man commonly known as Dom”. He loves to poke fun at the meanings of words to the point where he appears obsessed about the nature of meaning itself.

As with all fools, he’s at his best when locked into spurious argument with someone else. Here he is debating with two charming City of London police officers. They play their stooge roles beautifully. Being the man commonly known as Dom, he’s not terribly interested in other people’s opinion, be they police officers or anybody else. He bombards them with a few questions, doesn’t listen to the answers and then refutes what he wanted them to say by calling in enigmatic references to his personal nonsense law. Bless.

When we’ve had a good laugh at his witticisms, we turn back to the serious business of being in occupation. The man who would prefer a much longer winded version of his name than is feasible for every day usage carries on. He continues playing the fool, not recognising when the tomfoolery should stop. He picks up his megaphone and disrupts general assemblies until even he cannot cope with the embarassment factor any longer. He verbally attacks Occupy London’s legal team, accusing us of being secretive. At this point, I think he takes the joke too far. There is no point to having legal advice if aspects of it can’t be held back from our opponents. If I share the advice I receive from John Cooper QC, on behalf of the Occupy London, with absolutely everyone then I also share it with the City of London Corporation. Our general assemblies and other working groups are completely transparent and public. The legal consequence of that is that I then waive my right to the confidentiality of all the advice I have received and will receive in the future. What would be the point of that? It be analogous to joining the shelter team and then helping the wind to blow our tents away. There’s also not much point in getting involved in legal work without any training, unless you’re a spoiler.

You’re a funny fellow Dom but even you have to learn some limits. Like the rest of us, you’re self recruited to the role you play. You question how I came to be the person who instructed John Cooper QC? Read and learn.

I’m easy to contact through this blog. Obviously it is easy for anyone contacting me out of the blue to claim to be anybody, so I have be sure who I’m talking to first. That said, although you have spent much time criticising lawyers in general and the legal team in particular, you’ve never attempted to contact me at all. I tried to talk to you once but you walked away when you heard that I had had legal training. Perhaps you’ve got an issue with people with specialist knowledge?

Perhaps you prefer to be regarded as a camp expert of some sort, to have people gather around you and listen to you alone? I’m prepared to admit that when I hear you have relentlessly criticised me, I find it hard to see the humour in the situation. I congratulate you for your costume, your self-belief and your commitment to the bigger cause but I wonder, have you started to believe in yourself a bit too much? Have you taken the joking too far?

Occupy London fights its battles on many fronts, be they political, publicity, practical and, yes, even legal. It is but one front but if we’re going to fight on that front too, we need expert lawyers not babblers of modern-psycho-mystical-nonsense, which is the comedic diversion you provide so beautifully Dom. Unfortunately, you’ve crossed the line between what is good fun & jest and antisocial behaviour. Why not work with other people, rather than against them? I think the battles you’ve picked have been unwise. I prefer to do battle with the corporations which have seized control of our civil society. If you want to argue about what the law really is, you can go to court and do it there. I gather you’ve got a hearing date coming up? Good luck to you, you’re going to need it, in exceptional quantities.

Due to the lengthy comment thread on this post, largely put up by friends of Dominic Lohan, I’m adding some more detail of Dominic Lohan’s absurd behaviour. Here he is, illegally filming a court hearing which he declined to defend, preferring to disrupt proceedings from the public gallery instead:

The day after I posted this, Dominic Lohan attempted to ruin Occupy’s credibility by posting an article in the Guardian’s Comment Is Free, which was given over to Occupy for the day. Luckily, Mr Lohan’s views are so facile that it has been easy to rescue the situation. If anything, he may have done us all a favour by sticking his ignorant neck above the proverbial parapet at last. Commentators more famous than me have rushed in to finish him off.

Read Carl Gardner’s The law is not the enemy of protest but an essential tool of impartiality and Legal Bizzle’s The freeman-on-the-land strategy is no magic bullet for debt problems.

The Lord Mayor and the master

image

Yesterday ended with me in the tea and empathy tent, not drinking tea nor receiving empathy but playing the beautiful game instead: chess. I’d heard the talk of the legendary Hungarian encamped with Occupy London at St Paul’s. When I sat down across the board from him, it became clear very quickly that he was very good indeed. In a Queen’s pawn opening I presented him with, he swiftly played c5 and liberated both his Queen and light bishop. Realising that I knew something of the battle, he revealed his international grade – 2,300 something. In those four games I lost I learnt a lot, at the mercy of a master.

In the last four weeks we’ve learnt a lot about the City of London Corporation. It continues to hold power over all our lives but we’ve scored some important victories. For the first time in decades people have punched a peaceful hole in the fabric of corporate political containment. That shroud was wrapped around us so tightly that all forms of political expression which did not comply with the dominant ideology – predatory capitalism – were extinguished. Certainly in the UK the Green Party has been able in one place to escape the current consensus, obtaining both an MP and control of the local council in Brighton & Hove. The fact is that until recently the Green achievements looked dangerously like a high water mark for progressive politics in the UK. Us Green activists bore the weight of thousands of conversations along the lines of ‘ what’s the point, they’ll never let you change anything’.

The “they” in those conversations may not be eloquently enunciated but we all very clear about precisely who is being discussed. The corporations, the political elites and the arms sellers. This complex of power has long marched in step. Witness David Cameron rushing to sell weaponry to the Egyptian military just as its preferred regime faltered. With the Egyptian revolution and unfinished affair, he didn’t support the people in Tahrir Square. On another front, the entire country knows that all political parties have promised to preserve the NHS but now all three main parties have proven themselves deceitful. The coalition government’s provision of profiteering opportunities for corporations in the health care system simply continues a trend firmly established by Blue Labour. Our elected politicians fiddle their expenses en masse and barely a handful get prosecuted. These examples stack up with hundreds of others.

The vast majority of people have lost their faith in our particular breed of democracy. This entrenched belief in our inability to change our economic relationships has served the forces of capitalism well but it has also softened them. Here, “in the belly of the beast”, as David Harvey called our encampment between St Paul’s Cathedral and the London Stock Exchange yesterday, a diverse crowd of political activists has caught them out. Everywhere the Occupationists go, they receive support. Everyday and everywhere. Physical, financial and moral support. It’s anecdotal I know but never before in this country have I had a taxi driver turn off the meter on hearing my political conversation. The forces of high capital, buried inside the City of London, know that the Occupy movement genuinely represents the frustrations of the vast majority of the population and enjoy widespread support. They know the whole world is watching. They simply cannot afford a violent eviction of peaceful campaigners from the steps of St Paul’s Cathedral in the run up to Christmas. Christmas may have become capitalism’s cash cow but it remains a poignant reminder of people power.

This is a victory in itself: proving that we can occupy the heart of the City without permission. Suddenly the cry, ‘whose streets? Our streets!’ Seems a little less hollow. Thousands of people turned up yesterday for the Lord Mayor’s procession. They knew that his after show party had been moved because of squatters in its ancient location (it has taken place where the Occupation now is every year since 604 AD, except this year). After the procession they trooped around to check us out. It was an unusually busy day at the Occupation yesterday and last night over three thousand people packed the grand church steps to hear Mr Harvey, a famous marxist, give practical advice on the weaknesses of capital. Since when was any established political movement this popular?

The City of London knows that its forthcoming attempt to exist Occupy London is fraught with complications. Taking the people on in the next two weeks could be politically disastrous domestically, with a major strike on the immediate event horizon (30th November). It knows that the Occupations have the explicit support of the trades unions, who have the organisational networks to set up more encampments and grow the movement, spelling more trouble for corporatism. The City’s nightmare scenario is that just about everybody will know someone in a camp and realise they respect rather than despise them. Already we’re not as distant from that position as one might imagine. True, lots of people don’t yet know someone who has visited an Occupation camp but, even without that opportunity to have their media fuelled prejudices challenged, they support this new movement. I’m going to call this one. I can’t see the City daring to enforce an eviction until the start of December.

Once December comes along, the Church of England’s hand becomes much more important. We might be living in a country which has more subjects (we’re not citizens yet) who consider themselves to be followers of the so-called New Age belief culture rather than traditional Christians but the established faith remains rooted here and around the world. I’m going to call this one too. I can’t see the Bishop of London or what’s left of the clergy at St Paul’s Cathedral renunciating their promise to oppose a violent eviction. Therefore, if the City sends the police in to forcibly remove us, we Occupationists will retreat to the church steps and become untouchable. Surprising though it appears, it seems clear that the City, unused to dealing with social disorder let alone mass civil disobedience, is unwilling to take on the church. Therefore, if the City launches an eviction attempt in December, it will lose and it can’t stomach that prospect.

This is a beast which is used to winning. It has prowled the world largely unmolested for centuries. Occupy London has exposed it as secretive, undemocratic and uninterested in reform. Only yesterday we published notes from one of its private grand dinners. It knows that our support doesn’t just encircle it but runs inside its corridors too. There’s much more to come out. We haven’t defeated this feral monster but we have bloodied it. It knows that the wider progressive movement has smelt blood and now its undemocratic days are numbered. It plays the long game. It remains the master but, unlike the legendary Hungarian, it is suddenly unsure how to battle and we’re learning fast.

Bishop of London and Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral face people on church steps and refuse to answer

This video was filmed on the Sunday morning of 30th October 2011. Having previously asked the Occupy London movement to decamp from his church’s doorstep, the Dean of St Paul’s Cathedral and the Bishop of London (who lives just over the road), finally attended an assembly of Occupationists. I was surprised at their lack of oratorical grace. Perhaps being able to string a sentence together isn’t a job requirement for them. To be fair though, they had been invited to restart a dialogue with those protesting for the poor and they did come. The Bishop accepted the invitation on the basis that he would speak to us if we left. Given the practicalities of meeting someone having already left the venue, we didn’t take his request too seriously.

They came, they spoke and they said they would listen. They also said that they would field questions. Speaker after speaker rammed home the same message: if the police were ordered to remove the Occupationists from their encampment, the Occupationists would only resist peacefully but the police would inevitably be violent. The penultimate question asked, included in the video below, was very specific. Although pronounced by another unprofessional speaker, it rang out clear across St Paul’s Churchyard. It is inconceivable that neither church man heard or misunderstood the question. Here’s the precise words that the young man asking it (at 7:34 in this video) said:

You said you were against violence. Violence would only happen if we were evicted forcefully so does that mean you will commit now to say you will not support an eviction because that’s the only thing that will prevent violence? So we need a solid commitment to that now!

The church men turned their attention to his second question and blessed the Occupationists. We heckled and demanded to know their answer to the question above. They walked away.

This was not an intelligent thing to do. The activists assembled at their feet were a sophisticated crowd, who have spent two weeks running rings around the authorities in the Church of England and in the City of London. Whatever their position, they could have enunciated it. Their silence damned their credibility. No wonder the Dean of St Paul’s resigned the following day.

 

A tale of two clergymen

The popular hero of the hour is Giles Fraser. Unspeakably cool, he’s fronted the Guardian bathed in a halo of soft light under a headline quoting him imagining Jesus being born in the Occupation camp beside the London Stock Exchange. The notion is as ridiculous as it insults Christian tradition: the Occupationists have far better facilities than those afforded to Jesus at the time of his birth. The gospel is starkly clear on the circumstances of this particular saviour’s birth. There was nowhere for his parents to live so he was born homeless and his first bed was a donkey’s food trough.

That powerful image is a million miles from the encampment around St Paul’s Cathedral in the City of London. None of the activists in London have been forced to undertake a long journey by an autocratic authority. Together they created a fully functioning community which leaves no-one behind. There is no homelessness at the Occupation. I myself returned to camp yesterday without knowing where I would lay my head but knowing a place would be made available to me. Not just any place but a place suitable to my needs, a place pretty much equal to every other place.

Giles Fraser does not imagine Jesus being born into my new community, as he claims, because to enrich his spiritual leader’s origins like that would be blasphemy. What he does imagine is that when future court orders for eviction are carried out, the police will wade into a disciplined and pacifist people with the violence they used at Dale Farm and other places. He worries about the message his former church will give to the faithful around the world, when video of these scenes to come is replayed in every continent. He knows what little moral authority England still musters over the Anglican communion will be irreparably damaged.

Within the Occupation movement, criticising Giles Fraser is heresy. He is the new Messiah. Careful consideration of his public statements tells a different picture from the one commonly painted. From those first moments early in the morning of Sunday 16th October, he has not supported the Occupation at all. My video of him ordering the police away shows his eye was clearly fixed on the Cathedral’s public relations, rather than the issues raised by the virgin movement on its steps.

Fraser’s savvy media style can be compared and severely contrasted with the lack of  anything similar in Graeme Knowles recent publicity portfolio. Knowles, the Dean of St Paul’s, has been generally agreed to have mishandled almost every aspect of the challenges and opportunities laid at his feet by the Occupation. His personal incompetence on this score is staggering. Knowles has inexplicably held contradictory positions without even attempting to explain them away. For example, he sanctioned a dialogue between the people outside his church and those within, then withdrew from it, then issued a request those outside leave, then announced there could be no negotiations for legal reasons and today he is apparently due to accompany the Bishop of London who has promised to come and talk to us. The cited legal reasons are an obvious nonsense. No part of this story hang together with sufficient coherence to found even a tabloid news column.

It is as if Knowles has set out to undermine the Church of England. Plainly that is not the case but the chaotic impression created by Knowles has had that effect. No wonder church men and women from were queuing up to preach in yesterday’s ‘Sermon on the Steps’. I listened in on Bruce Kent and today I’ll go along and listen to whatever the Bishop has to say. I think that’ll be enough lectures from patronising preachers for one weekend and possibly for a lifetime.

If the Church of England really wanted to glorify their faith, it would sell every last scrap of land in the its possession and donate all the proceeds to non-religious charities. It would withdraw its funds from the vast financial investment plans it has made with its not so lovely neighbour, the London Stock Exchange, and donate those monies too. It knows from where the light shines but does little to share it.