It is now nine days since the protest on 20 June, and in true George style, I'm shamefully only just getting around to writing about it. There are two reasons for this - one is that despite finishing Uni, I've been backed up with two new creative projects that I've been devoting much of my time to. The other is that a lot of my time at the protest was spent talking to people and finding out about things, and I wasn't sure how much I actually had to say about it, so I've admittedly been procrastinating slightly. Nevertheless, I always write about days of action that I have attended, and write about it I shall.
We started out at the Bank of England on Threadneedle Street at midday on Saturday 20 June, and when I arrived I was excited to find a very large turnout. I'd hoped to meet up with my colleague Aaron whilst I was there, but it turned out that we didn't see each other - whilst that was a shame, it was of course in the long run a good thing, as you want there to be enough people that you can't find people you know! I did meet some very pleasant people there though - I spent around half an hour talking to a very pleasant and informed gentleman by the name of Phil, who told me a great deal about the history of our political system, and discussed some of the finer points of the most powerful figures in Britain today, such as Rupert Murdoch and Jacob Rothschild. There was also an open microphone - I stepped up and spoke for a little while about how I was very pleased to see so many people arriving, but that I hoped that we would not give up after this demonstration, as the pressure needs to be kept up if any social change at all is to be made. (More on that later.)
We walked, we marched, we chanted and I made some new friends. Many people seemed to enjoy the chants that I initiated ('Two! Four! Six! Eight! Tory cuts are very great! Great meaning 'large' or 'immense', we use it in the pejorative sense!' Anyone who watches The Simpsons will recognise that) and it was generally a very pleasant afternoon. After about an hour, I got talking to a couple of very pleasant ladies who are involved with creating political art - this is of course what I do with theatre, so there was a natural bond there. At this point, not very much happened that I am able to write about, because we stopped for a snack and lost the demonstration and we spent the next several hours talking to one another and debating political points - which was beneficial for me, but not very worthy of discussion within a blog.
Eventually, we did catch up with the demonstration, but I felt that it was drawing to a natural conclusion anyway. I talked to a few people, made some more useful contacts, heard speeches in Parliament Square by Jeremy Corbyn and Russell Brand, and then I went home.
It may seem that this isn't very worthy of writing about, and indeed this is certainly not the best blog I've ever written. Why am I writing it? Well, firstly because on an emotional level it is useful as an activist to keep a regular log of the work I have done, and secondly because I think that my experiences may still be useful for anyone keeping track of these things. I can say, without a shadow of a doubt, that this demonstration was far more effective than the last one I blogged about. But as I said earlier, this is not enough. No political movement in history has been successful if the people involved quit early enough. As I have said before, I believe that this is where things went wrong with tuition fees. So here is the next event that I encourage people to attend if they can:
Protest: Osborne's Emergency Budget - #EndAusterityNow
George Osborne is going to announce a new emergency budget on 8 July, and you can bet that it will not favour anyone but the super-powerful. So it is very important that the pressure is kept up. It is on a Wednesday, so I realise that it will be difficult for some people to be there. I myself am not sure yet if I will be able to go, but I will if I can.
That's almost the end of this blog, and I apologise for writing it so late. I will just close on one important piece of good news - Lancashire said no to fracking! George is a happy bunny about that.
Monday 29 June 2015
Wednesday 17 June 2015
Saving the Human Rights Act
There is a lot to talk about, and it is sometimes hard to know exactly where to start. So yesterday, I decided to ask my friend and occasional colleague Joe Young (of the Joeverwhelming blog, which I highly recommend) to suggest to me what my next blog should be about. He suggested the Human Rights Act, and I have decided to take up that suggestion, as I respect Joe's judgement and this was one of the things I was intending to write about anyway.
The Human Rights Act is actually fairly recent; it was created in 1998 and came into effect in 2000, so it is one of the younger pieces of legislation in the UK, but it is one of the most essential, and also one of the most relied upon. It protects numerous things which are fundamental to a democratic society, such as the right to a fair trial, protection from torture, the right to liberty and security, freedom of speech and numerous other things (the full legislation can be found here). As a political activist, I naturally hold many of these things dear, as the consequences for myself and those I work with could be very severe if we started to dismantle this legislation. However, it is a piece of legislation that everyone could rely upon at some time, regardless of how involved one is in social change.
The occasions on which this Act has been used in court are too numerous to mention in one blog, but many can be found if anyone cares to use a search engine. However, whilst researching for this blog I did find one prime example:
The Government proposes replacing the Human Rights Act with a 'British Bill of Rights'. The proposed reasons for this centre around the suggestion that our Human Rights Act is vulnerable to the European Courts overriding British law (in actuality, there is a clause in the Human Rights Act concerning foreign powers interfering with our laws). It is my opinion that this is a smokescreen for abolishing the rights that have been fought for for centuries, and I will state firmly that this is not on. I'm not aware of precisely what the contents of this British Bill of Rights will be, but I have no doubt that it will not be as effective a protection for individuals as what we currently have.
There are some more positive ways of looking at this. Contrary to popular belief, the abolition of the Human Rights Act was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech when she opened Parliament (the British Bill of Rights was mentioned, but nothing about the Human Rights Act). Labour have been very vocal against this happening, and there is a very active 38 Degrees petition for the Human Rights Act to be saved, or at the very least for a referendum to be held on the matter. In recent weeks, the Government seems to have stopped advocating for its abolition quite as vocally - I have no doubt that it is still on the cards, but it seems to be on more of a slow lane now, which is encouraging. The pressure must not be taken off, however.
The subject of a referendum is a tricky one. I would rather have a referendum than it being abolished without one; however, I would not welcome a referendum because I simply do not believe that we need one. I feel that if we had one, the political rhetoric that would be spun may be enough to convince enough people to vote in favour of abolishing the Human Rights Act. I realise that there are some clauses in it which some people object to (I recall a video by John Bird, of Big Issue fame, a few years ago complaining about it being used in the favour of murderers, for example). Personally I am in favour of all of these sections being applied to everyone non-exclusively, but that is a moot point. To anyone who has any concerns such as these, I will ask only this: In what world does concern about criminals being treated better than they deserve outweigh the need for people who have done nothing wrong to be treated fairly? How is it reasonable that we place our rights in the hands of a Government that has proven on numerous occasions that it does not care about ordinary people, simply because there are some issues that a few people have with certain sections? I actually believe in ethical treatment being applied across the board to everyone, including to those who have committed horrific crimes, but even if I did not believe that, I would not be able to shake off the idea of how foolish this course of action would be in dealing with it.
Thanks for reading. Please sign the petition if you have not already done so, and hopefully together we can beat this attack on our freedoms.
I shall close by once again shamelessly plugging the National Austerity Demonstration this weekend. The link I shared is to the one that I am going to in London, but there are others happening around the country for anyone unable to get there. If you are able, please attend and do your bit!
The Human Rights Act is actually fairly recent; it was created in 1998 and came into effect in 2000, so it is one of the younger pieces of legislation in the UK, but it is one of the most essential, and also one of the most relied upon. It protects numerous things which are fundamental to a democratic society, such as the right to a fair trial, protection from torture, the right to liberty and security, freedom of speech and numerous other things (the full legislation can be found here). As a political activist, I naturally hold many of these things dear, as the consequences for myself and those I work with could be very severe if we started to dismantle this legislation. However, it is a piece of legislation that everyone could rely upon at some time, regardless of how involved one is in social change.
The occasions on which this Act has been used in court are too numerous to mention in one blog, but many can be found if anyone cares to use a search engine. However, whilst researching for this blog I did find one prime example:
The Government proposes replacing the Human Rights Act with a 'British Bill of Rights'. The proposed reasons for this centre around the suggestion that our Human Rights Act is vulnerable to the European Courts overriding British law (in actuality, there is a clause in the Human Rights Act concerning foreign powers interfering with our laws). It is my opinion that this is a smokescreen for abolishing the rights that have been fought for for centuries, and I will state firmly that this is not on. I'm not aware of precisely what the contents of this British Bill of Rights will be, but I have no doubt that it will not be as effective a protection for individuals as what we currently have.
There are some more positive ways of looking at this. Contrary to popular belief, the abolition of the Human Rights Act was not mentioned in the Queen's Speech when she opened Parliament (the British Bill of Rights was mentioned, but nothing about the Human Rights Act). Labour have been very vocal against this happening, and there is a very active 38 Degrees petition for the Human Rights Act to be saved, or at the very least for a referendum to be held on the matter. In recent weeks, the Government seems to have stopped advocating for its abolition quite as vocally - I have no doubt that it is still on the cards, but it seems to be on more of a slow lane now, which is encouraging. The pressure must not be taken off, however.
The subject of a referendum is a tricky one. I would rather have a referendum than it being abolished without one; however, I would not welcome a referendum because I simply do not believe that we need one. I feel that if we had one, the political rhetoric that would be spun may be enough to convince enough people to vote in favour of abolishing the Human Rights Act. I realise that there are some clauses in it which some people object to (I recall a video by John Bird, of Big Issue fame, a few years ago complaining about it being used in the favour of murderers, for example). Personally I am in favour of all of these sections being applied to everyone non-exclusively, but that is a moot point. To anyone who has any concerns such as these, I will ask only this: In what world does concern about criminals being treated better than they deserve outweigh the need for people who have done nothing wrong to be treated fairly? How is it reasonable that we place our rights in the hands of a Government that has proven on numerous occasions that it does not care about ordinary people, simply because there are some issues that a few people have with certain sections? I actually believe in ethical treatment being applied across the board to everyone, including to those who have committed horrific crimes, but even if I did not believe that, I would not be able to shake off the idea of how foolish this course of action would be in dealing with it.
Thanks for reading. Please sign the petition if you have not already done so, and hopefully together we can beat this attack on our freedoms.
I shall close by once again shamelessly plugging the National Austerity Demonstration this weekend. The link I shared is to the one that I am going to in London, but there are others happening around the country for anyone unable to get there. If you are able, please attend and do your bit!
Monday 15 June 2015
The most poorly-organised protest I have ever been to
I'm going to talk about the most poorly-organised protest I have ever been to. It was so poorly-organised that I feel that this has rubbed off on me, as the demonstration itself was around two weeks ago and I am only just getting to writing about it now. (No, that's a joke - there are two reasons that I've been slightly lacking in this blog over the last few weeks. One is that I have been extraordinarily busy with Uni, and the other is that I knew that my next blog would be about this protest, and it was so depressing that I kept putting off writing about it. Stupid, I know. But I've now finished Uni, so I shall probably be able to make up for the last few weeks by updating quite a lot this week. Keep your eyes peeled!)
Perhaps in the title of this I should have referred to 'protests' (in the plural) because it actually took the form of three, and this was the biggest mistake of all which created a domino effect on everything else that went on that day. There were three protests in London, all at the same time, all within a mile of one another, focussing on slightly different things but generally based around the same principles - i.e. anti-austerity, anti-privitisation, pro-human rights, pro-socialism, pro-electoral reform etc. When I arrived in London, I met up with some colleagues that I had met on the previous demonstration, plus a couple of new people. We had agreed to attend the demonstration focussing on securing the Human Rights Act, but when we arrived, it became evident for several reasons that it wasn't for us.
The first thing that immediately turned my group off was that it seemed to be largely Liberal Democrat focussed. Now this actually didn't bother me that much, as I give the Lib Dems a little bit more credit than most left-wingers do, but the people I was with really did not want to be associated in this way. Also, the speeches being made were not very good, in all honesty - they weren't engaging people at all and the information given wasn't especially accurate. But the main reason that I was turned off from it was just that it didn't seem like we were achieving anything - the demonstration was very small, we were standing in a corner of the road with no one paying any attention to us. So we stayed for about half an hour, gave a couple of media interviews and then left for Westminster Bridge.
By the time we got there, however, the people there had already given up, as there was absolutely nothing going on. So with heavy hearts, we trudged over to the National Gallery. This was the only demonstration that seemed to be going anywhere, as we picketed the gallery protesting against privatisation for a while - it had clearly been successful, but was coming to a natural conclusion when we got there (I did get to see part of a speech by Kate Smurthwaite though, and I think she speaks very well, so that was a highlight!) Overall though, politically speaking it was a waste of a day, as by around 3pm all of the demonstrations were over. I stayed in London for a bit longer and it became a bit more of a social occasion getting to know my fellow protesters, which I enjoyed but it was not what I was there for.
I don't know how it was that three similar protests were organised in the same city, on the same day, so close to one another without combining all three. If all three had been combined, I think that there would have been a high chance of having a really successful day, but as it was, the people were spread so thin that I felt that little was achieved - with the possible exception of the National Gallery, but I arrived too late to really comment on that one. I'm annoyed about this, as I felt that this movement has lost a little bit of momentum. However, it is not over yet. This Saturday (20 June) is the big anti-austerity protest in London, which is expected to be big. As for what will happen after that, I'm not sure yet - I intend there to be more of these, and if no one seems to be doing anything, perhaps I shall organise it myself. I certainly have enough political contacts to be able to do that. In the meantime, let's focus on what is happening this Saturday.
Here is the Facebook event page. Please come everyone!
National Demo ANTI AUSTERITY NOW!
Thank you to everyone who was at the demonstration two weeks ago, and apologies that it has taken me this long to write about it. As I mentioned earlier, I now have a lot more free time, so I intend to write quite a bit between now and Saturday's demonstration, which I will be attending. Watch this space!
Perhaps in the title of this I should have referred to 'protests' (in the plural) because it actually took the form of three, and this was the biggest mistake of all which created a domino effect on everything else that went on that day. There were three protests in London, all at the same time, all within a mile of one another, focussing on slightly different things but generally based around the same principles - i.e. anti-austerity, anti-privitisation, pro-human rights, pro-socialism, pro-electoral reform etc. When I arrived in London, I met up with some colleagues that I had met on the previous demonstration, plus a couple of new people. We had agreed to attend the demonstration focussing on securing the Human Rights Act, but when we arrived, it became evident for several reasons that it wasn't for us.
The first thing that immediately turned my group off was that it seemed to be largely Liberal Democrat focussed. Now this actually didn't bother me that much, as I give the Lib Dems a little bit more credit than most left-wingers do, but the people I was with really did not want to be associated in this way. Also, the speeches being made were not very good, in all honesty - they weren't engaging people at all and the information given wasn't especially accurate. But the main reason that I was turned off from it was just that it didn't seem like we were achieving anything - the demonstration was very small, we were standing in a corner of the road with no one paying any attention to us. So we stayed for about half an hour, gave a couple of media interviews and then left for Westminster Bridge.
By the time we got there, however, the people there had already given up, as there was absolutely nothing going on. So with heavy hearts, we trudged over to the National Gallery. This was the only demonstration that seemed to be going anywhere, as we picketed the gallery protesting against privatisation for a while - it had clearly been successful, but was coming to a natural conclusion when we got there (I did get to see part of a speech by Kate Smurthwaite though, and I think she speaks very well, so that was a highlight!) Overall though, politically speaking it was a waste of a day, as by around 3pm all of the demonstrations were over. I stayed in London for a bit longer and it became a bit more of a social occasion getting to know my fellow protesters, which I enjoyed but it was not what I was there for.
I don't know how it was that three similar protests were organised in the same city, on the same day, so close to one another without combining all three. If all three had been combined, I think that there would have been a high chance of having a really successful day, but as it was, the people were spread so thin that I felt that little was achieved - with the possible exception of the National Gallery, but I arrived too late to really comment on that one. I'm annoyed about this, as I felt that this movement has lost a little bit of momentum. However, it is not over yet. This Saturday (20 June) is the big anti-austerity protest in London, which is expected to be big. As for what will happen after that, I'm not sure yet - I intend there to be more of these, and if no one seems to be doing anything, perhaps I shall organise it myself. I certainly have enough political contacts to be able to do that. In the meantime, let's focus on what is happening this Saturday.
Here is the Facebook event page. Please come everyone!
National Demo ANTI AUSTERITY NOW!
Thank you to everyone who was at the demonstration two weeks ago, and apologies that it has taken me this long to write about it. As I mentioned earlier, I now have a lot more free time, so I intend to write quite a bit between now and Saturday's demonstration, which I will be attending. Watch this space!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)