this follows on from my earlier piece with more background and history on the parliament square campaigns and the repression towards them, more detail on PASRA and tomorrow's high court case, the extension of the new 'global war on camping' (GWOC) as an assault on the 'occupy' movement, and some ideas of positive actions to take in the immediate future.

background:

for more than ten years, parliament square has been the site of an historic and continuous peace vigil and protest, which began when brian haw set up banners to highlight the sanctions introduced against iraq, which independent analysis (including UN reports) has now shown, led to the unnecessary deaths of between half a million and a million innocent iraqi children.

soon after the beginning of the protest, the US and UK used the 9th sept 2001 attacks in new york as an excuse to invade afghanistan, despite no known connection between the attackers and that country. the parliament sq protest continued, adding the afghan war as a new focus. then in 2003, the 'coalition' once again waged an aggressive war - this time after manufacturing fictitious evidence against iraq. the results of that attack, we know now, more than a million killed, huge destruction of infrastructure, the very long-term poisoning and ruination of soil and water table through the use of depleted uranium munitions, the further destabilisation of the middle east, and a country left with a notional democracy which is crumbling into factional and repressive chaos by the day. brian publicly displayed huge photos of the disfigured children born, according to more and more reliable scientific evidence, as a result of chromosomal changes due to depleted uranium. brian was one of the first campaigners to regularly highlight this heinous war crime.

the authorities attempted to remove brian haw using obstruction laws, but, forced to sleep under tarpaulin, perched on the small strip of wall that marked the border between royal-owned grass, and council-owned pavement, he saw them off in court, enforcing and entrenching his right to peaceful protest. his display of banners grew larger as people donated to his protest, and it even attracted artwork by banksy and others, until it stretched across the length of the square opposite the gates to parliament and became known around the world. he also used a small megaphone to great effect, embarrassing devious politicians with facts and figures as they entered and left westminster. again, he managed to see of legal attempts to stop his megaphone use, although restrictions were made on the hours he could broadcast, forcing him to start shouting instead.

so, the morally-bankrupt, corporate-owned, and self-satisfied suits of westminster got restless, and demanded new laws to deal with the embarrassment that brian caused them. as a result, in 2005, they enacted the SOCPA legislation ('serious organised crime and police act'), part of which introduced new restrictions on protest in the area within one kilometre of parliament. those restrictions, badly formulated, attracted a lot of attention and derision. comedy activist mark thomas based his act (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nRGZr2m4r7M&feature=related) for a while on his mischievous dalliance with the new laws, and he even ended up in the guinness book of records for the most demonstrations by one person on the same day, part of an attempt to flood the authorities with paperwork inspired by the new requirements to gain 'authorisation' for protesting. other campaigners played with the law by regularly holding picnics on the square, surrounded by blank placards to signify that they weren't holding unlawful protests about anything.

more seriously, the police made an arbitrary restriction on the size of brian haw's protest, and then enforced it with a night-time swoop by more than 70 officers, who unceremoniously broke up his displays and stuffed them into a large container, which drove off as politicians arrived at westminster the next morning. it turned out later that this act of repression was outside the law as SOCPA gave no power of seizure.

the illegal snatch incensed british artist mark wallinger so much, that he set about producing an exact replica of the whole length of brian's display, and won the turner prize for his exhibition of it (which he called 'state britain') on the very edge of the SOCPA zone, at tate britain.

brian had always attracted a handful of staunch supporters since beginning his protest. one of those early and committed supporters was maria gallestegui, but after five years, and a divergence of approach over SOCPA, she decided to begin her 'peace strike' protest alongside brian's continuing vigil. a strong-willed and brave australian woman named barbara tucker, incensed by SOCPA restrictions, had recently joined brian's protest. she became a close confidante and ceaseless supporter of brian, constantly challenging SOCPA and ending up in jail on more than one occasion for her efforts.

maria gallestegui carried on her 'peace strike' protest, but rather than concentrating on challenging SOCPA, she decided to comply with authorisation procedures, which caused annoyance to her 'neighbour' barbara. this annoyance, over the years, turned into something of an obsession, with barbara telling anyone who would listen, that maria runs an apparently ten-year long undercover operation in league with the police, MI5, and perhaps even the lizard people. while to all those in the know, the accusations are ridiculous, they do wreak havoc on would-be support for either campaign. oh, and the conspiracy against barbara extends to virtually anyone who speaks to or supports the peace strike, so this author is also apparently portrayed as yet another agent for the state. i am not.

maria played with the SOCPA restrictions in her own way by accepting the same conditions that were imposed on brian, (namely that the protest area must be no larger than 3m x 3m x 1m), taking out two separate authorisations, and building two great huge boxes comprising those dimensions, which have remained in place with impunity despite an outcry from politicians, even surviving the royal opening of parliament and the royal wedding.

when the 'democracy village' set up in parliament square, (with what was in effect a forerunner for the world 'occupy' movement), barbara claimed that maria had orchestrated it, along with the arrival of more and more homeless people, in order to provide the authorities with an excuse to clear away all the protestors in the square.

in the event, westminster council managed to obtain an injunction against the 'democracy village' and after evicting them, erected the huge fences around the square which have despoiled the 'world heritage site' far more effectively over the last two years than any democratic protest might have.

under the guise of restoring democratic rights, but mainly because the law had actually failed in its initial purpose of seeing off brian haw, new labour leader gordon brown promised its repeal within 100 days of his taking office. along with most politicians' promises this turned out to be a lie, and the law remained, with police still utilising it when they chose, its chilling effect on legitimate protest useful to an ever more corrupt administration.

police reform and social responsibility act 2011 (PASRA):

so it was against this background that PASRA was born, sections 142 to 149 of which provide particular powers designed wholly to finally rid parliament square of any effective continuous protest, and to close loopholes in SOCPA.

the law gained royal assent in september last year, but the parliament square provisions commenced on 19th december, while strangely (perhaps to give time to try out the new law and overcome any legal challenges) SOCPA (which it was meant to replace) remains in force until the end of march this year. on top of this, while the law claims it is liberalising the excessive restrictions of SOCPA by minimising the area to the grass and pavements of parliament square, this is a sleight of hand, because as mentioned in my earlier article, westminster has just completed a 'public consultation' with a view to introducing similar restrictions throughout the borough, and both the dept of culture and the GLA are also running consultations ending in a few days, for similar proscriptions in the royal parks and at trafalgar square.

PASRA makes it a criminal offence to attempt to sleep overnight as part of a protest, and also outlaws the use of loud-hailers and amplifying equipment at ANY time in the proscribed areas. laughably, westminster claimed in its consultation papers that it doesn't want to restrict the right to protest. i wonder what powers they would dream up if they did! the laws and proposed byelaws also correct a SOCPA failing (in the eyes of repressors), by explicitly introducing powers of direction, seizure by force, forfeiture, and even exclusion orders. this corrects the situation that all previous seizures under SOCPA, when challenged in the courts, have later been shown to be unlawful, including the theft of brian haw's whole display in 2006.

on the day that the law commenced, the parliament square protestors received enforcement notices from westminster, warning them to remove tents and other structures or face arrest, seizure and forfeiture.

maria then asked the high court for an injunction pending a hearing as to whether she could get a judicial review of the proposed enforcement. the injunction was granted, but tomorrow's hearing is effectively the final day of that injunction, and the high court will decide whether her case for review has merit or not. i understand that barbara's campaign also applied for a judicial review on the 16th, but they claim, and i have no reason to doubt it, that their application has been ignored by the high court.

it certainly suits the authorities to conflate the two protests, along with any other unattended or homeless people's tents, and even the now vacated 'democracy village', and this may be what they have done in this case. the conflation has two effects: first, it helps the courts to avoid specific legal arguments that may be different - brian haw's campaign has a longer legal history including some landmark rulings, and it may indeed suit the court to side-step them where possible, and second - it feeds barbara's paranoia that the 'peace strike' is somehow in league with the authorities. i am not suggesting that there is no conspiracy against the brian haw peace campaign - as the maker of "SOCPA - the movie" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol9hcQlVX9M), i spent years supporting brian and barbara, and saw first hand how corrupt the legal system was, with a long catalogue of missing court papers, unlawful searches, fabricated police evidence, vicious assaults, illegal seizures, unlawful imprisonment, and more - but i maintain my belief that maria has no involvement in any such conspiracy.

the high court hearing tomorrow morning

maria's application for judicial review relies on two main points:

first, that as SOCPA is still in force, she is authorised to continue her protest in the square and so the new law cannot be applied.

in their defendant's claim, westminster council assert that nothing in SOCPA implicitly or expressly authorises setting up "house on the footway, whether in a tent or other structure designed, or capable of, facilitating sleeping on the site". they also suggest that there is no indication SOCPA was intended to supercede or override other statutory powers or duties such as "maintaining safe and uninterrupted passage on the highway" (under the highways act).

they also suggest that as maria's authorisation is for up to 20 people, there's no need for her 'permanent' presence there to maintain a 24 hour protest, and so sleeping facilities are not required.

personally, i don't see how they can claim that SOCPA doesn't imply authorising an obstruction of the highway. i've observed many protests in the SOCPA zone where police have, at the end of conditional time, told protestors that they must go home or else they WILL be obstructing the highway. i'm no lawyer, but wouldn't this suggest that SOCPA is regularly used by the police to authorise an obstruction, otherwise they'd be threatening protestors DURING their authorised protests that they were obstructing. whether the high court will view it this way on monday remains to be seen.

westminster also don't comment on the fact that her boxes are effectively big banners, have never been slept in, and weren't "wholly or mainly designed to facilitate sleeping", so might not even be covered by the new laws, which are quite specific that sleeping is the main criterion for deciding what isn't allowed.

maria's second argument is the more general point that enforcement would infringe her 'article 10 and 11 human rights' to freedom of expression and assembly.

on this, westminster council rely on the fact that the law was scrutinised and introduced by government who issued a human rights compatibility statement. legally, these statements have been challenged successfully in the past, and indeed, during the committee stages, several concerns were raised which have not been fully addressed by the final wording. they also suggest, in their court defence, that the law is proportionate and so doesn't interfere with rights, because it only applies to a very small area - the grass and adjoining pavements at parliament square. while this is technically true about PASRA, it is a blatant misrepresentation, because, as reported in 'part one' of this article (http://london.indymedia.org/articles/11434), westminster council are planning to introduce byelaws with the same restrictions, powers and penalties extending to just about anywhere in the area that you might want to hold a protest (outside government buildings, departments, and corporations etc).

finally the council argues that the correct legal procedure for challenge is to allow them to prosecute the new law, if necessary by forceful seizure etc, and then for those affected to try to get a judicial review of these actions AFTER being evicted. by bringing the case, maria was rather hoping to have the judicial review BEFORE her rights were infringed, and tomorrow will be decision day for this. the high court will decide whether westminster can go ahead with enforcement and clear the square, or whether the legal arguments can be heard properly by a court first. they're not directly ruling on the legal arguments tomorrow - only on whether there is enough merit in them to have a review now or if not, inevitably later.

why is any of this important?

apart from the two small peace camps in parliament square, and the historic significance of brian haw's continuous campaign, along with general issues of rights to hold continuous peaceful protests in a supposedly democratic society, there is also the direct threat aimed at the more recent worldwide 'occupy' movement.

as well as the initial PASRA and localised law, we have learnt that not only is westminster planning its byelaws to extend the restrictions throughout its borough, but now that there are ongoing public consultations set to end in a few days, that will introduce similar byelaws to cover all the royal parks, and trafalgar square. once these have been established and tested in law, it seems likely that they could be further extended to cover the city of london, and any other borough where the burgeoning 'occupy' protest movement sets up camp, thus criminalising protest, encouraging police brutality, and attacking the movement through seizure (theft!).

what can you do?

first, try to get to the high court tomorrow morning for an hour to support the planned solidarity protest outside, or to fill the court (expected to be overflowing) inside. the hearing is at 10.30 in court 22, and is likely to be quite short, so supporters will be meeting outside from 9.30am.

second, depending on the outcome tomorrow, offer support in parliament square over the next few days when the camps are likely to be evicted. 'peace strike' have a website at http://www.peacestrike.org, and barbara maintains brian haw's site at http://brianhaw.tv - both are likely to have latest news on the situation, although you may have to wade through barbara's other obsessions on brian's site.

third, look up and respond to the two currently open consultations. this CAN help. huge negative responses swayed the government over SOCPA, and were also part of the campaign that saw off westminster council's attempts last year to criminalise feeding the homeless - yes, really!
the consultations can be found at http://www.culture.gov.uk/consultations/8710.aspx for the royal parks (ending next monday the 23rd jan), and the GLA one at http://www.london.gov.uk/consultation/draft-byelaws-trafalgar-square-and-parliament-square-garden (ending on sunday the 22nd) for trafalgar square.

please respond now and flood them with negative comments on the proposed laws.

watch indymedia for further updates after the hearing tomorrow.