In a scene typical of most pre-planned demonstrations in London, news crews and photographers outnumbered protestors in front of the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday, as Occupy LSX prepared to receive the verdict of their defence against the City of London Corporation regarding the occupation of land around St Paul’s Cathedral. Whew.
Reporters groped for quotes while members of the movement waited for the results. The mood could have hardly been called optimistic, but some protesters sang and danced, and the overruling vibe was one of cheerful defiance. The results in the end were not in Occupy LSX’s favour, though the group says they plan to appeal the ruling. Even if that fails, said some, they could hardly be expected to go without a good old fashion fight. No surprises there.
Using the people's microphone to relay the verdict from inside
Occupiers tried to remain upbeat as they listened to the news
After the ruling, The Guardian posted two similar Comment is Free columns (by Sarah Sackman and Anna Minton) that raise some interesting thoughts on the right to assemble, and how the increasing privitisation of what would normally be public spaces hinders our ability to protest. They’re interesting articles and worth a read, especially considering that the recent Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act also severely regulates protest in Parliament Square, a public space where anti-war protestors have been camping out for around a decade.
The issue of public rights on private property is not only important for protestors, but for photographers as well. Anyone who makes a habit of carrying an SLR about town has probably met with none-too-friendly plastic police touting house rules about photography on private premises. IIRC, enthusiastic foodies experienced similar problems as photography bans in popular restaurants become the newest dining trend a few years ago. As the floorspace of privately owned property encroaches and absorbs public land, so may erode our rights to do something so simple as snap a photo with something larger than a mobile phone.
Private people on public property
At the courts, one photographer argued with an Occupy member–who was wearing a head-to-toe outfit made out of kids bedsheets, topped with ski goggles–about his right to take photos of whomever he wanted “because this is public property.” The bedsheeted guy and another protestor argued back because, inexplicably, they had come to this very public media event but wanted to be selective about who in the press could take their photo. It seems rather ironic that a photographer trying to express a right was being denied by a member of a movement for which that right is so essential.
I thought one great hint about the lack of success Occupy has had, both in this lawsuit and with the reception of the movement amongst the general public, was nestled into the second-to-last paragraph of Sackman’s article (emphasis mine):
“For Occupy, the mode of the protest is integral to protesters’ message. However, where a private landowner is required to foot the bill for maintaining the sanitation and safety of the land, a reasonable right of access could limit a protest’s duration.”
Anyone who has visited the St Paul’s encampment could vouch for the fact that it’s not the cleanest place in the world. Rumours of needle bins for drug users and defecation aside, the Occupy campsite very obviously suffers from a lack of facilities (hot running water, appropriate sewage system) and lack of space (how many tents can they cram in that space?). After just a few minutes inside, it’s easy to see how the City of London picked up on the “sanitation and safety” issue.
Occupiers are far more friendly than your average Londoner, and the generous and cooperative mood within the camp is easy to see. Daily life is conducted with something of a junkyard circus aesthetic–a merry hodgepodge of all kinds of things and all kinds of people doing all kinds of entertaining, very human things while they eke out a lifestyle at the foot of St Paul’s. Picture Burning Man combined with Glastonbury, but with less whimsy, fewer music performances, cooler temperatures and free admission. It’s not a bad thing, but it doesn’t make for great public image for a political movement, especially in its 13th week.
It’s easy enough to make snide comments about getting some soap up to St Paul’s, but that’s only part of Occupy LSX’s problem. The group prides itself on its anti-capitalist stance, and The Socialist Worker’s Party is always on hand to pass out their propaganda. Views range from the rational to the extreme, of course, with much of Occupy’s rhetoric leaning towards the latter for most of us. Although perhaps feasible idea for a 19-year-old student or a middle-aged freegan, I don’t think the average lower-middle class mum is going to buy into Marxism or the destruction of the monetary system.
To attend an Occupy general assembly meeting is to stand for two hours watching a very democratic process (lots of speeches, lots of voting) that delves into some pretty outlandish tangents and, more often than not, doesn’t seem to get a lot done. The fact that Occupy LSX has been in place for over three months now and still can’t express their goal as something more grounded than “working for a just society” is another point of skepticism for many. What are these people doing there? Don’t they have anything better to do?
Then three- and four-letter words pop out. Why don’t they get off their asses and get a JOB? Are they too LAZY to WORK like the rest of us? I have met people at the St Paul’s encampment who work regular jobs. One man explained that he occupies during the week, getting up every day to go to work and returning to the camp every evening. On weekends, he said, he goes home to get a good night’s sleep and do his laundry. Others, also employed, just come down to hang out, help out, or to check out events.
But even more occupiers are unemployed. They could spend their time in lines for the dole like so many others, competing in a demoralising battle for jobs as unemployment hits 8.4 percent. Arguably, some of them would be better off doing so. But they choose not to, and don’t really make much effort to defend their decision. So the labels “hippy” and “lazy” stick.
All of this has further disenfranchised the Occupy movement. Their antics sometimes make a spectacle of the protest, and alienate people who would support a movement for change if it was more clearly defined and more palatable.
I thought one of the (few pro-Occupy) commenters on Anna Minton’s article made a good point:
“Alas that, during Occupy’s occupation, facts about land ownership have never been allowed to get in the way of the sneering, abuse and self-righteousness of those whose arguments rely mostly upon a ‘get a job, you hippy scum’ mentality.”
As long as their image gives fuel to the haters and sets them apart from the majority of those who Occupy believe are in the 99 percent, they’ll continue to hold little sway with the general populous. And the “Occupy voice” needs to be bigger–bigger than what many consider to be a group of “dirty hippies”–to succeed.
Public spaces and dirty hippies
In a scene typical of most pre-planned demonstrations in London, news crews and photographers outnumbered protestors in front of the Royal Courts of Justice on Wednesday, as Occupy LSX prepared to receive the verdict of their defence against the City of London Corporation regarding the occupation of land around St Paul’s Cathedral. Whew.
Reporters groped for quotes while members of the movement waited for the results. The mood could have hardly been called optimistic, but some protesters sang and danced, and the overruling vibe was one of cheerful defiance. The results in the end were not in Occupy LSX’s favour, though the group says they plan to appeal the ruling. Even if that fails, said some, they could hardly be expected to go without a good old fashion fight. No surprises there.
Using the people's microphone to relay the verdict from inside
Occupiers tried to remain upbeat as they listened to the news
After the ruling, The Guardian posted two similar Comment is Free columns (by Sarah Sackman and Anna Minton) that raise some interesting thoughts on the right to assemble, and how the increasing privitisation of what would normally be public spaces hinders our ability to protest. They’re interesting articles and worth a read, especially considering that the recent Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act also severely regulates protest in Parliament Square, a public space where anti-war protestors have been camping out for around a decade.
The issue of public rights on private property is not only important for protestors, but for photographers as well. Anyone who makes a habit of carrying an SLR about town has probably met with none-too-friendly plastic police touting house rules about photography on private premises. IIRC, enthusiastic foodies experienced similar problems as photography bans in popular restaurants become the newest dining trend a few years ago. As the floorspace of privately owned property encroaches and absorbs public land, so may erode our rights to do something so simple as snap a photo with something larger than a mobile phone.
Private people on public property
At the courts, one photographer argued with an Occupy member–who was wearing a head-to-toe outfit made out of kids bedsheets, topped with ski goggles–about his right to take photos of whomever he wanted “because this is public property.” The bedsheeted guy and another protestor argued back because, inexplicably, they had come to this very public media event but wanted to be selective about who in the press could take their photo. It seems rather ironic that a photographer trying to express a right was being denied by a member of a movement for which that right is so essential.
I thought one great hint about the lack of success Occupy has had, both in this lawsuit and with the reception of the movement amongst the general public, was nestled into the second-to-last paragraph of Sackman’s article (emphasis mine):
“For Occupy, the mode of the protest is integral to protesters’ message. However, where a private landowner is required to foot the bill for maintaining the sanitation and safety of the land, a reasonable right of access could limit a protest’s duration.”
Anyone who has visited the St Paul’s encampment could vouch for the fact that it’s not the cleanest place in the world. Rumours of needle bins for drug users and defecation aside, the Occupy campsite very obviously suffers from a lack of facilities (hot running water, appropriate sewage system) and lack of space (how many tents can they cram in that space?). After just a few minutes inside, it’s easy to see how the City of London picked up on the “sanitation and safety” issue.
Occupiers are far more friendly than your average Londoner, and the generous and cooperative mood within the camp is easy to see. Daily life is conducted with something of a junkyard circus aesthetic–a merry hodgepodge of all kinds of things and all kinds of people doing all kinds of entertaining, very human things while they eke out a lifestyle at the foot of St Paul’s. Picture Burning Man combined with Glastonbury, but with less whimsy, fewer music performances, cooler temperatures and free admission. It’s not a bad thing, but it doesn’t make for great public image for a political movement, especially in its 13th week.
It’s easy enough to make snide comments about getting some soap up to St Paul’s, but that’s only part of Occupy LSX’s problem. The group prides itself on its anti-capitalist stance, and The Socialist Worker’s Party is always on hand to pass out their propaganda. Views range from the rational to the extreme, of course, with much of Occupy’s rhetoric leaning towards the latter for most of us. Although perhaps feasible idea for a 19-year-old student or a middle-aged freegan, I don’t think the average lower-middle class mum is going to buy into Marxism or the destruction of the monetary system.
To attend an Occupy general assembly meeting is to stand for two hours watching a very democratic process (lots of speeches, lots of voting) that delves into some pretty outlandish tangents and, more often than not, doesn’t seem to get a lot done. The fact that Occupy LSX has been in place for over three months now and still can’t express their goal as something more grounded than “working for a just society” is another point of skepticism for many. What are these people doing there? Don’t they have anything better to do?
Then three- and four-letter words pop out. Why don’t they get off their asses and get a JOB? Are they too LAZY to WORK like the rest of us? I have met people at the St Paul’s encampment who work regular jobs. One man explained that he occupies during the week, getting up every day to go to work and returning to the camp every evening. On weekends, he said, he goes home to get a good night’s sleep and do his laundry. Others, also employed, just come down to hang out, help out, or to check out events.
But even more occupiers are unemployed. They could spend their time in lines for the dole like so many others, competing in a demoralising battle for jobs as unemployment hits 8.4 percent. Arguably, some of them would be better off doing so. But they choose not to, and don’t really make much effort to defend their decision. So the labels “hippy” and “lazy” stick.
All of this has further disenfranchised the Occupy movement. Their antics sometimes make a spectacle of the protest, and alienate people who would support a movement for change if it was more clearly defined and more palatable.
I thought one of the (few pro-Occupy) commenters on Anna Minton’s article made a good point:
“Alas that, during Occupy’s occupation, facts about land ownership have never been allowed to get in the way of the sneering, abuse and self-righteousness of those whose arguments rely mostly upon a ‘get a job, you hippy scum’ mentality.”
As long as their image gives fuel to the haters and sets them apart from the majority of those who Occupy believe are in the 99 percent, they’ll continue to hold little sway with the general populous. And the “Occupy voice” needs to be bigger–bigger than what many consider to be a group of “dirty hippies”–to succeed.