“DON’T let the coalition crush Democracy Village” writes Alison Banville in The Staggers blog today.
what might our politicians find so threatening about Democracy Village? Let me see… perhaps the fact that they are prominently protesting against the war in Afghanistan (which all the main parties support) and are vowing not to leave until the troops are brought home? Let’s not forget that anyone opposed to the war was not represented by any of the three main parties during the election, and that a recent poll revealed 77% of the British public want the troops brought home.
“What might our politicians find so threatening?” I promise you we don’t find it remotely threatening. We do find it irritating, however, that such a noisy eyesore in the centre of our nation’s capital has been allowed to remain and to grow.
Who, then, is more aligned with democracy? The politicians in Parliament – or the protesters outside its hallowed walls?
The politicians in Parliament, since you ask.
Here we go again. During the Iraq war I was visited in my constituency office by a small group of constituents opposed to the war, whose spokewoman, I discovered, was not a constituent. “But I represent your constituents,” she protested when I told her she would have to leave the meeting and instead lobby her own MP. “No,” I replied. “I represent my constituents.”
How dare elected representatives have views that are contrary to those who occupy the most pompously-named site in the country. After all, what do mere MPs know of the real world? What do they know about democracy? Apart from just having been elected after fighting a long general election campaign, of course. But apart from that, what do MPs know about democracy?
Democracy surely isn’t about standing for election, setting out your beliefs, campaigning and persuading electors, doing your best to put your views into practice in legislation once you’ve reached those green benches. No, no, no…
Real democracy, pure, radical democracy is (according to The Staggers) about being elected by no-one, representing no-one.
What arrogance must motivate you to believe that you have the right to monopolise an area to which other citizens should have free access; to protest, yes, but to enjoy also, to take a stroll in, to have a quiet sit down. And what arrogance must motivate someone to believe that their compulsion to shriek incomprehensibly (and to absolutely no effect whatsoever) through a megaphone is more important than the comfort of others who might prefer not to be harangued aggressively as they pass by.
Such encampments would be dealt with swiftly by the authorities – and with overwhelming support from the public – were they to be inflicted on any other part of the country. That this eyesore still afflicts Parliament Square, that it has been allowed to grow and spread like a malignant infection, is a testament to the failure of politicians who should have acted decisively long before now.
Of course we should – and do – respect the right to protest. But though it might sound bizarrely counter-intuitive to say so, the democratic credentials of elected representatives must be respected also. Just because you’re elected does not mean you represent no-one, and just because you’re unelected and self-appointed does not mean you’re representative of a wider community.

























Thursday 3 June 2010 at 12:00 am
Protest is fine within the law, but not this. so do not worry Tom The Coalition will sort it out for you as the last government was too scared to do so.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 12:46 am
Hm. I see it as a a source of pride that London, unlike a lot of other European cities, will tolerate an essentially good-natured and harmless protest. Though I’m not sure whether or not it’s message is valid I think it’s existence shows a tolerance and good humour we should prize. But whatever. It’s an ‘eyesore’ I suppose.
Also: you make decisions in parliament that affect more than just your constituents – I wouldn’t accept that you’re only answerable to them.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 12:56 am
I’m a LibDem but nevertheless opposed to the coalition on this point (and apparently yourself): let the fruitloops stay! What actual harm are they doing? It’s like the nutters on soapboxes in Hyde Park.
If the government wanted to shift them, it should do two things (a) make it clear to the protesters that as the area is a public site their property was not protected there and they had no right to remain and (b) actively facilitate other campaigners using the site for all manner of things. Once they’ve had their tends trodden on a fair few times they’ll take the hint and bugger off and you might make the area an interestingly populist alternative to the lobby into the bargain.
If it helps your ego any, I truly believe you have a better grasp on world affairs and the state of the nation than a man who hasn’t left his tent in 10 years. I’m not just saying that; it comes from the heart.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 1:08 am
Was not your the government that banned protest within the immediate vicinity of Westminister?
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 1:48 am
Noisy people – are there not breach of the peace laws for people who take this too far?
Blocking access – are there not laws against people who do this too?
Monopolise an area to which other citizens should have free access – well, sometimes it’s first come first served…
We do find it irritating – sorry, that’s not against the law. Yet.
That this eyesore still afflicts Parliament Square… – sorry, but are they not, rightly or wrongly, protesting the Parliament’s decision? Who else should they ‘harangue’ about decisions made in their name that they consider ill-judged, immoral, illegal and harmful to the country at large (which some would consider traitorous)?
They may well be wrong in almost everything they stand for, but unlike me and most of the country, at least they stand for something. They are willing to avoid work to protest what they see as the mistakes of their representatives.
Sure, some are jumping on a bandwagon, protesting about anything and nothing, but some are principled people and they should be allowed to protest without tarring them with the same brush that is so evidently in your mind as you look to send these people off the ludicrously named Democracy Village and into a shower, some clean clothes and an honest job.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 2:28 am
I agree with you, as is becoming disturbingly usual, insomuch as they are vandalising public property and that they are somehow canonised as some extraordinary democratic force.
However, as with the issue of the repeal of ID cards, which I am well aware that you do not support, where financial evidence alone makes a mockery of the current governments value for money stance, it seems that token measures are needed to assure the gp that the government isn’t some nightmare Orwellian state.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 4:57 am
Tom you’re missing the point here I’m afraid.
The ‘protest culture’ grew out of 60s counterculture, proponents of which acted on the notion that all politicians were corrupt. They are publicity seekers more than lobbyists – they want their views, which they believe in, to be acknowledged as they haven’t been in the media, or by politicians. To what end I do not know – maybe to raise awareness – but I am surprised that they actually came to you in person.
Maybe some people just like protesting for the sake of it, and even if that’s a bit annoying, withdrawing that right would be dangerous. Having to justify their cause with statistics drawn from a sample of people who are unlikely to understand the complex issues at hand shouldn’t be necessary. Maybe you should just take them on, especially if they are single issue organisations?
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 6:21 am
tom harris is in the wrong party. i smell defection!
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 7:17 am
There should probably be a simple 12 or 24 hour limit on protests, but seeing as the last government let the ‘we’re up for it’ police off the leash to go out and kill people at protests, maybe you should leave it to the new government to call for this.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 7:53 am
Dear Tom.
Would that you had written this 5 years ago. It would have had more impact when your Party was in power.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 8:12 am
What’s that. The New Statesman often full of shite, you say. Surely not.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 8:36 am
While I think that protests of this sort have a sort of impotent charm to them, and the more wacky their attire, the more “british” it seems to become.
However, had a group of people staged a sit-in at any other location, the police would have simply dragged them away within a few hours.
I am somewhat bemused as to why they have been allowed to remain in the same location for such a long time frame.
Yes, protesting is allowed, and should be applauded – but with the right to protest, comes the responsibility to do so respectfully for other people’s opinions and rights.
These people have not shown any such regard for other people – and I therefore show them an equal amount of disdain when I walk past their occupation.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 9:01 am
You are basically right Tom, the right to protest should not include the right to deny your fellow citizens access to a public space for a period of days on end, whether others wish to use it for recreation, transit, or protest. That being the case, where was you voice when, under your government, Sri Lankan Tamils occupied the the square for weeks on end?
As someone who has sometimes protested in the square (for an English Parliament, since you ask) I also have to put in a word in defence of Brian Haw. I agree with him about almost nothing, but his (in my view misdirected) determination has kept the right to protest in Parliament Square alive when your government and the GLA under Ken Livingstone appeared to want to suppress it altogether (except when confronted with overwhwelming numbers, as in the case of the Countryside Alliance or on behalf of causes favoured by Ken). Haw deserves our thanks for that.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 9:17 am
I am in the disturbing position of agreeing with everything you just said!
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 10:00 am
I’ve no problem with people encamping in Parliament Square as long as they start paying council tax for the privilege.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 10:39 am
Agreed.
It’s the pure arrogance of calling it a “democracy village”
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 11:07 am
Tom, couple of minor things.
One, “our” nation’s capital (including yourself with your constituents and I suspect a large percentage of your readership) isn’t London. It’s Edinburgh.
That said, my hatred for London as a city is probably almost matched by Edinburgh (not a fan of cities, me)…
Secondly, and far more importantly, I want to recite to you a passage of text you’ll probably recognise:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; [b]or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[/b]” (emphasis mine).
What a shame we haven’t learned this lesson yet. If you restrict the right to free protest, you are no longer living in a free country.
I can see your point, the place is an eyesore and you don’t like the noise. I don’t much like neo-nazi’s, and if they were to hold a rally (as they did in Glasgow not long ago), I’d be sickened to hear their views paraded about the streets. But I’d defend their right to do so (providing they aren’t breaking any laws, like violence, harassment etc.). Point of fact, I’m pretty fed up of the noise, hassle and sectarian viewpoints whenever the green loons or the orange loons march in glasgow or elsewhere in the west of scotland. But they have the right to do so.
My (laboured) point is that freedom of speech, religion, press and assembly are more important than the transitory annoyance of having neo-nazis shouting in the streets, or hippies making a tent-city in Parliament Square.
Although on the tent-score, protest doesn’t require there to be permanent or semi-permanent structures, so merely make a law that states erecting a tent in that area without a licence will lead you subject to confiscation. Then you’ll just have an annoying crowd that will presumably bugger off when it gets dark.
You have to allow them to protest. Don’t have to make it easy and comfortable for them to stay. It’d be character building for them…
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 12:05 pm
Math – there are certain words and phrases which, if I use them, are guaranteed to wind up my loyal nat readers. “our nation’s capital, London” is one of them, so thanks for biting. Edinburgh is, indeed, the capital of Scotland, but London is the capital not only of England but of the UK. And since Scotland is, whether you like it or not, British…
And, like you, I have no problem with political demonstrations. But the “Democracy Village” (gag!) is not a protest – it is a permanent encampment. And the issues they’re protesting about, thoug important to them, do not give them the right to dominate and monopolise a public space that others with different political priorities might want to use.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 12:14 pm
I totally agree that the village is against the spirit of what most of us mean by demonstration.
However, the Labour Governments response – SoCPA 005 – banned everyone from spontaneous peaceful protest. Well, almost everyone – the person actually targeted by this action was exempt due to the usual incompetence shown in the wording of the Act.
SOCPA was a breach of our civil rights. It was an offence against the spirit of what we in britain expect to be allowed to do. It’s something we told teh Government (and Jack Straw specifically) in the “consultation”. Of course, jack ignored the findings as he didn’t get the answer he wanted. Basically, we have the fundamental right to peacefully protest against our Government.
So, whilst an obvious middle ground should be reached if I had to have the choice of a village annoying MP’s or removing the populations civil liberties then I’d say it’s time for Tom to get used to his new neighbours.
Tom – you said that the majority don’t care about civil liberties. I think you’re wrong.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 1:19 pm
Language, Tom, language.
Too many swear words in your recent posts and that’s only in the titles.
And you’re using too much sarcasm.
Even though I’m aware of your tendency in that direction, I sometimes mis-read what you’re saying.
And your followers keep following suit.
On-topic, I agree with you 70%.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 1:34 pm
Tom, correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t you put the troops there? OR are you suddenly struck with the idea that it was all wrong? Pot Kettle comes to mind
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 2:05 pm
This is a bad argument. You object to “Democracy Village” for the same reasons as people like Iain Dale: because it is an “eyesore”, an “irritant”, and “pointless”. None of these are good reasons for forcibly removing protesters – regardless of the amount of passion you inject into your rant. You could make the same argument against fat people in leggings.
Your point about the “arrogance” of the protesters is again very weak and raises the question of which citizens have the greater rights. Is it those who are nicely behaved, sitting on the grass for a quick lunch break, or those ugly, noisy non-conformists? You seem to have decided the former, and I’m sure many people will agree. However, I’m sure many others would argue that it’s more arrogant to assert that the right for a quiet place to eat sandwiches overrules the right for someone to protest against the killing of lots of people.
What about the arrogance of elected officials who think they have a mandate to decide which protests to tolerate and which to shut down?
More importantly, how arrogant is it to base such a decision on purely aesthetic, superficial reasons?
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 2:15 pm
[...] 3, 2010 · Leave a Comment This post is my response to a rant by Tom Harris MP, Labour, calling for the ejection of the protesters at Democracy Village. He closes his impassioned [...]
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 3:13 pm
Too bloody right Tom.
The pro-tamil tiger demonstrators who were present in force here last year really were a scary para-military bunch what if they’d decided to make a permanent encampment?
To borrow from Tony Benn – the problem with self appointed tribunes of the people is that if they wont go voluntarily you cannot get rid of them except by force.
Thursday 3 June 2010 at 11:20 pm
Does that means if the Lords refuse to pass the expected act removing the House of Lords and replacing it with an elected Upper House we have to shoot them Richard?
We’re not Israel, you know?
And yes Tom, I’m aware you were fishing, and I obligingly came swimming along, but I feel it is important to say it.
The people of Scotland have never, NEVER been asked if they wanted their country to be part of the UK. It was just done to them. Every time they’ve been asked if they want more powers, more home-rule, they’ve said “yes” (well, a majority has).
I agree with the broad consensus here; civil liberties trump you having to see an eyesore. Of course as I said, if they’re a permanent encampment have them evicted for breaching of the planning laws. They have the right to stand (or sit, lie down, do handstands, whatever) and protest, not live there. Sure, they can stay and protest however long they like, but I don’t think our civil liberties would be challenged by the Police taking their dome-tents. I suspect that wouldn’t get rid of them, but it’ll at least make them uncomfortable. I’d expect the protest to wind up right around the time we get some autumn rain…
Of course, Labour’s answer to the annoyance of protestors like this was to try and take away our fundamental human rights to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly. PE4 meet Walnut. Walnut, meet PE4.
Friday 4 June 2010 at 2:08 am
Villages do not protest, people do. Remove the “village”, let the people protest, but they don’t get to set up housekeeping and deny use of a public space to citizens.
Friday 4 June 2010 at 10:57 am
@Simon: You ask “Your point about the “arrogance” of the protesters is again very weak and raises the question of which citizens have the greater rights. Is it those who are nicely behaved, sitting on the grass for a quick lunch break, or those ugly, noisy non-conformists? You seem to have decided the former, and I’m sure many people will agree. However, I’m sure many others would argue that it’s more arrogant to assert that the right for a quiet place to eat sandwiches overrules the right for someone to protest against the killing of lots of people.”
I think this misses the point. It’s not a question of whether one group’s rights override the other’s (although you seem to be agreeing that the protestors’ should take precedence). It’s a question of ensuring how as many people as possible can exercise their rights where those rights conflict. It is possible for some people to protest outside Parliament, and other people to picnic there/use it as a general amenity, even if semi-permanent camps are banned. But it’s not possible for people to use the Square as an amenity if others are permanently camped there. So the permanent camps should go, and the protestors should come back on a daily basis, if that’s what they want to do.
Friday 4 June 2010 at 11:02 am
The judiciary have bent over backwards to stop Brian Haw being removed. Possibly this is because his cause is one which appeals to well to do people living in London. I suspect that a fundamentalist Christian objecting to gay rights or a BNP supporter on immigration would have not have received such favourable treatmnent from our unelected masters in the Strand.
Friday 4 June 2010 at 2:11 pm
the problem with democracy is that it can get rather messy at times
Sunday 6 June 2010 at 1:01 am
i am all for protesting
been on a few myself when i was younger
but this lot are not protesting – they are squatting on public land and playing the ‘protest’ card to try and justify what they are doing.
if this lot want to have a protest march against those pointless wars we are having – im with them 100%
if they just want to stop other people using a public ammenity so they can get free lodging – well they can clear off !
Sunday 6 June 2010 at 5:53 am
“doing your best to put your views into practice in legislation once you’ve reached those green benches”
Are you seriously with a straight face claiming that this is what your lot have been doing for the recent 13 years ? Ha !
The light (superficial) thoughts of Blair ?
The deep and dark thoughts of Brown ?
Neither had any desire to DO as opposed to demand, and very rarely, if they did demand, they aimed at wrong targets or were hugely incompetent.
Alan Douglas
Sunday 6 June 2010 at 6:53 am
“doing your best to put your views into practice in legislation once you’ve reached those green benches”
Are you seriously with a straight face claiming that this is what your lot have been doing for the recent 13 years ? Ha !
The light (superficial) thoughts of Blair ?
The deep and dark thoughts of Brown ?
Neither had any desire to DO as opposed to demand, and very rarely, if they did demand, they aimed at wrong targets or were hugely incompetent.
Alan Douglas
Sunday 6 June 2010 at 10:04 am
“What do they know about democracy?”
One might well ask YOU the same question after the past 13 years.
Detention without trial, you don’t seem to understand, is not part of a democracy.
And that’s for starters.
Habeas Corpus anyone?
Yes, the place is a mess, but your government had no problems letting hundreds of Tamils do the same thing. No UK citizens could, though.
Total crap.
Sunday 6 June 2010 at 9:52 am
Interesting. You’ve changed my opinion on this.
Sunday 6 June 2010 at 12:11 pm
What an eyesore – the police should move them on ASAP.
Monday 7 June 2010 at 9:54 am
Tom – I agree with you whole heartedly. I think this starts to edge into the areas of ‘rights’ and ‘responsibilities’ which I don’t think your party were very switched into, until too late in the election campaign.
I’m all for peaceful protest (its after all a basic ‘right’ obtained for us by our parents and grand-parents between 1914 – 1918 and again between 1939 and 1945. But there are unfortunately some ‘responsibilities’ to go along with this and taking over and despoiling open land by setting up a ‘village’ to the detriment of us all should not be allowed.
Monday 7 June 2010 at 10:00 am
“Noisey eyesore” – you need to get your ear brain tested – presuming that both exist. The heavy traffic in the vacinity of Parliament Square is far more noisey than those you have the hump with – oourse it would be a shame to let a simple factor like that undermine your diatribe.
Tuesday 29 June 2010 at 11:21 pm
Trussed up- funnily enough Brian Haw- and his cohorts Barbara and Charity- are fundamentalist christians who object to gay rights (and sex education in schools).
Friday 9 July 2010 at 11:59 am
[...] ‘peace camp’ as it was known then. I agreed initially with the views of Iain Dale and Tom Harris that it was an eyesore and colleagues and friends who found their hypocrisy of their banners [...]
Leave a comment