Lots of other people have already commented on the arrest of Brian Haw during the “tidy up” of Parliament Square – as Iain Dale would have it.
From what details have been reported it seems he was arrested not for being there but for not allowing the police to search his camp before the state opening of parliament. Which of course may be a pretext and it’s not clear just how the police went about it, but it does make things slightly less clear cut… except. It was surely within the police’s capability to just hold him out of the way whilst they searched assuming the search was legitimate. What will be interesting to see is what happens to his protest and if he’ll be allowed to resume it, or will they claim his protest has ended so now he needs permission to protest like the rest of us?
Some people have suggested that it’s not a proper protest as that would involve just going down there now and again to shout a few slogans and be ignored and that as he’s been there so long it’s no longer a proper protest. This seems ludicrous given the situation he’s protesting about is still on going, and there are numerous precedents of protesters camping outside embassies for years to protest human rights abuses – which generally have been allowed to continue un-harassed.
One interesting point picked up by a friend of mine is that Councillor Colin Barrow, Leader of Westminster City Council, backed the legal action said:
“We felt that the hijacking of Parliament Square, one of London’s historic public spaces, needed to be brought to an end,”
But who is Brian Haw and the other protesters but members of the public. If as has been reported some of their actions did need to be dealt with (pissing against statues and the like) then there are already laws to deal with that, but they weren’t used and weren’t enforced prior to this raid. Which suggests that the protests themselves were the problem and not the behaviour of the protesters.
It has been suggested to me that there are bigger problems to worry about than the arrest of one man and the interruption of his protest. A point of view I really can’t agree with as the way the state gains it’s control and sells us all down the river is by getting us to ignore what happens to “just one” person due to bigger issues, and it’s just one person and there’s probably good reason and… How the state treats the individual sets the foundation for how it treats the rest of us, and what we suffer the state to do to the individual paves the way for the state to treat us all the same way.
I’ll leave the last word to The Appalling Strangeness who has written a far more erudite piece on the matter.
On Sunday 2 May I happened to be in Westminster. It was cool and there was a slight shower, but it was relatively quiet that day. I noticed Brian Haw and suddenly realized that normally, you can’t see him at all because there are people and tourists in the way. Considering that I’ve been photographed standing on the opposite side of the road, you would have thought I’d have noticed him while I was standing around.
That Sunday Brian was sitting on his fold-up chair next to his pop-up tent with his display of cards. They were carefully off the pavement – he doesn’t obstruct anybody. Behind him, standing in a circle and having a chat, were about half a dozen assorted coppers. They were ignoring him. Had they wanted to search his tent it would have taken two of them to hold him down while the other four or five had a good old rummage, maybe called in a sniffer dog. Traffic was light and few people were watching, so that was the day to do it.
I walked across the green to have a look at the stonework on the Supreme Court. The police noticed me but weren’t interested as somebody reading the inscriptions on the new benches is very much to be expected.
Haw is untidy and even his supporters admit there may be something not quite right in his head, but he’s a special kind of statue, installation or artwork in his own ragged right, rather than a squatter. He reminds me that a man already half-mad was able to see what I could not; that we were being lied to. He saw it before it happened. The House is has had some personnel changed, but most of the people who voted for that war are still coming and going from there. Too many of them want to forget they are implicated.
What is needed is a standard stencil in the Banksy mode so that Brian can appear anywhere and keep reminding me not to get fooled again.
I do recall how really not visible he was last time I was hanging around outside the gates of Parliament.
It does have all the signs of yet more security theatre being done more to make a point than achieve anything.
Though of course with a more genuine security hat on you do need to do such searches as close to the time as possible, but would he really have objected if they’d asked nicely. He’s been there 9 years so that’s what 2 state openings before where they’ve not had to arrest him. If it was his of their behaviour that changed this time I suspect we’ll never know – perhaps the larger camp made them a bit more gung-ho in getting their message across.
I like the Banksy idea, perhaps if they don’t let him back we could get him sprayed on the pavement and have people take turns protesting for him – like the installations on the fourth column. Loosing such a visible simple of a person determined to hold the state to account would/will be a huge loss. It may not be the most effective protest ever but it has helped keep things on the agenda that might otherwise have been brushed under the carpet.
Hmm, wonder if people would be up for Brian Haws masks (rather than guy fawkes) if they don’t let him back “I’m Brian!” “No I’m Brian!” etc.