(no subject)
I spent a good part of last weekend at the now infamous Camp for Climate Action in Edinburgh, and thoroughly enjoyed it. It wasn't a perfect utopia, but neither was it the hooligan jamboree that has been reported in the media. Some of the criticism of the camp has come from journalists' misunderstanding of the principles and methods involved, some from their need to find the most sensational story, and yes, some of it was down to our own misjudgement. Like I said, it wasn't perfect, but it has been distorted in ways that are often contradictory - for example, how the participants managed to be self-centred, posh students mucking about, and an anarchist gang posing a serious threat to law-abiding society at the same time. The claws have well and truly come out from all sections of the media, including one photographer who has made a career out of recording protests, who accused the organisers of restricting free speech because they didn't allow reporters access to meetings where protest actions were discussed (mostly to prevent information from being passed on to the police), and encouraged them to ask permission before taking any up-close photographs of participants - which you would think is just basic good manners. Unfortunately, this just pisses off journalists, who think that privacy only applies to people who they don't find interesting. How this managed to become "restricting free speech", I'm not entirely sure
I could talk at great length about how it looked from my perspective, but other people have written more eloquent things, and since they're more experienced with this type of protest and sure of their own opinions on it, their accounts probably make better reading. Danny Chivers' blog posts 'Five things you probably didn't know about the Edinburgh Climate Camp' (part one; part two) is a good place to start, even though it's currently only three things because the third part has yet to be posted. It deals with the whole issue of the oil slick which was allegedly created on two major roads by Climate Campers in a calm and rational way, raising some useful points. Also worth reading are the contribution from Amelia Gregory, which has lots that are far more representative of how it all looked on the ground, and the constructive criticism from Harry Giles, discussing, among other things, the mostly-English organisers' lack of sensitivity towards local issues.
The only thing I would add - and I think it's important to mention it, because I was one of the few people to see this incident first hand - is that the police actively obstructed medical treatment for an injured protester. Most of the time, the police couldn't be faulted for their attitude, and they actually got comments from some of the English activists that they were the nicest cops they'd ever met, but this episode let them down. Despite all "official" media reports stating that there were no injuries during the protest, two people had to be taken to hospital after the incursion on to the RBS site on Sunday. One managed to limp out to be transported to A&E, but the other wasn't capable of getting out under his own power, and the only route on to the camp site that has terrain you could drive over also has a row of permanent bollards so that no vehicles can get through. The police refused to let any paramedics on to the site, so the next move from the activists was to "de-escalate" (step back, sit down, and generally try to look as non-threatening as possible) and find another way round it. Eventually the police agreed to set up a "sterile zone" on their side of the line in which a handover could take place, but they weren't going to lend us any equipment to get the injured person out, so something had to be hurriedly constructed from wooden pallets. It took eight people to carry the injured man and the incredibly bulky stretcher in to the sterile zone, and then the police decided to hold things up further with a stop-and-search before letting the paramedics in. This wasn't a situation where somebody's life hung in the balance, so the only effect was that someone had to go far longer than necessary without pain relief for his broken leg, but I can't stop thinking about what could have happened if it had been something more serious. On Monday, the police blockaded the hired minibuses that a few groups had used to get to the camp, so we would have been entirely dependent on their co-operation if anyone needed to be taken off-site in a hurry. It's an uncomfortable realisation for me, as someone whose mother tried to instil an unquestioning respect for authority, but for a while there the police were the biggest risk to our collective health and safety.
I could talk at great length about how it looked from my perspective, but other people have written more eloquent things, and since they're more experienced with this type of protest and sure of their own opinions on it, their accounts probably make better reading. Danny Chivers' blog posts 'Five things you probably didn't know about the Edinburgh Climate Camp' (part one; part two) is a good place to start, even though it's currently only three things because the third part has yet to be posted. It deals with the whole issue of the oil slick which was allegedly created on two major roads by Climate Campers in a calm and rational way, raising some useful points. Also worth reading are the contribution from Amelia Gregory, which has lots that are far more representative of how it all looked on the ground, and the constructive criticism from Harry Giles, discussing, among other things, the mostly-English organisers' lack of sensitivity towards local issues.
The only thing I would add - and I think it's important to mention it, because I was one of the few people to see this incident first hand - is that the police actively obstructed medical treatment for an injured protester. Most of the time, the police couldn't be faulted for their attitude, and they actually got comments from some of the English activists that they were the nicest cops they'd ever met, but this episode let them down. Despite all "official" media reports stating that there were no injuries during the protest, two people had to be taken to hospital after the incursion on to the RBS site on Sunday. One managed to limp out to be transported to A&E, but the other wasn't capable of getting out under his own power, and the only route on to the camp site that has terrain you could drive over also has a row of permanent bollards so that no vehicles can get through. The police refused to let any paramedics on to the site, so the next move from the activists was to "de-escalate" (step back, sit down, and generally try to look as non-threatening as possible) and find another way round it. Eventually the police agreed to set up a "sterile zone" on their side of the line in which a handover could take place, but they weren't going to lend us any equipment to get the injured person out, so something had to be hurriedly constructed from wooden pallets. It took eight people to carry the injured man and the incredibly bulky stretcher in to the sterile zone, and then the police decided to hold things up further with a stop-and-search before letting the paramedics in. This wasn't a situation where somebody's life hung in the balance, so the only effect was that someone had to go far longer than necessary without pain relief for his broken leg, but I can't stop thinking about what could have happened if it had been something more serious. On Monday, the police blockaded the hired minibuses that a few groups had used to get to the camp, so we would have been entirely dependent on their co-operation if anyone needed to be taken off-site in a hurry. It's an uncomfortable realisation for me, as someone whose mother tried to instil an unquestioning respect for authority, but for a while there the police were the biggest risk to our collective health and safety.