Protestors outside St Paul's, London. Photocredit: Konstantin http://www.flickr.com/photos/pkg/6407887465/sizes/z/in/photostream/
It’s a victory for The Man, as the City of London Corporation has won its high court case against protestors camping outside St Paul’s Cathedral in London. Yes, those Occupy chaps have got to up sticks and go. They’ve been there since 15th October; now the deadline for eviction will be 4pm on 27 January.
The Judge, Mr Justice Lindblom, according to The Guardian, didn’t even let them appeal – although they can take their case to The Court of Appeal. The Corporation was arguing that though they didn’t want to stop protest, they did want to get rid of the campsite. The judge praised the protestors’ behavior in court; the Corporation hoped that they would leave the campsite in a peaceable manner.
The protestors will take their case to the Court of Appeal: their QC, John Cooper, said that it would be on the basis of whether the Corporation’s actions were “proportionate.”
“This is not the end. Onwards and upwards for Occupy,” said principal defendant Tammy Samede, quoted on The Guardian.
“The extent and duration of the obstruction of the highway, and the public nuisance inherent in that obstruction, would itself warrant making an order for possession and granting injunctive and declaratory relief. So too would the effect of the camp on the article nine rights of worshippers in the cathedral. So would the effect on visits to the cathedral. So would the other private nuisance caused to the church. So would the planning harm to which I have referred. Adding all of these things together, one has, I think, an unusually persuasive case on the positive side of the balance.” The judgement, quoted on The Guardian.
Disappointing verdict. Dr Giles Fraser, the Canon Chancellor of St Paul’s who famously resigned, said that he found the judgement “disappointing. In a world where there is such a gap between rich and poor, the voice of protest needs continually to be heard. The church must not be seen to side with the 1 per cent rather than the 99 per cent.”
“This tweet is my pledge to help #occupylsx resist eviction. Hope you’ll do the same,” twittered George Monbiot.
A bad decision? It certainly raises the question, said Sarah Sackman in The Guardian, of the “increasing privatisation” of space. Public space is needed for political protests, which gain their strength from “mass gatherings.” It’s also “a cheap form of political activity” – if you can’t shell out for a lobbyist, at least you can go on a march. But as more land is sold off, the less space there is to protest. The state shouldn’t be able “to divest itself of its responsibility to protect people’s freedom of expression.” There should be a right of “reasonable access to property for the purposes of political expression.” This wouldn’t be “limitless”, and won’t in itself make a “level playing field for political debate.” But it would show the law’s “committment to political equality and free expression.”
A very bad decision? Her colleague, Anna Minton, on the same paper, agreed, saying, somewhat hyperbolically, that the London Corporation had “presided over the removal of the right to any protest, not only in Paternoster Square but throughout the City of London.”
A good decision. The decision, said The Telegraph, was “sensible and measured.” But it does bring up questions “about the right to protest in a free society.” There was a real danger, though, that the camp would become a permanent blight on St Paul’s. It just isn’t clear where the lines are to be drawn, in this “new age of mass protest.” There should be one obvious guideline – freedom of protest doesn’t mean you can set up camp. “The ‘Occupy movement seeks responsible capitalism. In that case, it could set an example by protesting responsibly, too.”
