A strange situation at Pickled Politics tonight; take a look at the comments thread here. The poster raised the well documented absurdity of the policing at the Kingsnorth Climate Camp. And found himself leapt upon by commenters as a hysterical leftie thoroughly disconnected from reality.

The following comment is typical:

The state are not imposing anything on anyone here. Just because you are forcibly removed from an area does not make you any more right, nor does it automatically entitle you to call yourself a victim. Why don’t these people, go home, get ‘actually’ politically active and try to come up with solutions instead of trying to manufacture publicity through stunts?

Pardon? The state very much has imposed itself here. Citizens have a democratic right to protest; one supposedly guaranteed in law by the Human Rights Act. They may gather on any piece of public land to voice their concerns over any matter. The state should exist to protect those very freedoms. If the state - or its agents, the police - attempts to restrict them, it commits an assault on liberty and fails in its role.

The protestors at Climate Camp were clearly peaceful. They came there to hold workshops on environmental life and climate change, not viciously beat up policemen. Some didn’t attempt to hide their intention of shutting down the power-station, no; but that, at most justified a police cordon around the power station to protect what’s legally private property. (That it spews out noxious gas and thus directly affects those around it, very much bringing the matter into the public interest, remains to be addressed…). The protestors within the Climate Camp should have been free from harrassment.

So when the police spend an estimated £3 million to bus in officers from far-flung corners of the country to set-up a cordon around the camp before routinely entering it, ransacking private possessions and cart-off protestors on any pretext, they do impose themselves. The protestors have a right to make themselves heard, and when a force supposed to protect that right mercilessly shits on it, they are victims.

More bizarre were comments along these lines:

I showed an American friend this video, she laughed, she said they were so brutal, her shoe nearly fell off!

Come on. There actions are probably over the top. But brutal? Have you heard the quip about heaven, where the Police are British, the chefs are French etc?

In France, the CRS would have literally beat the shit out of them. In fact, I cannot think of another country where the all police wouldn’t have drawn their batons straight away.

Wait - so because our instances of authoritarian policing are less brutal than those abroad, they become okay? Police brutality against peaceful protestors remains police brutality; just because the French riot police are downright sadistic doesn’t stop an assault on democratic freedoms across the channel from being just that.

It isn’t hysteria to rage at length over this. Protest is an essential tool to remind the powerful you exist; the state, which exists to protect and extend the freedom of all citizens, cannot be allowed to choose when or how it’s acceptable to exercise that freedom. Unless the exercise of liberty infringes on that of another, it’s not its job, and shouldn’t be - unless we enjoy repression.

Apparently, the absurd policing at Kingsnorth might cost up to £3 million. £3 million, that is, to intimidate protestors, assault liberty and break their own rules beyond repair. Who’d like to start the list of where that money could’ve been better spent?

Excellent news; a group of MPs plan to launch a motion challenging the current Oath of Allegiance sworn by MPs before taking their seats. The current wording is transparently medieval:

“I swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law. So help me God.”

Atheists may opt out of swearing by God - but what of republicans? They’re forced to swallow their principles and spout the oath if they wish to represent their constituents. Democratically elected representatives must swear to an unelected figure or, as with Sinn Fein, betray the constituents who elected them and refuse to take their seats.

The republican case for dropping the oath, along with the entire monarchy, is strong enough; any democratic system must ensure sovereignty is derived from the people and not an unelected figurehead. The oath suggests MPs have a greater duty to the monarch rather than their constituents - and so, surely, defeats the point of electing representatives rather than appointing them. It’s merely a symptom of a grossly unrepresentative cancer in our constitution, which needs removal.

But even the most ardent monarchist must see the arguments here. The one Tory who supports the motion, Peter Bottomley, makes the case well enough; the Parliament exists, in our outdated constitution, to advise the monarch as to the will of the people. As such, all representatives of the people must be allowed entry, even those who seek to abolish the monarchy, must be allowed entry to argue their case. He wants an opt-out rather than the fundamental change republicans ultimately must seek - but he agrees that the oath has to change.

So, congratulations to Norman Baker (who, incidentally, is in double favour at present) and the 21 other MPs launching the motion - both for the motion, and for pissing off Tebbit.

Boris Johnson scrapped two more projects today - one on the grounds it might result in the accumulation of chewing gum. On his halting of plans to pedestrianise Parliament Square, he said:

“This scheme would have turned a green glade of heroes into a vast, blasted, chewing-gummed piazza.

“There is absolutely no sense in Londoners paying £18m from their already stretched transport budget in order to reduce capacity on London’s roads.”

Note BoJo’s strange lack of faith in humanity, whom he feels would be unable to respect his heroes. He damns the plan for possibly creating a, “vast, blasted piazza”; and yet fails to note that, in its present state, it’s virtually impossible to cross the Square in less than 10 minutes on foot. It’s left a vast, blasted, choked field surrounded by busy roads. Hardly a, “green glade,” then.

Perhaps more crucially, the Mayor’s scaled back plans for 60 hydrogen vehicles designed to act as prototypes for sustainable public transport. It’s a strange move for a man who claims to be committed to cleaner fuel and to the environment in general; those buses could represent an important step. Boris can ride his bicycle all he likes while the press watch - but he can’t expect to be taken seriously on green issues if he just ignores them.

Quoth William Hague:

“The more people know about David Cameron, the more they like him.”

Actually, the more I know about David Cameron, the more I shudder at the damage he’ll do if he becomes Prime Minister and, as recently promised, blames the poor for being poor. Or did Hague mean something else?

McCain’s campaign hit a new low today when Paris Hilton made fun of him. That she displays a sharper grasp of elementary satire of McCain, his advertising and herself is bad enough; that she can make a more effective attack ad than his campaign must just hurt.

(Hat-tip: JimJay’s Twitter feed.)

The Police surrounding Kingsnorth Climate Camp were issued a booklet entitled “Policing Protest” by the sinister sounding National Extremism Tactical Coordination Unit. Indymedia brings us a dropped booklet - and very englightening it is too. The pamphlet is very vague in places, with key terms defining what precisely constitutes an offence left to individual judgement and whatever’s considered, “ordinary,” by the office (see p7).

So, are there any dangerous extremists at Kingsnorth? I think it’s time to consult the booklet. Section 4 of the Public Order Act 1986 states:

An offence is committed:

I if a person uses towards another person threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or

II Distributes or displays to another person any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

with intent to cause that person to believe that immediate unlawful violence will be used against him or another by any person, or to provoke the immediate use of unlawful violence by that person or another, or whereby that person is likely to believe that such violence will be used or it is likely that such violence will be provoked.

So, in short - if an individual frightens another individual with the threat of violence. Did that happen at Kingsnorth? Why yes, comrades. You see that snarling man in the centre wearing a fluorescent jacket brandishing what looks to be a blunt object, as though he’d do violence against those unarmed citizens; he looks to be just such a dangerous extremist. And don’t those unarmed civilians look scared?

Note also that provocation to unlawful violence is an offence - one the Police already stand accused of. Baton charges and full riot gear aren’t usually deployed against pacifists and vegans. It’s uneccessary, and smacks of an attempt to intimidate said vegans. So when those baton charges are carried out, they become offences under Section 4A of the same Act:

An offence is committed if with intent to cause a person intentional harassment, alarm or distress, a person:

I uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
II displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

thereby causing that or another person harassment, alarm or distress.

Not looking good, is it? Similar offences took place under Section 5 of the Public Order Act. Unless, of course, smashing the windows of supply vans and the confiscation of materials essential to basic hygiene isn’t an attempt to harrass protestors.

Perhaps the Kent Police will fare better under Section 12 of the Public Order Act, which deals with public processions. It states that conditions may be imposed on activity if it might result in:

I serious public disorder

II serious damage to property

III serious disruption to the life of the community

IV the purpose of procession is the intimidation of others with a view to compelling them not to do an act they have a right to do, or to do an act they have a right not to do.

Let’s treat the columns of police vans that made their way to Kingsnorth as a procession. They’re guilty of all four offences, I’m afraid, thus:

I Baton charges rather count, I think.

II See exhibit A; note also the theft of soap, crayons, board games, essential building materials, etc.

III We can treat the Climate Camp as a community; it has its own food supplies, kitchens, and even neighbourhoods. The Police have surrounded this community, search anyone who wants to enter it, cut off its food supplies and stolen numerous personal possessions (see II). This seems likely to have disrupted the community.

IV Peaceful Protest is a right guaranteed under the Human Rights Act. The protestors haven’t yet perpetrated violence, so can be assumed to be peaceful; they’ve thus a legal right to do as they have. The Police have interrupted their protest, and so compelled them not to do an act they have a right to do.

Section 14 concerns spontaeneous protest, so we’ll let them off here; the Police have clearly planned this for a while.

We move onto the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001 now. Section 42 concerns harrassment of the individual within their home. It states directions may be given should:

I that person is present outside or in the vicinity of any premises that are used by any individual ( “the resident”) as his dwelling;
II that individual believes, on reasonable grounds, that that person is present there for the purpose (by his presence or otherwise) of representing to the resident or another individual (whether or not one who uses the premises as his dwelling), or of persuading the resident or such another individual that he should not do something that he is entitled or required to do or
that he should do something that he is not under any obligation to do;
III that individual also believes, on reasonable grounds, that the presence of that person (either alone or together with that of any other persons who are also present) amounts to, or is likely to result in, the harassment of the resident; or is likely to cause alarm or distress to the resident.

We’ve already defined the Climate Camp as a settlement; it follows that tents and shelters contained in that settlement should be defined as (temporary) dwellings. The Police have entered into that settlement, patrolled outside the dwellings within, and taken possessions from those dwellings. That smacks of harrassment - and so, another offence against their own rules.

There follow a long string of inapplicable sections, before we reach Section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994. It states an offence is committed if an individual trespasses and, “does anything to intimidate persons on that land,” to deter them from any legal activity. So - how does entry into a private tent and taking soap, with the immediate intent to prevent protestors from engaging in the legal activity of washing, and the wider intent of making legal protest less attractive, sound? Like an offence, that’s what.

The section regarding Offence by Harrassment is obscured. But, given that we’ve already shown harrassment has taken place, we can assume the police are culpable here, too. Likewise Section 4 of the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997, which makes it an offence to, “pursue a course of conduct, ” which, “causes fear,” that violence will be used against them; that Baton Charges were threatened and occured incriminates the Police here. Preventing food supplies reaching the camp almost certainly required a public highway to be obscured; an offence under Section 137 of the Highways Act 1980.

So, that makes the Police at Kingsnorth guilty (at least) of offences under the Public Order Act 1986; the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001; the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994; the Protection from Harrassment Act 1997 and the Highways Act 1980. Quite a charge sheet. But where will we keep them all while they’re on trial?

The Police can only justify their existence when they protect liberty. And yet, at Kingsnorth, they’ve demonstrably abused the law - and broken it on numerous occasions. The Climate Camp protestors have exercised their democratic right to protest, and the police have tried to stop them. In a more firebrand mood (or when drunk), I’d denounce them - and their masters at Westminster - as enemies of popular freedoms who fully deserve to be torn apart in a wild and bloody revolution as the people reclaim their rights. As it is, I’ll merely shake my head and say that I really do worry…

(Hat-tips for evidence: Indymedia, JimJay, Coventry Greens, Stuart Jeffrey)

It isn’t a great week for the Home Office, is it? First, overt abuse of police power at Kingsnorth; and now the Lords splatter 42 Days. It’s just a shame it’s in August, where it’s easier for them to ignore the obvious by sitting on a beach…

Caroline Lucas on police behaviour at Kingsnorth Climate Camp:

Sitting in a teepee in the peaceful Kent countryside, surrounded by campaigners from across the UK mulling over the future of renewable energy and swapping vegan cake recipes, you could be forgiven for temporarily forgetting the outside world and its many woes. Perhaps, then, we must also forgive the police at the climate camp in Kingsnorth this week for losing their grip on reality, as the sense of perspective which should have underpinned their policing strategy for the event flew straight out of the canvas window.

The police – primarily from the local Medway force but Metropolitan officers are also in evidence – have raided the camp twice now, confiscating items that included crayons, disabled access ramps, marker pens, banners, radios for relaying fire and medical emergency information, the nuts and bolts holding toilet cubicles together and blackboard paint. They have found it necessary to use pepper spray without provocation, and several campers have been arrested and bailed off the site for “obstructing” increasingly aggressive police officers.

Everyone who enters the site is being searched. Police officers are taking anything away that “could be used for illegal activity”, with efforts being made to strip protesters of such hardcore weapons of choice as bits of carpet, biodegradable soap and toilet paper. In the absence of any serious threat, the police clearly found it necessary to justify their presence with an unprovoked attack on personal hygiene.

Perhaps the government would like to explain how this isn’t an abuse of that anti-terrorist legislation they claimed would never be abused? The protestors at Kingsnorth are demonstratably peaceful; they’re serving food based in the notion that killing anything is an abhorronce, and want to educate.

There was some talk of trying to disrupt productions at Kingsnorth, yes. But that, surely, would justify (in terms of the law, rather than what’s necessarily right) little more than a police cordon around the power-station? Enough to protect the site, but allow those protestors within the camp their democratic right to protest. And yet the police have turned out in full riot gear, regularly harrassed the protestors, and confiscated private property which clearly presents no danger whatsoever; they claim wax crayons are accessories to terrorism. Given the pacific nature of the camp, that simply reeks of an attempt at intimidation and political policing.

Which must, of course, be resisted at every level.

EDIT: Via Stuart Jeffrey comes the manual issued to police officers at the Camp. I wonder how many of those charges they’re guilty of themselves…

Ali scoffs at McCain’s ad strategy - and I’m inclined to join him. But there’s evidence that McCain might slowly develop a more effective line:

Superficially, the ad makes little sense; Obama is popular, so he must be bad. But that’s not the point. Just look at the imagery deployed. Paris Hilton, screaming crowds, camera flashes - the world of vacuous, effeminate celebrity. McCain portrays Obama as a suit as empty as Hilton’s head, and as ill-deserving of his popularity.

It won’t convert many floaters - who’ll see the ad and quite possibly share Ali’s reaction. What it’ll do is rally Republicans who were so disillusioned by the whole election as to stay home. If McCain can turn Obama into a figure they hate - the effeminate vacuity of these ads - they might just come and vote for the Republican, however much they feel he’s a shallow moderate himself.

Obama’s response to such attacks is the only possible, and should prevent too many independents being taken in. But McCain’s insidious new line might help him a little.