UK Uncut & Black Bloc – They All Look The Same To Me

Since the events of last Saturday, both the mainstream media and the police have sought to blur the lines of distinction between UK Uncut and the black bloc 'anarchists' that attacked the Ritz, Santander and Starbucks. A total of 201 arrests were made following Saturday’s march. Charges have been brought against 149 people, 138 of which were charged with aggravated trespass in connection with the Fortnum & Mason protest organised by UK Uncut.

New footage from the Guardian indicates that UK Uncut was deliberately targeted by police and this attempt to demonise UK Uncut and associate them with violent disturbances has been systematically reinforced by mainstream press and social networking sites. But why would the establishment seek to portray UK Uncut as violent ‘anarchists’? And why would the police choose to ignore violent behaviour in favour of arresting peaceful activists from a growing protest movement?

Well, on the face of it, UK Uncut is an easier and more manageable target – but that analysis is far too simple. We should instead ask who represents the greatest threat to the ‘establishment’?

In purely cosmetic terms, anarchists – with their penchant for smashing up expensive hotels and discharging paint bombs over high-end shops – are a fearsome threat to society. Their behaviour is sadistically iconic but, in truth, their actions alienate more than they attract and their activity is easily managed. But, my word, do they make for a good photo opportunity!

UK Uncut, on the other hand, represents a real and fundamental threat to the established order. The movement – fluid in its organisation and fiercely tech-savvy – has grown steadily since it was formed last year. Although not dogmatically political, their activity is distinctly class-based: they target organised capital or, more precisely, the tax-dodging classes – such as Vodafone, Top Shop or Boots – and their tactics are articulate, peaceful and original. Take, for example, the occupation of banks and the impromptu organisation of pop-up libraries or stand-up performance. Their thoughtful mobilisation – coupled with the resurrection of trade union activism – has had a profound effect on the established order and prompted this vicious backlash which hopes to gut the movement of activists and starve it of public support.

UK Uncut was targeted by police in an attempt to discredit them and encourage people to confuse peaceful demonstration against legitimate targets with violent vandalism. Anarchists were not targeted in the same way because their antics serve to fragment the labour movement by alienating potential support and providing a stick with which to beat the left. Characterising UK Uncut as thuggish criminals serves to undermine their sophisticated and peaceful activism.

The repression of UK Uncut has – at its very core – the class struggle and it shows that the antagonism between labour and capital is as strong as ever. UK Uncut has steadily been able to raise awareness of tax-dodging corporations and this has had a positive effect on raising the consciousness of British workers – but there was always going to be a backlash. On Monday it was announced that parliament is to investigate corporate tax avoidance – a formidable victory for the movement. Let’s hope it’s just the start.

The Black Bloc: A Modern Guerrilla

Firstly, I would like to point out that I am aware the black bloc is not a group or movement itself but a tactic used by a lose number of groups. For a good guide see Dan’s explanation. I also don’t wish to give the impression that black bloc tactics and actions have been carefully thought through and organised to achieve the effect they have.

Much has already been written about the events that transpired on Saturday’s March for the Alternative. However, what I have found lacking is an analysis of the motivations and tactics of the parties involved. The black bloc tactic sits perfectly within the modern age, making it surprisingly effective which, in turn has inevitably distracted attention from the rest of the anti-cuts movement and has damaged the effect of peaceful protest (as a result partly of police action).

Attending the march on Saturday and seeing it all play out I was shocked at the surreal nature of the interplay between the police, the media and the black bloc. The bloc tactics seemed surprising at first. By wearing full black and covering their faces from the outset the “trouble makers” were easily identifiable even before any action was taken. They were setting off bangers and smoke grenades before the first attacks on Santander and the Ritz. They were also always in groups the largest of which I saw numbered around 80 again, before any damage occurred (which is larger than most of the media footage displays largely due to the fact that they split into smaller groups later). Looking at the figures it would appear that these tactics were futile in resisting arrest. The police charged 149 people with a range of crimes due to civil disobedience on Saturday which is a significant number.

This number however includes the arrest and charging of 138 peaceful UK Uncut protesters at the Fortnum and Masons sit in. Therefore, only 11 other arrests were made. There have only been two charges of violent conduct made. The truth then is this, if you want to be involved in direct action using black bloc tactics and destroying property is less likely to get you arrested than a peaceful occupation. It’s clear that the police saw the Fortnum and Masons occupation as a honeypot of chargeable offenders that they could add to their very small arrest list.

Whilst the block bloc are clearly identifiable as outlined above they are not arrestable by police. You can’t arrest someone for wearing black. It's also difficult to arrest one person who has committed a crime after they have run back into a crowd of people identical to themselves. This exploits the media who are able to quickly spot and shoot trouble.

Look at any of the videos of damage on Saturday and you will notice that people with cameras and on lookers vastly outnumber the bloc. In the now famous “I’m a cop!” video you can’t help notice that of the 4 people in the bank 2 are journalists. Notice how many people are surrounding those pushing the bin through the front doors and how they are just standing watching and filming. Also notice how no one was arrested.

This is why they were so effective. Relatively small groups of 10-20 were free to roam independently causing damage unopposed. Once the police arrive their first priority is to stop the damage. Once this is done the group has already moved on, hit and run style. Only 11 police officers were treated for injuries on Saturday which shows the bloc’s aversion to direct contact.

The attack on the Ritz was stopped by about 6 police men just standing together even though they were vastly outnumbered. The result of these tactics is that the media gain a ton of footage and the bloc members aren't arrested and are free to go home and watch themselves on TV.

The media are already hooked on the bloc and after having run out of news are now reporting that the Royal wedding is the next target. Such an assertion fundamentally misunderstands the tactic since the Royal Wedding will be centred in a set of defendable locations surrounded by pro royal onlookers. However, the bloc could attack the same targets as on Saturday which will be completely undefended since the police will be elsewhere.

Do these attacks help further promote an anti-cuts/anti-government message? In all of the coverage I have seen on the attack on Topshop the fact that Philip Green dodged £285 million in tax is mentioned as a motive. Did the peaceful sit in by UK Uncut in that store in November get the same exposure? No. Will anyone reading an article focus on the damage of the tax dodge or the damage done to a number of buildings in London? If I was to burn down a whole hospital I would be unlikely to clock up £285 million worth of damage.

Would the march alone have gained as much coverage? Does the attention attained from this coverage help or hinder the anti-cuts movement? I am unsure. What I do know is that the bloc’s success promoted by the media and the police targeting of peaceful activists has left peaceful protesters the victims on Saturday.

Special Protest Video: March for the Alternative

Special Protest Report: Inside Black Bloc

As we march across Piccadilly Circus towards Piccadilly a group of about three to four-hundred anarchists peel in from the right and begin parading in parallel to the TUC march. It’s not clear where they’ve come from and it’s hard to tell how old they are. Clad in all black their faces are covered with a variety of masks, bandanas, scarfs, ski masks and gas masks. Although the majority are men, there are a number of women and – as far as you can tell from body-shape and eyes – they seem to age from around 16-25. The smell of adrenaline and purpose hangs thick in the air.
The anarchist line swoops in engulfing the wide road as we lurch to the left and hear the sound of fire-crackers behind us. With the iconic black and red flags of the CNT held aloft they stride purposefully down Piccadilly. The loud bang of fire-crackers continue to erupt behind us growing ever-closer as we parade past lines of banks interspersed with expensive shops. The beast has found its prey.
Within the blink of an eye a fire-cracker explodes just to our right as the line of anarchists turn on a six-pence and immediately start marching in the opposite direction. We turn to see them swarming round a branch of Santander. A smoke bomb spews forth a green mist and pockets of the group throw themselves at the bank’s windows. The window buckles under a tirade of fists and feet but the flexi-glass doesn’t break. A volley of colourful paint bombs splatter the walls as a stray smoke bomb bounces off the brick and ricochets back into the crowd as it spits out its vibrant haze.
The spectacle is watched by half a dozen policemen across the road. They stand there perfectly still relaying a running commentary into their radios. The anarchist group turns apace and accelerates down Piccadilly and descends on the Ritz. The offensive becomes a blur as the crowd pelts the Ritz with more paint and attempt to gain entry via a side gully. Small clusters break-off and begin throwing stuff at the police as the paparazzi –seemingly from no-where – weave in and out wearing hockey helmets for protection before returning to the hive of the group and disappearing into the sea of black.
The crowd advances down Piccadilly and by now the side roads are lined with riot police. They remain still in line gathering information and relaying updates as the anarchists surge on Starbucks before disappearing into the London streets like dissipating green smoke. We don’t encounter them again until we arrive at Hyde Park – but their kaleidoscopic calling-cards adorn all surrounding walls and virtually every street corner (or police riot van) is daubed with an anarchist ‘A’.
It’s a fascinating experience to witness first-hand the anarchist tactic of black bloc. Black bloc is not an organisation or faction, it is a tactic different anarchist groups use for security and to avoid arrest. Here’s how a website promoting the tactic describes it:

The Black Bloc is a tactic that has been used in demonstrations for years. It is used as a security and safety measure. In it's essential form, each participant of a Black Bloc wears somewhat of a uniform. The idea of wearing this uniform is that if every single person in the Bloc looks relatively alike, it is hard for the police to determine which individual did what. For instance, if a Black Bloc participant throws a brick at a store window and runs into the Bloc, she will easily blend in with everyone else. However, if a person wearing normal street clothes happens to throw a brick and run into the Bloc, chances are that she will have been filmed or photographed and later caught by the police.

The group we witnessed was more than likely a coalition of multifarious anarchist groups united by the mutually beneficial tactic of black bloc. The common uniform gives them the opportunity to blend inconspicuously into the group whilst the geography of the location – flagged as it was by numerous streets on either side – provides an ideal getaway and allows the group to divide into smaller parties and reconstitute elsewhere. With reports of numerous assaults of varying sizes across London it appears the group was an amorphous mass able to split, divide and reform without much effort. Indeed, it’s conspicuous how a number of photos in our photo album show the anarchists in constant communication via mobile phone.

Historically anarchists may seek the abolition of authority but, yesterday at least, it seems they were very well organised.

Media Watch: March for the Alternative

Unsurprisingly, the photo editors of Britain’s Sunday papers have been seduced by the evocative and powerful images of anarchists “on the rampage in central London” during yesterday’s March for the Alternative.

Although most papers chose a photo depicting street violence – with the Independent on Sunday adopting a particularly powerful vista – the Observer and The Star both went with huge crowd scenes and no paper dared deny the magnitude of the march with estimates ranging from 250,000 to 500,000 protestors. Regardless of which figure you go with, a couple of hundred anarchists is but a tiny minority and hardly representative.

Both the events yesterday and the media coverage today bring into question the role of direct action in the labour movement. Of course there are times when direct action is necessary – and civil disobedience was crucial in the civil rights movement and the suffragettes – but the anti-cuts movement is a different beast and I fear what the press term ‘violent extremism’ could discourage families from protesting in the future and undermine what should be a broad movement.

It’s also important, however, to draw distinction between the peaceful and effective direct action employed by UKuncut and the more aggressive black bloc tactics used by anarchists yesterday. In many cases – such as the occupations of Topshop and Fortnum and Mason – anarchists hijacked legitimate UKuncut demonstrations. UKuncut have shown in the past they use peaceful means to occupy establishments in order to gain publicity, create a spectacle and raise consciousness. Unfortunately, anarchist activism which involves attacking rather than occupying is too divisive for a political movement in its infancy and undermines attempts to create a critical mass of opposition. A revolution has never been won on adrenaline alone – it requires developed consciousness, mass support and effective mobilisation.

The newspapers’ sensationalism, however, shouldn’t distract attention from the true story to come from yesterday’s events. It was the story of something we haven’t seen for a while and something which most people had written off as doomed or extinct. Yesterday we saw the re-awakening of the trade union movement and the forceful demonstration of a mass labour movement mobilised by sectional interest but organising collectively. Yesterday showed that half a million people on the streets of London – with many more sympathetic and unable to attend – represents the majority of public opinion.

It is the responsibility of all those who attended the demonstration yesterday to spread the story of a peaceful, united and passionate march and ensure it isn’t hijacked by the sensationalist press. The success and unprecedented scale of the march makes it easier for trade unions to organise militant action in workplaces and – with the full impact of cuts yet to come – the momentum is with us. The March for the Alternative shows that the fight-back has just begun.

Special Protest Report: March for the Alternative

The TUC had organised the 26 March demonstration months in advance. Everyone knew it would be big, but just how many people and which groups would turn up in central London on the day? Estimates of numbers vary between sources, but it was probably around 500,000. It definitely felt comparable to the demonstration against the Iraq war in 2003.

Victoria Embankment was already full of banners and placards by the time EoP arrived at 10:30am. We were pleased to join numerous trade unions, activists, public sector workers, unemployed, disabled people, and protestors. It was interesting to see the diversity of groups extended to women’s organisations, music and theatre unions, physiotherapists, and pensioners all marching alongside revolutionary and political parties.


We started marching just after 12pm. Trade union branches from around the country were represented in their delegations and many workers – from nurses to firemen – marched in uniform against the cuts.


Walking towards Westminster, we caught up with the teaching unions NASUWT and the NUT, protesting against cuts to education.


The route took us up Whitehall and past Downing Street where you could hear the crowd’s deafening boos. The march was apparently 4 miles long, so let’s hope Cameron heard our discontent for a good few hours.


Trafalgar Square was about half way along the route. People took the chance to rest, climb statues to protest, and a large Trojan horse circled Nelson’s Column.


From Piccadilly Circus, we moved along Picadilly – the home of Fortnum & Mason, several banks, and the Ritz. On our right, a stream of about 200 anarchists joined the protest. They seemed very well organised, and we caught sight of them causing havoc at branches of Santander, Starbucks and the Ritz. This was action distinctly separate from the main, peaceful march. We’ve included a photo below, but more can be found in our Facebook photo album.



Amongst a suddenly heavy police presence we reached Hyde Park at about 3:30pm. There were hundreds of thousands of people there already. Speakers at the rally included Ed Miliband, Brendan Barber, and Mehdi Hasan, who all praised the great turnout. We were told at 4:30 that people were still arriving - and information on Twitter suggested that the march still stretched back to Whitehall.



We left Hyde Park for a well-deserved tortilla down Oxford Street. We passed Oxford Circus, and the spectacle that was Topshop’s flagship store. It’s not the first time this store has been targeted by UKUncut, but it had certainly been hit harder than any previous occasion. The paint-splattered windows implied that it had been targeted by the anarchists who had previously attacked the Ritz, de Beers Jewellers and Starbucks. A wall of police was protecting the store, and it certainly wasn’t open for business. Even passing shoppers couldn’t help but take a photo. As I write, there are still reports that police are defending the store.

We participated in the main, peaceful, family-orientated march. We also caught a glimpse of the minority’s actions against businesses and the rich. It will be interesting how the Sunday papers will report the march tomorrow. Will they focus on the 500,000 or the 500?

Click here for our full photo album

A Priceless War

Why are you marching?

On Saturday 26th March thousands of people will take to the streets in an act of opposition to government cuts. Cuts are coming hard and fast - from the voluntary sector to the systematic dismantling of the NHS - in an attempt to divide opposition, fragment dissent and nullify alternatives.

In anticipation of the March for the Alternative we canvassed online opinion from activists on why they are opposing government cuts. Here are some of the responses we received from ordinary folk - we hope you will share your own:

“I am not on the actual march, I am doing the armchair army march instead cos I am disabled. I am 'marching' because the govt is not chasing tax dodgers hard enough, my son and I live in poverty and he needs his EMA so he can get out of poverty and eventually find a job. I am marching for a living wage for my boyfriend who stands at a machine all night long for just above minimum wage. I am marching for people who need help in hospitals, for doctors, for nurses, for teachers, for the armed forces, fire services, other public sector workers and anyone else who is struggling under the reckless behaviour of our banks and financial institutions. I want those people who broke our laws in the financial crash brought to justice, their assets seized and returned to the people.” Clare Jordan

Chris McCabe is marching “for justice and against wars & the banksters’ coup”

“I’ve never been on a march before but I’ll be out on Saturday. I’m disgusted by the cuts to the Film Council and the effect it’ll have on the arts.” Jimmy Burns

“If there’s money in the Treasury reserve for war in Libya, why isn’t there money for public services? That’s why I’m marching.” Trev Fish

“I'm marching because I don't want my children to have to live in the same kind of miserable Tory world I had to endure when I was their age, a life with no prospects, no work and limited access to education. I am a member of the Socialist Party and Northampton Alliance to Defend Services, and was actively involved in the campaign against the Poll Tax under Thatcher when I was my daughter's age (18), and in supporting the miners when I was my son's age (10). My daughter hopes to go to University this September, the first member of my family ever to do so, yet she faces leaving education with a massive debt to cripple her early life. I am also marching for my clients. I am the manager of a Homeless Hostel and my vulnerable clients are having their access to benefits and health services slashed, and their home put at risk. I am also marching in solidarity with those in the middle east and across the world who are rising up against their capitalist oppressors.” Del Pickup

"I am marching on the 26th because I care.

I am appaulled at the current levels of unemployment, especially among young people. The Con/Dem Government's plans to cut public sector job, pay and pensions is unnecessary, cruel, and will ultimately do more harm than good. I am very angry with the absurd levels of tax avoidance, which the millionaire government deliberately turns a blind eye to.

I, along with over 100,000 people, want to show the Government and the big corporations that we will not take cuts to our essential services, privatisation, sale of publicly owned assets, rises in fees and brutal attacks on our trade unions.

I firmly believe that united, we can win against the government, and the March for the Alternative will hopefully earn the workers of Great Britain a place in the history books." Ed Stuttard.

Will you be on Saturday's march? Let us know why you will be marching below.

Anonymous

From childish beginnings the collective known as Anonymous seems to be maturing into a politicised group. The following message was recently posted on Anonymous's news page. In calling for action they seek to bring a new era forged from debate, equality and plurality. This message is not new but what is interesting is the technological prowess that Anonymous possesses. If anyone can challenge the status quo in causing damage to those with power then it is probably them. If you don't know who they are please check out their Wikipedia page for a brief history.

Open Letter To The World

We stand at a unique time in our history, the rise of the internet and computer technology have contributed to an unparalleled rate of prosperity for the First World.

We have created for ourselves and empire unlike any other, a global network of constant trade and communication, a new age of technological advancement. We have come a long way from our humble roots in the Industrial Revolution and the days of Manifest Destiny. We are now pioneers on new digital frontiers expanding our domain from the quantum world to the far reaches of space.

And yet, the empire faces a crisis, a global recession, growing poverty, rampant violence, corruption in politics, and threats to personal freedom. As it was before in other times of crisis, the old stories have begun to repeat themselves. The half truths, this time repeated nightly on cable news and echoed through a series of tubes onto the internet: the empire is strong, change is unwise, business as usual is the answer. In times of uncertainty there are those who seek to add to the confusion, to prey on our insecurities and fears. Those who would seek to keep us divided for their own gain. The pervasive strategy takes many very convincing forms: Liberals and Conservatives, Christians and Muslims, Black and White, Saved and sinner.

But something unexpected is happening. We have begun telling each other our own stories. Sharing our lives, our hopes, our dreams, our demons. Every second, day in day out, into all hours of the night the gritty details of life on this earth are streaming around the world. As we see the lives of others played out in our living rooms we are beginning to understand the consequences of our actions and the error of the old ways. We are questioning the old assumptions that we are made to consume not to create, that the world was made for our taking, that wars are inevitable, that poverty is unavoidable. As we learn more about our global community a fundamental truth has been rediscovered: We are not so different as we may seem. Every human has strengths, weaknesses, and deep emotions. We crave love, love laughter, fear being alone and dream for a better life.

You must create a better life.

You cannot sit on the couch watching television or playing video games, waiting for a revolution. You are the revolution. Every time you decide not to exercise your rights, every time you refuse to hear another view point, every time you ignore the world around you, every time you spend a dollar at a business that doesn't pay a fair wage you are contributing to the oppression of the human body and the repression of the human mind. You have a choice, a choice to take the easy path, the familiar path, to walk willingly into your own submission. Or a choice get up, to go outside and talk to your neighbor, to come together in new forums to create lasting, meaningful change for the human race.

This is our challenge:

A peaceful revolution, a revolution of ideas, a revolution of creation. The twenty-first century enlightenment. A global movement to create a new age of tolerance and understanding, empathy and respect. An age of unfettered technological development. An age of sharing ideas and cooperation. An age of artistic and personal expression. We can choose to use new technology for radical positive change or let it be used against us. We can choose to keep the internet free, keep channels of communication open and dig new tunnels into those places where information is still guarded. Or we can let it all close in around us. As we move in to new digital worlds, we must acknowledge the need for honest information and free expression. We must fight to keep the internet open as a marketplace of ideas where all are seated as equals. We must defend our freedoms from those who would seek to control us. We must fight for those who do not yet have a voice. Keep telling your story. All must be heard.

Media Watch: Jingo All The Way

The New Statesman columnist Peter Wilby recently implied that government foreign policy in Libya could be determined by domestic concerns:

Cameron, as cuts hit home, is likely to experience levels of public unpopularity similar to those recorded for Margaret Thatcher before Argentina invaded the Falklands. Lest we forget, approval ratings for Thatcher’s government were below 30 per cent for 18 months before the Falklands war. After victory, they stayed above 40 per cent for two years.

Starting a war worked for Thatcher, so why not her Etonian protégé? The botched SAS mission could even be viewed as an attempt to gauge public reaction to intervention in Libya.

I have to admit I was sceptical about Wilby’s assertion. Unlike in the 1980s, I thought the population too war-weary and the military too overstretched and fatigued by prolonged conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq to countenance another potentially entrenched war. But desperate needs call for desperate measures and, although military intervention in Libya might not have an immediate effect on public opinion, it certainly helps unify the tabloid press behind an increasingly unpopular government and this, in the long-term, will help shape public opinion. This could be crucial in fortifying the Conservative vote in May local elections.

The phrase “take all measures to protect civilians” means the UN Security Council Resolution amounts to much more than a no-fly zone: it allows air strikes and any military action except landing troops (for now). How anyone could believe a no-fly zone could represent anything else – when its policing would require strict military enforcement – is staggering.

Many people – of both the left and right – see military intervention as necessary in order to protect civilian lives. I’m not quite so convinced what our motivations are and think we need to be much more cautious about our response to military action.

Does this mark a watershed in British foreign policy? Will we be embracing a consistent policy of helping civilian struggles around the globe, or will we pick and choose depending on the incumbent regime and our existing trade relations? Will we abandon hypocrisy and cease arming despots and tyrants? History tells us to be sceptical and only time will tell. What is certain though is that the tabloid press love a war and - saturated in imperialist jingosim - will rally behind the government. It might just be the intervention Cameron is looking for.

Special Protest Report: The Liberal Democrat Spring Conference, Sheffield

Yesterday, EoP attended an anti-cuts, anti-coalition protest in Sheffield city centre along with around 4000-5000 other people. The march began on Devonshire Green – a stone’s throw from the City Hall – did a circuit around some of the main streets, and ended at the heavily-fortified City Hall where the Lib Dems were hiding away to hold their spring conference. The protest was, in general, a very peaceful affair with a real mixture of people in attendance, from families to students (college and university) to older people. Placards and banners sporting a wide variety of slogans and messages were on display, ranging from Socialist Worker Party ‘Stop all the cuts, fight for every job’ messages, others demanding 'no more lies', to my personal favourite ‘Go away naughty baddies that lie’. Once at the line of steel and police blocking our approach to the conference, chants of ‘Nick Clegg, shame on you for turning blue’ and ‘Barrrrnsleyyyy’ began in earnest (the latter of which was of course a reference to the Lib Dem’s terrible result in the recent by-election where they were forced into sixth place behind even prize fools UKIP).

One thing that did surprise (but probably shouldn’t have) was the reaction of many of the Lib Dem delegates. For around 2 hours several of them stood atop the stairs of the City Hall watching and, in some cases, taunting the protesters as they pushed and swayed against the barriers. One elderly delegate even had the arrogance and general disrespect to hold aloft a picture of Nick Clegg to the crowd while laughing and smiling in a rather pitiful attempt to incite further anger. Later, another delegate who was walking to the conference outside the protective bosom of fencing, police dogs and police officers, told a protestor who was simply standing with his sign outside Barleys Bank and who couldn’t have been more than 16 to ‘try doing a hard day’s work’. This kind of attitude - which seemed to be quite pervasive – arguably shows the true nature of the Liberal Democrat Party. Not only did their leader break almost all of his pre-election promises for a chance at some form of power, but his party’s rank and file seem to have grown to resent many the people their party was actually elected by. One honourable exception to this was a delegate who responded to calls from one group of protesters using a loud-hailer to come and explain why they were supporting a government that was cutting services and giving tax-breaks to the rich.

There were, of course, several speeches at the height of the rally. Union leaders calling for a general strike were the predominant theme but Labour MP Paul Blomfield also gave a fairly well-received speech where he highlighted the narrow margin with which he scraped victory at the General Election in May – the Lib Dem candidate lost by under 200 votes. Following this there was some general rowdiness as a determined group of demonstrators hammered the fencing with placards and fists and an anti-Gadaffi protest also formed a short distance away. Some blogs have reported around 50 anti-capitalist protesters rampaging through the retail district and successfully shutting down several tax-dodging businesses but EoP did not witness anything of this kind so we can’t confirm or refute the details of this. We witnessed only one arrest and this was near the beginning of the rally outside the City Hall when a demonstrator leapt the fence holding a flare and was quickly subdued by around 5 officers.

Overall the protest seemed very successful and a turnout of 5000 people is nothing to be sniffed at, even if the media and police were floating ill-founded claims of 10,000 during the run-up to the event. What has been disappointing is the media’s reporting of yesterday’s events. While it is understandable that the media’s gaze has been firmly fixed on the tragic events in Japan and Libya, the coverage of this important protest – during one of our governing party’s conferences - has been, quite frankly, dismal. The most in-depth report of the event seems to have been a piece in the Guardian which manages to be both patronising to the thousands of protestors who turned out to exercise their democratic rights, and almost entirely misleading. Perhaps the Guardian doesn’t want to rock the boat after its pledge of allegiance to the Liberal Democrats shortly before the General Election? Or maybe the media intelligentsia (with the exception of some coverage in the Daily Mail with vastly under-reported numbers, and some in local papers) – along with the BBC, who have been equally lax in their coverage - just feel that reporting properly on such events is beneath them or even irrelevant? This may seem like a minor inconvenience – after all, we turned out and sent a message to the Lib Dems – but information, as they say, is power. If other like-minded people around the country don’t get to hear that there are large numbers of citizens protesting about the very same things that they are angry about – cuts to jobs and public services and the favouritism this government is showing to big business over average people – then they may not feel they have any chance at resisting. Or perhaps because there was very little juicy violence for them to get their teeth into the media felt it was too boring to fill air-time or column inches? Whatever the reason, we now have a task for the protest in London on 26^th March: make sure we make it so big and so loud that there’s no way anyone can ignore us.

Democracy - our gift to the world

This week’s New Statesman editorial argued that “support... for democracy in the Arab world remains both a moral duty and an act of national self-interest” and called for a multilateral fund – similar to the Marshall Plan – to be “deployed to support economic development and civil society in the region’s nascent democracies”. The New Stateman’s assertion – mired in flawed logic – is symptomatic of the left’s struggle to find a coherent response to the unravelling revolutions in the Arab world.

The NS contends that Britain needs “an unambiguous commitment to the promotion of democracy” and criticises the coalition’s intention to withdraw all UK funding from the International Labour Organisation (ILO). The ILO, according to the NS, is “the UN agency that co-ordinated the trade union struggle against apartheid in South Africa and Stalinism in Poland”. But both the Polish and South African transitions to democracy show us that international bodies can be used to impose a particular model of liberal democracy – often counter to the interests and desires of the population – that aggravates wealth inequality and undermines the local economy in favour of international capital.

In Poland the International Monetary Fund – in cahoots with transnational corporations – exerted severe pressure on the leading trade union Solidarity to implement neo-liberal Friedmanite policy and sell off national resources such as state shipyards and factories to the private sector. Solidarity – born from the stagnation of centralised Soviet communism – craved real democratic worker ownership of the economy, but international finance – using the rhetoric of democratisation – conspired to create a ruthless market economy. Similarly, in South Africa, the strangulation of the economy by the IMF forced the ANC to abandon many of the legitimate democratic demands of the Freedom Charter – such as nationalisation of key industries, industrial control and land redistribution to indigenous peoples – and, just like in Poland, the catch-all term ‘democracy’ was used to denote something very specific: neo-liberal democracy.

Democracy is an emotive term which few people could disagree with; but ask someone to define democracy and the question becomes more troublesome. The Guardian reported today that “Britain wants to withhold £1bn in annual EU support for the region unless greater democracy is introduced” – but where was our moral compass when we were cosying up to these dictators before? The fact is – perhaps unsurprisingly – that our foreign policy is not motivated by international altruism but pragmatic self-interest and the contention that it is our “historic debt to the people of the Arab world” to promote ‘democracy’ through international organisations controlled by the Western powers is little more than cloaked (albeit skewed) imperialism.

Support for democracy is a moral imperative – but our interpretation of democracy cannot be confused with neo-liberalism and it cannot be imposed by an alien force – either militarily or economically. Neither can it prescribe an economic programme or dictate how natural resources should be organised. It needs to be a movement of the people and by the people without outside influence.

The New Statesman’s leader is imbued with a subtle tone of nationalism and colonialism that suggests we have the right – and obligation – to dictate to the Libyan people what political system they should choose. Developing nations do not seek to interfere with the domestic affairs of sovereign nations, so why should we seek to impose our model on them? Despite what some on the supposed left may believe, democracy cannot be implemented from above; it must be a demand from the mass of people below. Some people might have faith in international bodies helping to orchestrate democracy but many people – from South Africa to Poland and from Latin America to Iraq – might just disagree. I don’t know for sure though, because I don’t feel I have the right to speak for someone else.

Top 10: Women in History

In celebration of International Women’s Day we’ve compiled a list of 10 of the greatest women in history – writers, musicians, politicians, civil rights activists and philosophers. Here they are in order of birth date – but let us know who else you think should be included...

Mary Wollstonecraft (1759 – 1797)
Wollstonecraft is seen as one of the founding mothers of the feminist movement. Her most important work was A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792) in which she attacked educational restrictions that kept women in a state of “ignorance and slavish dependence” and created an artificial inequality between men and women. Wollstonecraft was a powerful advocate of gender equality and contended that society should be divested of the monarchy, the church and military hierarchies.

Sojourner Truth (1797 – 1883)
Born a slave in New York, Sojourner Truth was originally called Isabella Baumfree but gained her freedom in 1827 and later, after going to court to recover her son, became the first African American to win such a case against a white man. Truth was an abolitionist and women’s rights activist whose 1851 speech on racial inequality – Ain’t I a Woman? – gave birth to the black feminist movement.

Emmeline Pankhurst (1858 – 1928)
Pankhurst was leader of the British suffragette movement and helped win women the right to vote. She formed the Women’s Social and Political Union and employed a number of militant tactics including direct action and civil disobedience. Pankhurst was imprisoned a number of times and undertook numerous hunger strikes. During World War One, Pankhurst encouraged women to do all they could for the war effort and, in 1918, the vote was secured for women over 30.

Rosa Luxemburg (1871 – 1919)
Luxemburg was an eminent Marxists theorist, philosopher, economist and activist. A leading member of the Social Democratic Party in Germany, she opposed revisionist and reformist elements within the movement and co-founded the anti-war Spartakusbund in 1915 with Karl Liebknecht. She played a leading role in the Germany Revolution at the end of World War One but regarded the 1919 Spartacist uprising as a tactical blunder. She was murdered along with Liebknecht by right-wing paramilitary Freikorps and became a martyr for the German far-left.

Simone de Beauvoir (1908-1986)
Regarded as the mother of second-wave feminism, de Beauvoir penned the term “one is not born, but rather becomes, a woman”. Her epoch-defining The Second Sex, was published in 1953, and remains a key text in western feminist thought. De Beauvoir was a socialist and existentialist, and wrote several books on politics, ethics and autobiography. De Beauvoir was the life-long companion of Jean-Paul Sartre.

Rosa Parks (1913 – 2005)
Parks was an African-American civil rights activist known as “the first lady of civil rights” and “the mother of the freedom movement”. On 1 December 1955, Parks refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Parks’ defiance became a symbol of the modern civil rights movement and she became an icon of resistance to racial segregation.

Anne Frank (1929 – 1945)
Frank is one of the most renowned victims of the Holocaust and her diary – charting her family’s experience of hiding from Nazi forces in occupied Holland – has become one of the world’s most widely read books. Anne Frank’s diary is not just an important historical document; it stands as a testimony of Jewish resistance against brutal and systematic persecution.

Vilma Espín (1930 – 2007)
Espín was a revolutionary leader in Fidel Castro’s 26th of July Movement and a prominent advocate of women’s rights. The image of her and several other women shouldering rifles and wearing combat fatigues helped change attitudes about the role of women in Cuba. Espín founded the Federation of Cuban Women (FMC) in 1960 which – with over three million members – is the largest women’s organisation in Latin America. Women now occupy 64% of university places in Cuba and hold 43% of positions in parliament – ranking Cuba third in the world for female political participation.

Joan Baez (1941 - )
Baez was the most prolific female singer songwriter in the 1960s, but her folk songs were backed by political conviction. Through music and action, she promoted civil rights alongside Martin Luther King Jnr and protested against the Vietnam war. She was an early champion of Bob Dylan (documented in her song ‘Diamonds and Rust’) and they frequently performed together in the 1960s and 70s. To this day, Baez is an advocate for peace and human rights.

Aung San Suu Kyi (1945 - )
Suu Kyi was at the forefront of Burma’s democratic uprising in the 1980s. She helped form the pro-democracy party and was appointed General Secretary in 1988. Suu Kyi was detained during the 1990 elections, which was won by Suu Kyi’s party, but denied by the dictatorship. Suu Kyi spent more than 10 years under house arrest in Burma, before being freed in November 2010. Her cause was internationally recognised and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991.