The Great Debate: Time to Downscale?

Talk has begun on whether we should take St Paul’s offer to have a permanent, scaled down camp. Should we agree? Pack up and leave altogether? Or bed in at our ‘spiritual home’?

FOR: Peter Dombi

 

There has been much discussion recently about the future of our St Paul’s site, and whether it is worth hanging on to it with possible eviction looming. Other factors apparently against it are that it is now only one of four central London occupations, numbers there have dwindled due to a combination of poor weather and the attraction of indoor accommodation at the Bank of Ideas, and the difficulty of maintaining a coherent operation with constant disruption and negative publicity due to some of the individuals that have been attracted there.

 

I think it is time to think strategically about our London occupations and what each one can bring to further our campaign. In my view St Paul’s remains absolutely crucial as it is our flagship location, and remains foremost in the minds of the media and the general public (in many cases it is the ONLY site that people are aware of). It is also the main place for people to visit if they want to find out more about our movement (only Finsbury Square could possibly compete as most members of the public are unlikely to ever feel comfortable entering a repossessed building), and the setting is utterly iconic.

 

Therefore it is my firm view that we should downsize the site as a residential area (ie remove most of the small private tents, and possibly the kitchen and tea areas too – these can all move to our other sites) but increase the scale of the operation as a site for events, discussions, working areas and publicity.

 

My recommendation would be for an expansion of the TCU, Info and the Library, plus erection of a few other similar sized areas where Working Groups could put up displays outlining what they have achieved, what they are doing now, plans for the future, and other areas of general interest. I also think there would be real practical advantage in having tents where Working Groups could actually hold their meetings. Not only would this lead to greater transparency, but members of the public could actually observe what we are doing ie. we are all working really hard coming up with ideas for a better society and not just sitting around ‘protesting’.

 

In many cases this could well be just what it takes to inspire them to join our movement. It is my view that transforming the area in this way would greatly increase our reach to the general public, while at the same time downsizing the overall size of the site could possibly get us around the problem of eviction. It would also almost certainly mean the departure of some of the more disruptive elements of the camp. The only permanent residency of individuals there would be whatever is deemed necessary to ensure overall security and particularly protection for the camp at night.

 

FOR: Tina Louise Rothery

 

That we sleep in tents on the streets of London or on Wall Street or anywhere else – is not what defines the Occupy Movement.

 

At the outset, Occupy Wall Street stated:“We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice and oppression over equality, run our government. We have assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.”

 

Thousands of us assembled in London on October 15th 2011 for the very same purpose. Hundreds stayed and have sacrificed to get our movement noticed and we have indeed succeeded in starting a conversation that was previously muted.

 

I have slept on site for roughly half the week, each week since the first day and witnessed the camp develop in many ways; there has been a great deal of good but much difficulty has come as well. I believe it is now time to plan the next phase in Occupy’s evolution and for me, de-camping is a part of this. Outreach, education and unified local actions across the country seem a natural progression along with maintaining a permanent presence in the place where it started; a non-residential one that provides information, education and a place to gather for key events and actions.

 

This next action does not reflect a failure by the Occupy Movement – we never set out to create a Utopian campsite; we set out to discuss and reach for deep political and societal change. Now the day to day demands of camping in a major city with a host of social issues are overwhelming the ability of the Occupy movement in London to focus on its aims.

 

The ratio has tipped to a point where our energies are ploughed into directly helping or simply surviving the situations and individuals who most need the change we demand; the homeless, the mentally ill, drug addicts and alcoholics. These individuals are in need of warmth, food, community, support and all that we bring – but it means we have little time for much more than camp organisation to simply cope each day.

 

Another consideration is our claim to inclusivity as a sacred principal at Occupy; the disabled, the elderly, the very young, the workers, the mortgage payers; the parents at home with children and those with insufficient funds to even get to an Occupy site, are excluded by our focus on maintaining the occupation of tents as a core imperative.

 

Occupy LSX has achieved much; it has generated massive public and media interest and sparked a national conversation about the way we want to live our lives, the way our economic system really works and its deep infiltration of our government structure. It has led some in the Church of England to question the morality and fairness of the church. It has exposed the City of London Corporation as a manipulative, undemocratic institution that is a law unto itself and beholden to none. It has attracted the support of many and allowed some voices in government, unions, church and the media to finally have cause to speak about these things.

 

If we do not choose our next move, it will be forced upon us and that takes away our control. There is a danger that we will simply be driven from the camp (by the authorities or our own individual inability to cope with the conditions).

 

We need to choose now if we are going to remain and just continue to draw attention to the problems of society (and risk being over-run by them or evicted as a result of them) – or get out into society and start making the solutions. It is not without some sadness that I choose the latter.

 

AGAINST: Mircea Barbu

 

The space we are occupying in the heart of London has huge financial value, but we’ve shown that it has a value to people beyond money. Most property, space and buildings have become merely ‘assets’, acquired for their value or used for the production of wealth. Occupy is reinstating some of the human value back into buildings and spaces by making them democratic, inclusive political spaces.

 

There are so few ‘free’ spaces left in which to meet, talk and organise – or even just socialise. We don’t have many social centres or youth clubs left anymore. There are pubs, but they lack privacy and come at a financial cost some can’t afford. Time and space in which to exchange and develop ideas are essential for the type of change we’re aiming for. Therefore, we should Occupy as much as we can and hold the space as long as possible. If we allow corporate elites to pressure us in to packing up camp now, St. Paul’s will have been a glorified campsite. I say we stay until we get the change we want to see.

 

 

AGAINST: Nidia Castro-Rojas

 

There is something to be said for the spectacle element of our St Paul’s campsite. Some might say that with all the social issues it has highlighted, it is indeed a spectacle, but it is becoming a negative one, overwhelming the campers and preventing them from doing more productive work. I think that how you frame or define this ‘spectacle’ is quite important. The issues we have should not be seen as failings of the camp, but failings of society at large, of the system that this government and others uphold at the cost of a balanced and nurturing community.

 

It is true that with all the good will in the world, we don’t have the manpower or the expertise to deal with these problems on a 24/7 basis. So, we admit defeat and pack up right? Wrong. The charities, organisations and individuals who normally devote their time to trying to alleviate or resolve these problems should be invited to see themselves as part of the Occupy movement. They are suffering from the cuts too, making already difficult work nearly impossible. They have been put to the bottom of the list after profits and individual gain for the 1% just like the rest of us. If we work together we could highlight the fallacy of calling for a ‘Big Society’ whilst pulling the rug out from under society’s feet and simultaneously come one step closer to creating the kind of community we’d all love to be part of.

 

 

AGAINST: Matthew Horne

 

The land we currently occupy is symbolic. Its lies between god and mammon, metaphorically speaking. St Paul’s has historically been a place for people to express their dissatisfaction at authority which has broken the ancient contracts between the people and crown.

 

Big business has been put before the lives of people and as a result we have chosen to occupy a space that echoes the collision between the two fragments of society that command great power; the church and corporations. They are, in an ideological sense, enemies, but in today’s world their ideas have become somewhat blurred and difficult to differentiate at an atomic level.

 

Thomas Jefferson said, “When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty.” As someone who was sent to promote democracy in a foreign land, only to bring about oppression and a decade of suffering that will become decades more, this quote means a lot to me personally. It doesn’t mean burn the place to the ground, it means resist until true change is completed.

 

2011 was a symbolic and unexpected year, but 2012 will be one to go down in history for all eternity, we will see a change in stance to how the government deals with dissatisfaction, oppression will rise, poverty will rise. We will continue to be told that they are dealing with it, that it will be fixed. But we care not just about our own personal dilemmas. Great suffering, lies and deceit have begun to shine out of the darkness; we must continue to nurture and steadily fuel these lights. Until all humanity has its basic rights enforced and needs met, unhindered by the greed of a tiny proportion of society.

 

This is why St Paul’s must be maintained. If we lose the case, then the historical symbolism of this space will be lost forever. When the government begins to recognise who its truly supposed to represent and begins tackling big business and financial gambling, then we will leave and go home. But for as long as governments continue to be bought and paid for by big business, then we will continue to occupy, and reclaim spaces that have been taken from us.