Occupying something!

Well, on Tuesday I wrote a piece complaining that the Occupy movements seem mostly to have only succeeded in occupying lawns and patches of grass.

In the early hours of Friday morning, Occupy London took over an office building owned by UBS, one of the banks that received public money in the big bailout.

Admittedly, it was an unused building, not one where anything is being done or where the protesters might strike directly at the heart of the "1%", but in a sense this is even better, judging by what they say they aim to achieve by doing it.

The following video explains a bit more about it, with shots explaining how they got in, the notice that they are claiming squatters' rights (a squatters' rights activist group helped with planning and executing the occupation), their first press conference, and a walk around talking about their plans for the building.



I like very much this news, and it looks like Occupy London at least are looking for the bigger picture, and trying to make something change directly.

From the Guardian report (linked above):

In contrast to Occupy's existing camps in the capital – next to St Paul's Cathedral and on Finsbury Square – the new outpost will not be primarily residential but aims to act as a forum for ideas and meetings.

Called by protesters the Bank of Ideas, the buildings, near Liverpool Street, will hold an inaugural conference of Occupy movements from around the UK this weekend.

...

"The Bank of Ideas will host a full events programme where people will be able to trade in creativity rather than cash," said Sarah Layler of the group. "We will also make space available for those that have lost their nurseries, community centres and youth clubs to savage government spending cuts."

In keeping with the queries I had regarding how participatory versus representative/elected democracy could work on a national scale, I am curious about how the conference of UK Occupy movements is going to work, in terms of determining who turns up, how the concerns of the different Occupy constituencies are adequately represented, etc. Again, I am excited that Occupy London (and, I guess, "Occupy UK") is going to be confronting and dealing with those issues, by virtue of actually going ahead and trying to do it.

One question I want to raise, because this is a feminist blog an'all, and because it's an issue that I care about quite deeply, is the question of whether they are going to (be able to) use the occupied building to help victims of domestic violence? It was reported back in March that services to help them were to be hit severely by the cuts. The "to be able to" qualifier is there because I don't know whether the needs of DV survivors might require a separate building or not (for instance, due to concerns about sharing a building with male-identified folks - the footage in the video seems to show quite a restricted entrance/exit as the only one in use, which might induce very negative emotional problems). I also don't know if they would have the necessary counselling skills available to help survivors. Hopefully, they can make women's issues such as these a priority, even if they can't actually offer the practical requirements for a DV shelter.

Be all that as it may, it is a very encouraging step.

I am slightly amused at the way it was done, because it strikes me as terribly stereotypically English the way they've gone about this:

An attempt by the Corporation of London to have the St Paul's camp removed is set to reach the high court on Wednesday. The Finsbury Square camp is on land owned by Islington council, which has privately told activists it does not have the money to pursue a court case.

UBS, however, could apply very quickly for legal repossession of the buildings and request bailiffs, backed up by police, to move in. A spokeswoman for the Swiss-based bank said: "We know they're there, and we're taking appropriate action."

...

At a hastily-arranged press conference inside the UBS building, about a dozen activists answered questions while sitting on a stained blue office carpet in front of a vast Occupy London sign. The group said it hoped to avoid confrontation with police and had asked UBS about agreeing temporary use of the site. UBS said it had no comment on this offer.

In the video, the Occupiers were at pains to emphasise the above-board nature of the occupation: first, talking to the police outside, they quote the relevant section of the legislation that allows them to stay (and as the policemen walk away, a protester calls to them from the window, "Thank you very much"; then, at the press conference, they say, "There was no criminal damage, and, this is a completely legal occupation."

So, they take occupation of the building and then say to the owners, "Can we arrange a temporary use of this building?" How stereotypically English is that!? Heck, the only thing spoiling it is that they all look like New Age layabouts - if they had either shaved and cut their hair, or just worn smart business suits (not both - you need some kind of visible badge to say "we are hippie-ish protesters") then it would have been the most English-looking protest ever!

But, I love it. It's how you win this battle, I think. They do everything above-board, politely, and as law-abidingly as they can, but they still make their point, use the force that is necessary (and no more), and they take practical steps to try to make the changes that they want to see. This is what I felt was missing when I wrote my piece on Tuesday. This is what movement looks like. This is excellent.

They want the idea to catch on, too - in the press release (read out in the video), they say:

We hope this is the first in a wave of public repossessions of property belonging to the companies that crashed the global economy.

This could be the start of something big.

Now, the hard work begins: they have to repair and clean up the building they've occupied. They have to sort out the legal position so that they can actually put on the programme of events that they have planned:

There is a slight potential conflict between the protesters' stated intention to make the building a public space and its status as a squatted building. This will be overcome by designating visitors "friends" or "guests".

In the interim, the building remains shut to outsiders, making it a different prospect to the open-to-all ethos of the other camps, where passersby and local workers have been welcomed.

But this is how change comes about. If I had the freedom to go and help out, then I would, because I am not afraid of hard work when there's something worthwhile involved (like a revolution! ;-) ). What I hope is that an Occupy... movement closer to me will start up, or will occupy a building near me, so that I can get involved directly. In the meantime, I'll cheer from the sidelines. And hope. And maybe make a suggestion or two... But I'm not volunteering to organise anything (been there, done that, suffered the mental breakdown...)

***

EDITED TO ADD:

The ambitions of the direct action organised by Occupy Wall Street in New York, aimed at shutting down the New York Stock Exchange, seem to have come to nothing, but the ambitions remain:

Protester Fran Agnone said it did not matter that the demonstration had not achieved its aim of shutting down the stock exchange. "That will come another day," she said. "All that matters is we're changing people's ideas. It started well, and we've still got a long day ahead of us."

Protesters did succeed in marching to commemorate 2 months since the Occupy protests began.

There were protests in St Louis, Los Angeles, Portland, Oregon, and other cities around the United States to mark two months since the Occupy movement set up camp in Zuccotti Park in New York.