Show Hide image

Laurie Penny: Inside the Parliament Square kettle

The supposed heart of British democracy has become a searing wound of rage and retribution.

There is blood on my face, but not all of it is mine. I'm writing this from the UCL occupation, where injured students and schoolchildren keep drifting in in ones and twos, dazed and bruised, looking for medical attention and a safe space to sit down. It's a little like a field hospital, apart from the people checking Twitter for updates on the demonstration I've just returned from, where 30,000 young people marched to Whitehall, got stopped, and surged through police lines into Parliament Square.

They came to protest against the tuition fees bill that was hauled through the House yesterday by a fractured and divided coalition government. They believe that parliamentary democracy has failed them, that the state has set its face against them. When they arrived at Parliament Square, they found themselves facing a solid wall of metal cages guarded by armed police.

Then the crackdown began and it was worse than we feared. As I write, a young man called Alfie is in hospital after a "police beating" that left him bleeding into his brain, and all the press can talk about is the fact that a middle-aged couple -- one of whom happens to be the heir to the throne -- escaped entirely uninjured from some minor damage done to their motorcade. The government will no doubt be able to find the money to repair the royal Rolls Royce, but yesterday it declared itself unable to afford to repair the damage done to these young people's future.

A kind father of one of the protesters has brought in a vat of soup; I'm slurping it and trying to stop my hands from shaking. Two hours ago I was staring into the hooves of a charging police horse before a cop grabbed me by the neck and tossed me back into a screaming crowd of children, and the adrenaline hasn't worn off.

Behind me, on huge makeshift screens showing the rolling news, reporters and talking heads are praising the police and condemning the actions of young protesters as "an insult to democracy". But when you see children stumbling and bleeding from baton wounds and reeling from horse charges underneath the glowering auspices of former prime ministers carved in bronze, when you see police medics stretchering an unconscious girl away from the grass in front of Westminster Abbey, her pale head swaddled in bloody bandages and hanging at a nauseating angle, you have to ask to whom the real insult has been delivered.

What I saw a month ago at Millbank was a generation of very young, very angry, very disenfranchised people realising that not doing as you're told, contrary to everything we've been informed, is actually a very effective way of making your voice heard when the parliamentary process has let you down. What I saw two weeks ago in the Whitehall kettle was those same young people learning that if you choose to step out of line you will be mercilessly held back and down by officers of the law who are quite prepared to batter kids into a bloody mess if they deem it necessary. What I saw today was something different, something bigger: no less than the democratic apparatus of the state breaking down entirely.

In parliament square, huge bonfires are burning as the young protesters in front of the horse lines at Westminster Abbey struggle against a new punishment tactic the police seem to have developed: crushing already kettled protesters back and down with riot shields. I find myself caught at the front of the line, squeezed and clamped between the twisting bodies of terrified kids, and my feet are swept from under me as the kids at the front tumble to the ground.

We all go down together, horses looming above us, baton blows still coming down on our heads and shoulders. I am genuinely afraid that I might be about to die, and begin to thumb in my parents' mobile numbers on my phone to send them a message of love.

On top of me, a pretty blonde seventeen-year-old is screaming, tears streaming down her battered face as she yells abuse at the police. The protesters begin to yell "shame on you!", but even in the heat of battle, these young people quickly remember what's really at stake in this movement. "We are fighting for your children!" they chant at the line of cops. "We are fighting for your jobs!"

I struggle to my feet just in time to see a young man in a wheelchair being batoned. Disabled Jody McIntyre is dragged screaming out of his wheelchair when the police realise that photos are being taken, and shunted behind the riot lines as an even younger man who was pushing the chair shrieks, "Where are you taking my brother?". Then, for some reason, the police decide to attack the empty wheelchair while Jody's brother is still steering it, perhaps in a cartoonish attempt to destroy the evidence.

The protest was never supposed to make it to Parliament Square. Desperate not to be kettled again, the young people who marched out of schools and workplaces and occupied universities all over the city veered away from several attempted containments and diverted into side streets, determined to make it to the seat of government to make their voices heard. When they got there they broke down the barriers surrounding the symbolic heart of the mother of parliaments and surged into the square for a huge party, dancing to dubstep, the soundtrack of this organic youth revolution. Besides the apocalyptic bonfires and thudding drums in the containment area, dazed and battered protesters share out rolling tobacco and carby snacks. "Hey, look at this!" giggles one girl, "I'm eating Kettle Chips in a kettle!"

This time, unlike the first three big days of action, there certainly is violence on both sides. While some students came prepared, even bringing a portable tea-and-cake tent complete with minature pagoda to the kettle, others have brought sticks and paint bombs to hurl at the police. In the face of fellow protesters screaming at them not to "give the coppers a reason to hit us", stones are thrown at horses as angry young people try to deter the animals from advancing.

Many of these young people come from extremely deprived backgrounds, from communities where violence is a routine way of gaining respect and status. They have grown up learning that the only sure route out of a lifetime of poverty and violence is education -- and now that education has been made inaccessible for many of them. Meanwhile, when children deface the statue of a racist, imperialist prime minister who ordered the military to march on protesting miners, the press calls it violence. When children are left bleeding into their brains after being attacked by the police, the press calls it legitimate force.

Hanging off some traffic lights, my back aching from the crush, I have the best view in the house of this "legitimate force" being enacted, as a line of riot cops forms a solid carapace of beetlish menace and marches forward into the crowd, raining down baton blows. Then the protesters cluster together and push back, and my mouth falls open as I see the police retreat into formation. I am suddenly reminded of school history lessons about Roman battle tactics, and indeed, looking down at my hands as I type, I notice that they are covered in blue paint and streaked with blood. It's clear who the Anglo Saxon warriors are in this equation.

When I drop down from the traffic lights, my arms and back aching from being crushed earlier, I find myself at the front of the riot line, being shoved between two shields. Fighting for breath, I am shoved roughly through the line by two police officers; twisting my neck, I see a young woman in a white bobble hat pinned between the shields and the crowd, screaming as the batons come down on her head once, twice, and her spectacles are wrenched from her face. Her friend is shrieking, "please don't crush us, we can't move back, there's no room!" She is pushed through the line, too, and the police refuse to find her a medic. "I've never been on a protest before, I'm a completely peaceful person -- I'm doing my PhD on Virginia Woolf," she pants, her face streaked with tears of anger. "My name is Helen Tyson, and I'm disgusted, utterly disgusted by the police today." We cannot speak any more, because a huge officer in full armour taps me on the shoulder and orders me to leave. When I explain that I am a member of the press and I'd like to observe what's happening, he tells me that this is a "sterile area", and I am dragged away by my arms and legs and dumped by Horse Guards Parade.

A sterile area: that's what the heart of our democracy has become, a searing wound of rage and retribution cauterised by armoured and merciless agents of the state.

Things fall apart. Something fundamental has changed in the relationship between state and citizen over the past month. Increased police violence will not stop our democracy disintegrating: before it's too late, before more children are brutalised at the heart of what once pretended to be a representative democracy, this government needs to consider its position.

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.

Getty
Show Hide image

When to take a leak, abuse in Ambridge, and Ian McEwan’s identity supermarket

First thoughts on Cameron and the Panama Papers, Caitlyn Jenner, and The Archers.

A few months ago, I wrote a piece for Nieman Reports, Harvard’s journalism magazine, about the ethics of working with leaked and stolen documents. There are tough questions to be asked about running such stories – the article was prompted by the Sony hack, which unearthed public-interest gems such as how an executive had bought pubic hair dye on Amazon – but the Panama Papers are the most open-and-shut-case I can remember.

Unlike the disclosures of WikiLeaks and Edward Snowden, there is no question here of national security being breached; unlike the Sony hack, there is no celebrity tittle-tattle being passed off as news. The only questions that should have troubled reporters are:
a) “Are these documents real?” and b) “Can I protect the source?” Whoever leaked the 2.4 terabytes of data is very brave; he or she is now in the sights of every corrupt politician, state-sanctioned gangster and kleptocrat between here and the Río Chagres.

 

Shameless rich

Reading the Papers gave me a huge rush of anger and I was glad to see left and right united in condemnation. But we have to be realistic about the likely impact: it is notoriously hard to embarrass the super-rich and they will now have ample confirmation that “everyone is at it”. So far we haven’t even been able to extract an answer from David Cameron over his father’s Blairmore fund, established when David was 16. Were his Eton fees paid with money that had previously taken a lovely sunny holiday offshore? Was his Bullingdon Club uniform bought with wealth grown using a system his own Chancellor has called “morally repugnant”?

The most telling line came in the rebuttal from the firm involved, Mossack Fonseca, which claimed that in 40 years of operation it had never been charged with criminal wrongdoing. No, I imagine not.

 

A tale of two Helens

So she did it. OK, you might not care about The Archers, but unless you’ve stuffed your ears with cheese, by now you should know that Helen Titchener stabbed her husband, Rob, after months of escalating emotional abuse. May I toot the horn of our web editor, Caroline Crampton, who spotted the potential impact of this plotline in February and published a harrowing but essential piece by the writer Helen Walmsley-Johnson, who had suffered a similar pattern of abuse? As a result of the NS publishing her story, a crowdfunding appeal was set up and over £100,000 has been raised for the charity Refuge, to help women like both Helens to leave their partner.

On that note, the Archers story might have ended with Helen knifing Rob – but in the real world, men are four times more likely to kill their partner than the other way round.

 

Nail-varnished truth

I’ve always loved Eddie Izzard – that routine about “the pen of my aunt” is unparalleled in modern comedy – but I’m baffled why he now claims to have come out “as transgender 30 years ago”. I may have fallen victim to false memory syndrome, but my recollection is that he always called himself a transvestite, though he used to explain that the clothes he wore weren’t “women’s clothes”; they were “his clothes”. (My take on the subject? I’m with RuPaul: “We’re all born naked and the rest is drag.”)

Izzard – who has long harboured ambitions of becoming an elected Labour politician – is perfectly entitled to define himself however he wishes and to update that definition based on the latest vocabulary and cultural moment. Yet I can’t help feeling that there is something regressive about this biographical rewrite. Izzard used to present himself as someone who was biologically male but enjoyed wearing clothes historically associated with women. Now he talks about getting his nails done because: “I’ve got boy genetics and girl genetics.” I can’t wait to hear which particular DNA sequence is associated with liking nail polish and, moreover, why I don’t have it.

 

More than old-fashioned

Izzard was responding, in part, to remarks made by the Booker Prize-winning novelist Ian McEwan, who used a lecture at the Royal Institution to lament the modern idea of an “identity supermarket”, in which individuals choose their self like a “consumer desirable”. (He later added: “Call me old-fashioned but I tend to think of people with penises as men.” Having spent some time on Twitter and Tumblr, I can confidently say that a lot of people will call him something worse than that.)

The question of whether your identity is determined only by you or is imposed by society might sound like one of those things that keep first-year undergraduates up in a marijuana haze until 3am, but it has pretty big implications for policies ranging from the Race Relations Act to measures that concern single-sex spaces such as prisons, as well as the funding that backs them. We mustn’t dodge it.

 

Inside and out

I’ve been chewing the question over since I watched the varying responses from progressives to Rachel Dolezal (a white woman who got a perm and a tan and passed as African American, saying that she “felt” black) and Caitlyn Jenner, the former patriarch of the Kardashian clan, revealed as a woman on the cover of Vanity Fair.

Most of the op-eds at the time blithely asserted that race and gender – both social constructs with a biological basis – were, like, totally different, without ever deigning to explain why. Since then, the best explanation I’ve found comes from the sex researcher James Cantor: “Identity is not an ‘inner sense’. It’s a statement of the social role you want others to treat you as.”

I like this, because it makes the (important) case that trans men and women should be accepted in their chosen gender, without invoking quasi-religious ideas of a soul or the pseudoscience of “girl genetics” making you like dresses. Eddie, take note. l

Peter Wilby returns next week

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

This article first appeared in the 08 April 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Tories at war