Finsbury Square Eviction 1

All stand please, and we rose to the occasion, unlikely looking collars chafing, ladies in neat stings of pearls. All, that is, except “Mr., ah, A. N. Onymous”. “In addition to insisting on wearing a pillowcase and goggles,” continued the judge, “he is self-diagnosed elective deaf and mute… Even if admitted to the court, he could not engage in court process, because he would neither hear, nor would he speak.”

The campers remaining at Finsbury Square, seven months after it had been occupied by members of OLSX, are facing eviction. Finsbury Square has been contentious ever since the St Paul’s site and the Bank of Ideas were evicted, when this calm eco-village received a large influx of occupiers. As well being up all night resisting the police and losing their makeshift communities, many were homeless and brought their issues with them. Amidst the idealism and a genuine commitment to welfare were issues with substance abuse and alcoholism, long term marginalization and vulnerability. This was never going to be easy.

“I think that deals with Mr., ah, Onymous,” said the judge, before continuing with housekeeping. Although the social and economic issues with which Occupy was concerned were of the highest importance, he was not there to decide, nor even consider, the fine merits of those views. What would be relevant were the rights and interests of the claimant and human rights of the defendants. He was courteous and attentive throughout the proceedings, his own contribution to the pantomime spoken with studied understatement.

The defendants outlined their defense strategies, as friends and McKenzie friends looked on. Owen’s argument revolved around the fact that it was an act of God, and the precise meaning of that would be made clear later. Arthur, the second defendant, stood up:

“Unfortunately, I disagree with the whole Babylon system, which includes this space,” he began. After some treasonous suggestions about the validity of our monarch’s coronation, and raising doubts about the authority of a judge sworn to serve her, the defendant asks – “do you have a right to judge me?”

“Well, yes,” replied the judge, unaware of Arthur’s Messianic identity.

“That is my job.”

The third defendant introduced a less controversial defense, based on the articles of the European convention on Human rights, specifically articles 9 and 10, concerning freedom of conscience and of expression. The claimant’s QC indicated that he would argue the simple facts of the case – that the land belonged to the claimant, the Borough of Islington, which was losing rates and rent as a result of the occupation, that their right to expression had been endured for seven months, which was quite sufficient, and that the increases in crime anti-social behaviour were unacceptable. Furthermore, though the council was obliged to house homeless residents of the borough, and helping them find alternative accommodation, these people were trespassers, not residents.

The case continues