Reflections on Finsbury Square

In the early hours of June 14th, the camp at Finsbury Square was evicted with no arrests. As the character of the site changed over the seven month occupation, Finsbury Square (FS) became a contentious subject for both the general public and members of Occupy.

Islington council tolerated the camp for longer than many activists, but finally brought a case at the beginning of June. A broad spectrum of defense strategies were taken up, including invoking articles of the European Convention on Human Rights concerning freedom of conscience and expression, and the right to a home. One defendant’s contention that it was God’s will – made exactly as the colourful activist Sister Ruth entered the court – was dismissed. The opinions of another on the validity of the queen’s coronation were equally unsuccessful.

“Do you have a right to judge me?” asked the defendant, referring to the judges oath to an illegitimate monarch.

“Well yes,” replied the judge. “That is my job.”

How are we to judge FS? If this is the shape of things to come, and tent cities are to be a feature of either activist or homeless communities, what can be learned from the experiment? What went right, and what could have gone better? The OT explored these questions through a range of perspectives.

Claude Melville

If the government or police wanted to know how to derail activists combating their agenda, they need look no further than Finsbury Square. David Cameron’s crackpot ‘Big Society’ idea was designed to relieve the state of its responsibility towards vulnerable people, tasking the people with providing welfare instead. This alone should be opposed, but at Finsbury Square we saw another side-effect of such a plan which further enables the status-quo.

Activists tend to be compassionate people. For most of us, our motivation to organise or agitate comes from wanting more for those worst off in society. When FS started to become more of a refugee camp than a political occupation, some of us were made to feel that we should drop all political activism to care for the homeless. I was told I had no compassion, despite the fact that I already volunteer in a recognised homeless centre, where they have the expertise and resources to genuinely help.

By falling into the trap of providing quasi-help for people at FS, rather than highlighting and combating the source of problems like homelessness (which Occupy started off doing), people played right into the government’s hands. On one hand the protest was quelled, and on the other, people did the state’s work for it.

Catherine

Over time, the camp exposed class divides within Occupy London, as well as the difficulties derived from inequality. As the Evening Standard observed, FS wanted to be an eco village, and started out with herbal teas, while Occupiers at St Paul’s cracked open the beers. It all changed.

The FS welfare team gave hours of love and support. This included practical measures towards harm reduction for drug users, and a qualified psychiatrist who came to listen to people with respect and solidarity for their humanity and their political struggle, their anger and their love for each other.

People took care of those around them. There was a lot of sharing (albeit of vodka as well as food, blankets and tent space). A lot of Occupiers walked away from FS, disgusted at the conditions and behaviour, unwilling to engage with difficult issues on a human level with people who might be violent and drunk. For some of us, however, both ‘privileged’ and less so in our conditioning, FS allowed us to get closer to each other as real people, and help within the process unfolding in this small patch of occupied land. Finsbury was off-line and off-the-grid, where news travelled by word of mouth. It was an opportunity for people to be real human beings. There are as many FS experiences as Occupiers, and some of us are deeply grateful for our time there.

Hazel

Finsbury Square was the country cousin of Occupy LSX. It had soft grass that you could stick a tent peg into. Residents lived in cute huts made from reclaimed wood, skipped for food and planned an eco-village.

Then St Paul’s was evicted. Alcoholics and “wannabe” anarchists descended on the Finsbury idyll. Soon the drive to be self-reliant was aborted. The Occupy movement’s money – legacy of donations collected at St Paul’s – was a new rallying point. “What’s the money in the bank for, if not to support us?” the campers whined. Finsbury became dependent on Occupy funds and attracted more and more takers, fewer givers. Those advocating energy efficiency and self-sufficiency were shunned, punished, pushed out. Political activism was largely dropped, along with temperance and a spirit of consensus.

In the last weeks at Finsbury, dissolution ruled under the guise of compassion. Addicts were enabled by the ‘anything goes’ mantra. As rain turned the camp into a quagmire, violence and self-harm spiraled. Occupy money poured in but the kitchen cupboards were frequently bare.

It was a nightmare that many activists withdrew from, unable to endorse what was happening but powerless to prevent it… but still the camp provided more love, stability and comfort than many of its inhabitants could find elsewhere.

Emily

By the end, the camp in FS was certainly a shadow of its former self, but taking the site at face value undermines the efforts of those activists who worked tirelessly towards the changes they feel are necessary in the world. It appears that Occupy activists living in Finsbury Square were the only people willing to take care of the desperate individuals who turned to them for help. They were forced to turn their attentions away from their original cause in order to address the plight of those more needy than themselves. The social conscience and responsibility which this group has shown in its selfless aid of fellow humans is a rarity in this financially-focused city.

Letter from a member of the public

As a local city worker nearby, I am concerned by attempts to evict the Occupy camp in Finsbury Square. The space was often used as a dog walking area, shortcut and sometime summer picnic zone, but was hardly an area of outstanding natural beauty. I feel that it is a much more productive use of the space, to embody the disquiet of the nation at spiraling financial events, than used as a grazing zone for bored office workers. We do have a choice of venues to escape our desks. There is valuable discussion raised by virtue of the camp existing. It might be a bit messy and inconvenient at times, but so is democracy and for sure our financial system.

Find further reflections on the OT blog, please feel free to add your voice.