Belarus - Europe's last dictatorship

Braving the elements a group of around 40 protesters gathered outside the Belarusian Embassy in Kensington, London to condemn the authoritarian rule of Belarus' president, Alexander Lukashenko, who has governed with an iron fist for the last 17 years.

Monday 19th December marked a year since Belarusian citizens took to the streets to protest against Lukashenko's presidential victory amid a suspected election rigging. The protesters were beaten and many imprisoned by the police in Minsk.

Earlier in the day supporters of the cause gathered to hear Joanna Lumley, Sam West and Michael Sheen read a selection of fairytales written by Andrei Sannikov - the opposition candidate who is currently imprisoned in Belarus with no access to his lawyer.

Following the reading the crowd collected outside the Embassy to deliver an Artist's Manifesto, signed by a host of familiar names including previous Chinese political prisoner Ai WeiWei, Jude Law, Kevin Spacey, Tom Stoppard and David Attenborough.

Andrei Sannikov's mother, Alla Sannikova, was there to witness the handover and delivered a few words of support for the cause as well as expressing concern for her homeland, where the goal of democracy increasingly eludes a country suffocated by Lukashenko's rule.

There are 16 political prisoners in Belarus, punished for daring to speak out against Lukashenko's government. Frequent violent police crackdowns take place in response to public demonstrations and strict restrictions are placed on artistic performances. The Free Belarus Theatre group is unable to perform in the country without the threat of imprisonment.

However, there are positive steps being made by the international community. A sign of progress was signalled by a recent meeting between UK government ministers and Belarusian opposition politicians. US Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, recently visited Belarus and urged the citizens in opposition to Lukashenko's oppressive regime to continue making their voices heard.

For now, the people of Belarus will have to keep fighting for their liberty with the hope that increased pressure on the Belarusian government from the international community will be enough to topple Europe's last dictator.

Occupy London Stock Exchange - a glimpse of day 1

There's always that strange calm before the storm at the beginning of protests-the hardened demonstrators are busy making final touches to banners, the ones sympathetic to the cause but unable to fully immerse themselves in outrage hover uncertainly and the hordes of long-lens cameras circle a crowd who seem dwarfed by the media. The mark of a 21st century protest perhaps.
Halfway through Peter Tatchell's impassioned speech calling for the end of free market capitalism the crowd surged away towards the left-hand side of Paternoster Square leaving him to defiantly continue with a dwindling audience.
Heavy house music soundtracked the chant of "whose streets? Our streets!" as the protestors surged towards the gates of the stock exchange building. The police were ready for them with a two-man deep line of officers blocking the way. The more determined demonstrators were pushed back by officers as they tried to enter the back entrance of the building, to which the crowd responded with collective chants of "shame on you" and "your jobs next".

With occupation of the London Stock Exchange looking increasingly unlikely the crowd moved back around to St Paul's cathedral steps and settled in for the occupation.
The staff in shops circling the square showed varying degrees of caution, with M&S and Blacks shutting up shop, Pizza Express serving a select clientele and Starbucks doing a roaring trade in americanos for the flagging few.

No doubt one of the politest protests staged in recent history, the microphone was open to all and decisions were made democratically by waving hands in the air to signal agreement. A human microphone technique was implemented to combat faulty technology with speakers shouting in short bursts and the crowd repeating their words in unison to the people at the back. Small groups then formed to discuss possible deficit strategies and to compare stories on how the recession has affected those in attendance.

At this point a low murmur began at the back of the crowd as a small flurry of bodies purposefully strode through the crowd-the Julian Assange entourage. He was greeted with rapturous applause and shouts as he mounted the steps of the cathedral and addressed the crowd, glibly remarking: "we're naughty boys and girls" before summing up his strictly allotted two minute speech with the assertion "this movement is not about the destruction of law, it's about the construction of law". Despite the warm welcome, his speech received a tepid response as shouts of "f*** off!" mingled with the cheers.
After four hours of peaceful protesting and sensible policing which saw tolerance and understanding on both sides, the police made the decision to kettle the crowd. This resulted in bemused would-be protesters waiting outside the line, unable to join the throng, and the crowd within the police line chatting pleasantly oblivious to the extreme measure that had just been employed. A High Court ruling in April of this year laid out that 'police may only take such preventive action [as kettling] as a last resort catering for situations about to descend into violence'. The mood at the Occupy London protest was calm, which could mean this instance of kettling was legally questionable.
Once the police line had stood firm for an hour they created one point of exit for the demonstrators and initially asked each person for their name and address. Other protesters walked along the queue advising those leaving to say "no comment". Following a string of "no comments" the police abandoned this democratically dubious approach.

The Big Society?

On a leaden grey morning demonstrators hurriedly unfurled banners, stamping feet and rubbing hands together to keep the cold out. The morning of the TUC anti-cuts march arrived with a chill in the air, but this only served to strengthen the attendees' determination.
It was quite a sight to see the thousands of protesters swarming along the Thames embankment waving cardboard placards, the slogans ranging from the politically relevant ’Why did Nick Clegg cross the road? Because he said he wouldn’t’ to abstract irreverence ‘Down with this sort of thing’. Uniting disparate groups under the umbrella of an anti-cuts stance, flags were flying from the Communist party, Save the NHS, National Union of Journalists, National Union of Teachers, Cut Trident, Save Theatre Funding, Save Social Care and the Socialist Workers giving a snapshot of the eclectic mix.
A smattering of arguments broke out within the crowd of protestors - with a young socialist and an older Labour supporter involved in a heated disagreement over the best way to voice dissent, the Labour supporter shouting “it has to come from above, not just below, it has to be machine politics”, in response to the young socialist's chant to “smash the government”.
On the whole though, the day's proceedings were relaxed, peaceful and orderly. As the day progressed tempers did start to flare, with both members of the police force and over-zealous protesters goading one another. However, the police force's softly-softly approach appeared to have paid off. Following on from a run-in at Oxford Circus, where 50 or so protestors ram-raided a line of policemen the passing sergeant was overheard saying to his force: “Excuse me guys, I don’t know what we were doing there, it looked rather shambolic. Apologies.”

Paint-bomb attacks on Topshop's flagship store and BHS on Oxford Street - both owned by alleged tax-dodger Philip Green - were short-lived and swiftly contained, leaving policemen guarding the store doors with paint-splattered helmets. The branch of HSBC on Charing Cross Road received rougher treatment as demonstrators smashed windows and graffitied the message 'Smash the banks'.

The nation's media took a typically polarised view of the day's events. The Guardian stressed that the majority of the protest was peaceful, and gave a spotlight to UK Uncut to defend their non-violent occupation of the luxury goods store Fortnum & Mason. The Daily Mail concerned themselves with the class of UK Uncut’s founder, Thom Costello, commenting ‘With a first-class English degree from Oxford university, he is the sort of chap you might expect to find sipping £18-a-pot tea at Fortnum & Mason.’ The Telegraph focused on the number of arrests following the march and the criticism levelled at Ed Miliband for his comparison of the day’s events with the suffragettes movement. The Independent gave a journalist’s eyewitness account of the UK Uncut protest and Yasmin Alibhai-Brwn argued that the sheer diversity of voices calling for an end to cuts meant they should be listened to. Further afield The Washington Post reported that the protest was ‘mostly peaceful’ but ‘with some small breakaway groups smashing windows and spray-painting’.

Shine on

The coalition government is considering pushing the clocks forward two hours in the summer, to replace the current one hour Daylight Saving Time system. An unusual solution to an already antiquated system.
This proposal may come as a surprise to the climate campaigning group, 10:10, who have been advocating a two hour increase in summer and a one hour increase in winter with their Lighter Later campaign. Lighter Later has an environmental agenda - the scrapping of DST will make the daylight hours longer in the evenings, saving on energy usage - an approximate 447,000 tonnes of CO2 pollution. But the campaign has been shrewd enough to present their argument in a wider context, children are safer returning home from school because they will be in daylight, thousands of jobs will be created as the tourism industry benefits from longer daylight hours, as well as giving the general public longer balmy summer evenings. Scottish farmers are unimpressed by the proposals that will see their mornings stretched further into the twilight hours. Road safety campaigners in Scotland have opposed the plans, claiming that children will be walking to school in the dark and thereby jeopardising their safety when navigating traffic. A Daily Mail reader had their own take on this: 'If this makes mornings darker and more children die as a result it can only be a good thing. It will reduce the number of hood wearing feral thugs on the street and that is GOOD.'
Thanks, Albert from Norwich.

Finlay likes the sun

The strong arm

Throughout history the law and the demonstrator have locked horns. One of the most famous examples of protestors facing the judge's gavel still remains one of the longest running trials in English legal history. Beginning in 1994 and involving two Greenpeace protestors, Helen Steel and David Morris, who produced a leaflet 'What's Wrong with McDonald's?' criticising the corporation. McDonald's then sued the two for libel. The case ran for two and a half years and eventually Steel and Morris were ordered to pay £60,000 worth of damages. The pair refused and McDonald's did not pursue the matter.

After years of Greenpeace protestors feeling the strong arm of the law, it was only a matter of time before they bit back. Greenpeace's recent announcement that they will be suing the British government for their "irresponsible" decision to continue to allow offshore drilling may seem to some nothing more than a dramatic campaigning tactic - designed to pack a media punch, but not so effective in the court of law. However, the environmental group's successful track record with legal wrangling suggests otherwise.

In 2007 the judge ruled in favour of Greenpeace and the government were forced to back-track on plans to build a new generation of nuclear power stations. Greenpeace successfully argued that the government had failed to stage an adequate consultation process before going ahead with their plans. In response to this outcome Chris Huhne declared "the judgement shows that you can't perform a 180-degree U-turn on a matter as important as nuclear power without a proper public debate." He may be rueing these words in light of his recent rushed through go-ahead for offshore drilling.

The campaigning group went on to further prove their legal know-how in 2009 by encouraging online activists to claim a plot of land on the planned airstrip for Heathrow's proposed third runway. This small action was intended as a spanner in the works, creating legal difficulties for the developers should their planning permission be granted. The resulting Airplot campaign was championed by celebrities and environmental experts alike, and involved a high profile collaboration with the Tate Modern. The coalition government went on to abandon Heathrow's expansion plan, proving that a little media exposure can be no bad thing.

As the effects of climate change starkly reveal themselves, it seems only logical that environmental campaigning groups should take those that abuse their positions of power to task. In our society where the legal system determines right and wrong it is vital that climate campaigners work within this framework in order to create an authoritative voice. Greenpeace is leading the way - here's hoping that others follow this lead.