Just a quick note to congratulate Iraq war protester Brian Haw. According to capital news website Londonist, yesterday saw his 3,000th day of continuous protest against the invasion.
3,000 days ago today, Brian Haw left his Redditch, Worcestershire home and took off for London, where he parked himself across the road from the Houses of Parliament and began a one-man anti-war protest. It was June 2001, and Haw was protesting against British and American sanctions on Iraq; September 11th, the deployment of troops in Afghanistan, the Iraq invasion of 2003 and the global marches against it, the July 2005 bombings, all were mere glints in the eye of suicidal madmen or hubristic politicians. It’s difficult to overestimate how prophetic Haw’s protest was.
I for one salute his tenacity.
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
The latest connections from our Trivia Desk
Failed State: why our government is broken and how to fix it
Unease grows within Labour ranks
Digital Skills Training for people over 65
Jennie
Robin AG Bennett
Peter Davies
Chris Lewcock
Simon R
16 Comments
While, unlike David Cameron, I wouldn’t dream of banning him, I do wonder if Brian Haw hasn’t made his point. For the good of his own health, isn’t it time he stood down?
I worry that a lot of people are encouraging him to keep doing it simply because he’s done for so long. If he ends up dying, that will make for great Guardian copy but all it will ultimately achieve is to deny his children a father.
It’s his choice ultimately, but I hope people aren’t putting pressure on him to stay.
The Lib Dems should be saluting the contrary, anti-establishment message of Brian Haw. There’s absolutely no reason why he should leave until the last UK soldier leaves Iraq and Afghanistan. If he stays after that, then let’s start asking what he’s protesting against again, but until that day I defend him! I’ve heard Lib Dem MPs say he should be moved on, and that disappoints me.
What about his own personal wellbeing? He’s been sleeping rough for eight years.
Presumably Brian Haw will find some other reason to protest that what we’re doing in Iraq and Afghanistan is wrong even when the troops have left. Don’t forget, he was an anti-sanctions protestor before he was an anti-war protestor.
I am also a little uncertain as to what his protest has achieved – standing outside Parliament all day long is scarcely swinging public opinion.
He does seem to have a friend who comes along and bawls at the policemen over the road in a megaphone, perhaps some of them are now convinced that Britain is complicit in genocide, or perhaps they’re just suffering hearing loss.
I opposed the Iraq war and have no desire to see Brian Haw moved on if he genuinely wishes to maintain his protest.
However, I question the utility of his tactic. It reminds me of the Trotskyists in student politics 30 years ago, who were frequently in the habit of elevating a tactic to a strategy and a strategy to a principle. “Occupy!” was their rallying cry, although no-one ever really knew why or what it was meant to achieve.
Likewise, I despaired of the Greenham Common women, some of whom maintained their protest camp after the cruise missiles had gone. Then there was the bloke who paraded around Oxford Circus for years with sandwich boards advising us all to eat less protein, nuts and eggs. And as for that anti-smoking guy who hangs about outside party conference every year haranguing delegates…
This behaviour is essentially religious in character rather than political – like the evangelicals in the shopping precinct bearing witness.
Brian Haw has made his point. Whether he has actually achieved anything is moot, and it is doubtful that a continuation of his protest would have any practical effect. But if his outlook is, as I suspect, more religious than political, practicality may be beside the point as far as he is concerned.
Many readers of LDV are experienced campaigners. We have a shrewd idea about what works. My advice would be to call it a day and find a more effective tactic.
Like many I admire his tenacity and feel he should be allowed to carry on. However, he has (by all accounts), lost his wife, regular contact with his children and his health has significantly worsened. If he had stopped the wars with his protest then fair enough but one wonders if the marginal impact he has made is worth the personal sacrifice. Brian Haw would be unlikely to be able to continue if not for the charity of others. They should contemplate if they are really being supportive to Brian Haw by doing this.
Simon T
Good point.
Very true.
I feel it’s not really up to us to tell Brian Haw what’s the right thing to do for him. It’s his choice to be there, and if he’s prepared to lose his marriage, his children, and his health because he feels that this is the right thing to do, who am I to tell him otherwise? We may not agree with his continued protest, but it’s important to defend his right to do so.
He is an eyesore and if it wasn’t for some stupid law he should be water cannoned out of Parliament Square. I for one; squirm every time i walk past him and his bunch of weirdos. And that megaphone from that stupid woman he has with him (probably Aussie) should be removed.
No-one should be allowed to protest in the Square. And the way the Sri Lankans were allowed to hijack the area was disgusting. If that were the BNP or Students or Climate Change folks they would be manhandled away with no delay.
I couldn’t disagree more with Libdem Guru – he has every right to be there and the best place for freedom of speech to take place is outside Parliament.
Having said that, I really do think Haw is a vile man. Of course I agree with him that we should never have gone into Iraq, but there are certain people to blame for that – namely politicians. When I saw him and his cronies shouting bile at the soldiers coming back from serving it really made me angry. Direct the bile towards the politicians, not to the people who actually risk their lives protecting our liberties, moreso than somebody who simply crashed in a tent outside Parliament for several years.
If freedom of speech is to apply, it must apply to anyone. So anyone who argues the case for Brian Haw to be there must also be willing to argue the case for anyone else to be there and to use exactly the same techniques that Mr Haw is using. LibDem Guru has it right – if those who support Mr Haw mean what they say, they should be as strong in agreeing, say a BNP campaigner should be allowed to be there there shouting out support for BNP policies, as they are for supporting Mr Haw. If they cannot say that, they are hypocrites, or at least they should be honest and say they support freedom of speech and tenacity of this form and the like only when it happens to be for a cause with which they agree.
Matthew, LibDem Guru said that nobody should be allowed to protest in the square, so how can you say that he has it right? As you rightly point out, anybody should be able to protest, no matter who they are. It is the views of the far-right that are abhorrent, not their right to express them within the law. Other people can use their rights to freedom of expression to show them that their views are out of touch and not welcome.
Matthew Huntbach:
I would happily defend the BNP’s right to protest in Parliament Square and would defend the UAF’s right to protest about the BNP in Parliament Square as well (and yes, I do think the UAF’s egging of Griffin in June crossed a line).
(perhaps happily is the wrong word)
Isn’t the allowing of protests outside Parliament (pre SOCA) a relatively recent development anyway?
I vaguely remember in the late 80s how protest marches (against the introduction of fees) weren’t allowed to go past Parliament whilst Parliament was sitting.
Chris Ward, I think my point is obvious in that I am suggesting Liberal Guru has it right in pointing out double standards. I rather feel there are a great many people who are indulgent to the form of protest Mr Haw has chosen to use because they agree with his point of view, and would not be so indulgent if it were the same form of protest used for a point of view with which they disagree. So, if they are arguing in general terms about “free speech” it is quite right to abstract the general principle from the particular example in this case, and to take it further by thought experiments in which other examples are substituted into the abstraction.
The point is not whether someone should be allowed to protest, but whether that protest should be permitted to take the place of the occupation of a prominent public place for years. It seems to me that if were to permit this then Parliament Square could become littered with campsites set up by various people with various causes.
Mr Haw’s point of view is not an unusual one, many here put such a point of view and many elsewhere in various forms in our country. Therefore, to say that he has made his point and must now be moved on does not seem to me to be an unacceptable restriction on free speech.