CNJ COMMENT - Taxing questions on the politics of civil disobedience

Published: 21 April, 2011

ALMOST inevitably – and quite sadly – the authorities, the Met police and London University, seem bent on vigorously pursuing both the students who occupied a part of their campus last year in protest over high fees, and the UK Uncut protesters who occupied Fortnum & Mason during the recent TUC march.

Quite apart from the rights and wrongs of the actions of the students and UK Uncut – and here the politics of civil disobedience need to have an airing – it is difficult not to believe that the authorities are determined to put them in the stocks. All the signs point to a growing public disenchantment with the Coalition’s austerity policy and equally, reading between the lines, it is clear the government is worried.             

To an extent, all this was predictable but whether the students and UK Uncut were aware of the conse­quences of their actions remains to be seen. Whether they knew it or not, once they became front rankers in the opposition to govern­ment policy they had put themselves in the firing line.

Politics can be a dirty business.

But as to the sit-in at both the university and Fortnum & Mason, the question of intention is not to be dismissed out of hand.

In both cases, we understand, the protesters tried hard – and largely succeeded – in doing little damage to the buildings.

They wanted to make a point – against  government policy on education at the university and at Fortnum & Mason against the alleged avoidance of tax by the company that owns it.

Both, it could be argued, merit public debate.

But the authorities are playing it hard.

This is the only explanation for the university’s threat to force students to do some form of “community work”, while the police – influenced by higher authorities, perhaps – have, surprisingly, charged UK Uncut protesters with “aggravated trespass” which carries, at least, a three-month prison sentence.

This is a something the police may regret.

While the sit-in at the university will be sorted out within the walls of the campus, the charge facing protesters at Fortnum & Mason throws up a minefield of legal arguments that could take months for both parties to get to grips with even before a hearing is held.

If the protesters are said to have been acting unlawfully how does one view the actions and alleged tax policies of the owners of Fortnum & Mason, the company they were acting against?

Precedents have been set in recent years involving Greenpeace that may influence the coming court case.