Occupy Exeter release statement
Members of Occupy Exeter met last night to discuss their response to Exeter Cathedral’s starting action which would see them moved on.
Here is their full statement:
-
We are Occupy Exeter. We have been occupying the Cathedral Green since Saturday 12th November – 10 weeks now - in protest against global financial injustice and inequality. We are a peaceful protest, and will always remain a peaceful protest.
On January 6th the Cathedral made a proposal, we rejected that proposal on January 13th. The Cathedral have now said that they will go to law. Although we deplore this move, and would rather move forward through negotiation, we are ready for whatever is to come.
We want to take this opportunity to remind the good people of Exeter, the media, and the wider world of why we are here, what we are for and against. And why we’re not going away.
We are here to bring about genuine change in society, especially in the field of economics. We refuse to pay for the mistakes of the bankers and the politicians. Ordinary folk around Exeter and Devon are seeing cuts in health and vital public services, a recruitment freeze for the police, pay freezes and redundancies. At the same time, the richest in our society – the 1% - continue to make a profit from so-called ‘austerity’. Managers in FTSE 100 companies reported an average 49% pay rise in 2010. Vodafone, Goldman Sachs and other large companies have avoided tax worth billions, while around 20,000 jobs have been cut at HMRC, and small businesses are being threatened with fines up to £3000 for tax avoidance. Worst of all, in the field of banking, eight top banks recently reported average remuneration for senior staff of £1.8million, while Stephen Hester, boss of the publicly-owned RBS is reported to be receiving a £1.6 million bonus. A bonus of 1.6 million. How many nurses could that pay for? Meanwhile luxury brands such as Bulgari, Rolls-Royce, Bentley and even private jet resellers are reporting booming sales.
This is not fair or just. Everyone realises the scale of the injustice, but many people think that nothing can be done, that this is inevitable, part of the system, that the rich will always get their way and the poor are always with us. We think otherwise.
We are Occupy Exeter. We occupy land. We make a noise. We ask questions. We raise awareness. We say stop, this has gone far enough.
So who are we, here at Occupy Exeter? We are a diverse group of individuals who live or work in and near Exeter, including working people, students, unemployed people, grandparents, people of all faiths and none. We are not politicians and we are not interested in setting up a political party. We have no leaders or organisers – we share tasks between us. Some of us stay in tents on the Green, others make & deliver hot food, communicate with the media and support us by spreading the word. Everyone is welcome to join us.
We hold a General Assembly every day. Anyone is welcome to participate, whether or not they are active members of the Occupy movement and whether or not they support us. We make decisions through consensus, not voting, and use processes for the meetings that are designed to allow everyone to participate as fully as possible. We believe that the democratic processes in our wider society have been fatally compromised by big-business, and that a democratic renewal is needed. We are part of that renewal. Gandhi said that “you should be the change you want to see in the world” and we are carrying out his words.
We are the 99%. We don’t mean that we are 99% of Exeter’s population, and we acknowledge that we don’t currently have the support of 99% of Exeter’s population. We mean that we stand for the 99%. In financial terms, 99% of the population are being abused and exploited, whether they know it or not, while a very small proportion are laughing secretly, all the way to the publicly-owned bank.
We have had support from a wide sector of the population. Around 2000 people have signed our petition, and we have over 500 members on our Facebook group. Every day we receive messages of support from around the UK and the world. We have had active support from religious groups such as Exeter Quakers, from Billy Bragg, from the academic Noam Chomsky, and from many lecturers at Exeter university. Even our detractors say that they support our cause. We have tapped into a vast seam of discontent and anger: the people of Exeter (indeed, the people of the world) are realising that they have been exploited, that the exploitation continues, and that finally, somebody is prepared to do something about it.
Most of the opposition to our protest, in the media and online, even from the Cathedral itself, focuses on mess and on anti-social behaviour. We believe that some of that opposition is well-meaning, while some comes from people who would oppose us anyway and are looking for a soft target to hit. But we do our best not to ignore our critics, and to assume that every comment or question represents a genuine search for answers. We aim to keep our camp as clean & tidy as possible. We separate and recycle our rubbish. We have some lovely pot plants, donated by members of the public. We are concerned about the impact on the grass, and we were very pleased when Exeter Quakers offered to re-seed the grass after we leave.
But please remember that grass grows back – jobs and lives and services don’t grow back so easily. Our society is a mess, but the mess is usually hidden away from sight, and there are far worse messes in Exeter than the Green. We are trying our best to live in a sustainable way that minimises impact on the planet, and we welcome suggestions on how we could do that better.
We have been criticised for having homeless people in the camp. Homelessness is one of the scandals of our society: a consequence of injustice and inequality. While hundreds of thousands of homes lie empty, hundreds of thousands of people are forced to live in hostels, to sofa-surf, or to sleep on the streets. And that is set to increase. In Exeter, there are between 20 and 30 rough sleepers on the streets every night. That’s the official figure – estimates put the real figure much higher. Devon County Council has recently withdrawn funding for 204 beds for homeless people in Exeter. So our presence on the Green has coincided with a massive increase in people needing housing. Although not all the campers are homeless, and we didn’t start out as a camp for homeless people, it’s no surprise that our camp has many homeless people. Indeed, homeless people have played valuable roles on the camp, and some have had remarkable personal transformations in the last 10 weeks. Our camp has become a field hospital for a broken society.
As for anti-social behaviour, this has always been present on the Green. A typical weekend night on Cathedral Green sees fights, singing and shouting, broken glass and so on. And we have been the target of anti-social and criminal behaviour. For instance, fireworks were thrown at us on December 17th, and on December 26th a drunken individual tried to take down a tent with somebody asleep in it. We called the police (who have been helpful and respectful throughout), who moved him on. We have a safer spaces policy on camp that includes no drugs or alcohol, and quiet from midnight till 6am. We are doing our best, in difficult circumstances, to make the Green a safe and peaceful place to be.
People ask us about our relationship with the Cathedral. The Cathedral are not our enemies, they could choose to work with us. We came here in the first place because the Green is central to the city and highly visible to the general public. We have regular meetings with Cathedral staff, and have always tried to conduct those meetings in a respectful manner. We believe in dialogue and finding common ground.
We believe there is a spectrum of opinion within the Cathedral. Some members of the congregation are active members of Occupy. Others are less friendly. At the beginning, the Dean and chapter were fairly welcoming. Many of us attended a ‘Holy Ground’ service on the 2nd evening, and engaged in debate with Hannah Foster, one of the Canons. We respected the Remembrance service on Sunday 13th and subsequent military events.
However, the Cathedral has consistently refused our requests for access to toilets, a tap for water, and heating: basic human rights that everyone needs. They have also refused to attend any of our General Assemblies, or to come together and organise joint events highlighting our shared concern for justice.
The fact remains that the Church of England is still one of the largest property owners in the UK, with assets worth at least £6billion and land of over 250,000 acres, plus commercial and residential properties that include Cribbs Causeway in Bristol and West Town Farm in Ide. In 2008 the Financial Times reported that the church had invested £13m in Man Group, the biggest hedge fund manager. In 2007 the Church sold a £135m mortgage portfolio, despite condemnation by Archbishop Rowan Williams of those who trade debts for profit. Whose interests do they represent, we ask?
We are left wondering what the Cathedral really thinks about economic and social justice. They do good work in the community, for sure –their support for St Petrock’s is one example. But we return to the fact of the diversity within the officials and the congregation. Some people work with St Petrock’s and Exeter Community Initiatives because they know it’s the right thing, the truly Christian thing to do. Others, we suspect, are happy to show support at a distance, because they know it’s good for their image. They’re happy to support causes, and to support homeless people, on their terms, at the time and place that is convenient for them. But homeless people aren’t nine to five, they need support at any time, so our inclusive, open community has clearly filled a gap.
So we say to the Cathedral authorities, as they consider legal action against us: it’s not too late to talk. Come back to the table and let’s work it out. Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us. It’s not a question of what Jesus would do – but what you will do.
Occupy Exeter is not going to go away. If you evict us from the Green, we will pop up somewhere else. You can’t evict an idea. As long as there are gross inequalities in society, as long as there are a few making profits from the misery of the many, there will be people like us who are prepared to stand up and be counted. We are Occupy Exeter.
28 Comments
View all
by baldone1
Thursday, February 09 2012, 7:35AM
“It's important to remember that most of Occupy support comes from rich Uni students that are living off their parents bankroll. Your credibility has gone Occupy. Go away!!!!”
by SKoM_
Saturday, January 28 2012, 6:28PM
“Yup, same old tired propogannda.
And not just from one side.”
by ThomasG
Friday, January 27 2012, 11:21PM
“This statement is just the same tired old propaganda that has been regurgitated oft before by their self-important "general assemblies" and "media working groups".
As to the avowed objects of their protests: hardly anyone would not agree with their expressed concern about the level of iniquity in many areas of the business and finance world, but most people are sick to death with "Occupy's" continual insinuation that they are the only people who know about, care about, and are capable of solving, this problem. Their contribution to "raising awareness" is zilch.
Occupy have yet to come up with any realistic ideas of what to do about the problems facing us. The longer they stick around, the law of averages dictates that the government will make the odd beneficial change here and there, which they would inevitably have had to do anyway, but which Occupy will spuriously claim to have been instrumental in instigating, while at the same time continuing to express their sanctimonious horror at the remaining injustices.
Their claim to be a diverse, apolitical group of people rings somewhat hollow, at least going by their most vociferous representatives. One of them has a website evangelising communism, another has been observed to have posted entries on the "South Devon Communists" facebook page, and a certain university lecturer has organised meetings between his students and the protesters in between declaiming on subjects like "Sensational Marxisms: Towards a Communism of the Senses". As for a certain young man who has enjoyed the leadership of organisations like the "Exeter FE Activists", the less said the better.
The background of the people associated with Occupy inevitably leads on to the decision to camp on church property. History shows that totalitarian regimes have constantly tried to stamp out religion because it is the most difficult thing to subjugate for the greater good of The Party. Occupy have always relied on the moral blackmail of manipulating any action by the church into a story of victimisation. Not only have Occupy defiled the cathedral grounds, several of its members have grossly insulted the church - the contempt shown towards the church in Occupy's sanitised press releases is only the tip of the iceberg. Occupy have attempted to trivialise the voices of their detractors by claiming they are only concerned with the state of the grass, but the hurt goes deeper than that. It is ironic that Bowman's organisation, for which he works occasionally, in between political demos, proclaims its worldwide championing of diverse "cultures". For many in the African, Eastern European, and Far Eastern countries, many of them communist or ex-communist, which he claims to support, the Church is the one organisation which they cling to with hope, despite widespread persecution.
The family of churches does enormous good locally and worldwide in terms of health and social care. Contrast this to the recent horror of the orphanages in communist Romania. And to try and highlight minor shortcomings in particular projects where the church has direct involvement is not a very convincing argument. Apart from the merits or failings of particular projects, it should be remembered that this is not actually the primary function of the church, which is the spiritual education and well-being of its members. The application of Christian social responsibility resulting from the Church's teaching may be practised within the church itself, as with the Salvation Army, but more often it is practised by individual members (alongside their colleagues of other faiths or of none) in their particular professions.
The fake outrage expressed by Occupy, that the Cathedral, whose land they have invaded, is somehow transgressing Occupy's human rights by not offering them bathroom facilities, or coming to their pretentious assemblies, is just a joke.
Go now.”
by PaulJT75
Friday, January 27 2012, 11:57AM
“ThatExeterGuy
Very well put again.
Here are my only replies:
I think you can only really believe in the right to protest (and I think it is crucial in a democracy) if you believe in the right to protest for everybody, including those you disagree with and those you think are ineffective in their style method of protest. You might say it isn't really a protest for whatever reason but I think if we are going to stay (or become) a free society the definition of "protest" needs to be pretty broad. If you take away one group's rights to protest, it will be easier and easier to take away the rights of the next groups. Also, we are not talking minority / fringe issues here. We talking about the entire banking (and government in cahoots with it) system here, affecting precisely everyone.
If we start some sort of (overt and clear or vague and subjective) qualification system for protests to assess whether they should be allowed on the basis of things like "maturity", (or being focussed on clear goals demands and timescales, taking certain other measurable direct actions, etc) we're going to very quickly say goodbye to the right to protest in any meaningful way. If everybody isn't free to protest then ultimately none of us are. I can't help thinking of the Stop the War Coalition and CND. Would they have passed the test? Were they effective? Were they right though?
The perception that "it isn't working" is kind of irrelevant but could well be self-fulfilling, like those people who say "just accept it, you ain't going to change it": if it's true, it's arguably true in part because of people saying and thinking that.
Back to the subject of the protestors' rights against those of the people of Exeter. I do not see at all how the rights of the public are really being challenged here. Are we talking about your right to not have to look at people whose clothes you don't like? I think the right to peaceful protest is a bit more precious and important to all of us.
The right to "enjoy" something and the right to "feel safe" is something that nobody ever has, nobody can provide, nobody can guarantee. However, these ideas can certainly be used (and perhaps will) to erode real rights that we should all hold dear. I can't think why anyone should allow themselves to not enjoy the cathedral, but I guess if you tell yourself your enjoyment is affected then it is. I can't think why anyone could talk themselves into feeling less safe. If anything, I would feel more safe at night: these peaceful people aren't going to attack anyone (are they??) and at least there are sober potential witnesses to see any drink fuelled violence that might arise.
I try to make it a rule not to spend my life on discussion forums. I'll keep an eye though, if any new point crops up I might be back to put in my tuppeneth. After all, that's what these things are meant to be here for isn't it.”
by ThatExeterGuy
Friday, January 27 2012, 11:00AM
“also @PaulJT75
It's VERY important to remember that whilst the majority of people here may think the protest needs to end, that doesn't default to meaning that they disagree that there are some major issues that need addressing in society.
HOWEVER, what people are saying is (and i can't speak for everyone obviously, just the general mood of people I've talked with): Occupy isn't helping, it's not working, it's causing more problems without solving any.
If Occupy cared they'd stop aiming for a "sulk in tents" approach, and they'd use the energy and manpower of the protesters and work on practical, beneficial ways of improving society.
Only that wouldn't get them the headlines their egos require.”
by ThatExeterGuy
Friday, January 27 2012, 10:49AM
“@PaulJT75.
Here are my personal answers to your questions:
1) Why is this protest in particular "immature"? Is the whole Occupy movement immature? Is all protest immature? Just protests that temporarily damage lawned areas?
A)I'd say this particular protest is immature for a number of reasons but the most apparent is it is massively unfocused & has no clear agenda or solutions to the issues it stands for. Almost every other protest has a goal, an alternative solution & a timescale. Most other protests are also the voice of a group that are also working in other practical ways to make the changes they require. Occupy on the other hand seem simply to be saying "we hate the world being unfair, stop it... or we'll keep camping in silly places".
2)An interesting question to pose here would be how many people would support the use of force to remove their protest from anywhere in the city centre, and also how many people claim to basically believe in the right to peaceful protest?
A)I believe in the right to protest, having been involved in the Newbury Road protests back in the 1990s. However, can Occupy really be seen as a protest? Or just an elephant gun style complaint about society in general? Without specific goals and demands, then it becomes impossible to lable occupy as a protest and it's more just a vague ideology.
Do I agree with the use of force to remove them? Yes. If force means someone else has to physically remove the tents, and physically remove the people if they refuse to leave when they should. Force is a loaded word however... and is verging on propoganda. I carry my shopping home with "force".. because in a physical world, if something wont move on it's own you have to physically do it yourself, be that a bunch of potatoes... or er, Occupy.
If you're going to bring up "rights" then consider the rights of the other people in Exeter... why should a small group of protesters rights be more important than the rights of the majority of the population? (for example but not limited to being able to enjoy their city or feel safe at the cathederal.) Should happiness of the minority take more importance than that of the majority... oh hold on, isn't that the argument of Occupy in the first place? Therein lies the hypocricy of Occupy.
3)When you say "we don't need educating", are you saying that you know every relevant fact, or at least every key relevant issue that any of the Occupy people would like to raise awareness of ? Are you making those claims in turn on behalf of the (majority of the) public – that they understand every relevant key issue?
A)I'm saying that the people of Exeter have access to the same sources of information that the protesters do. If they wish to educate themselves they have the tools and means available. If they don't care about the issues then they wont bother... a camp on the green isn't going to change that... in fact it's more likely to put people who aren't interested off, or make them immediately default to disagreeing with the protesters. Simple fact is people who care take the time to educate themselves. Also the same questions you ask here are also releveant to the individual protestors in Occupy.
4)You mention that the Occupy people are very arrogant. Are the Occupy people more arrogant than the directors of the banks? and more than the politicians who approve the bailouts and the "quantitative easing" (to temporarily inflate away the problems by passing it on to savers and future generations)?
A)Two wrongs don't make a right.
It's irrelivant if the directors of the banks are ALSO arrogant, it's not a competition in poor social skills.”
by 2ladybugs
Friday, January 27 2012, 10:45AM
“This all looks like the soft option to me. They know that the Church won't make too much effort in removing them because it would be un-Christian. If any of them had any guts they would be outside the Bank of England or one or two of these capitalists companies we keep hearing about, or Westminster itself.
But wait a minute, the police wouldn't stand for that would they. Well actually judging by the attitude of the police when the London riots were happening perhaps they(the protesters) wouldn't have much trouble.
Clear off and occupy somewhere more meaningful if you want to make any difference.”
by PaulJT75
Friday, January 27 2012, 9:36AM
“Nguyen
I've re-read 100 times and still can't see it I'm afraid. How about someone answers my questions?
I wonder how the bankers and the powers that be would think about the fact that you lot are directing all of your anger and bitterness towards Occupy of all things! they'll be bent over backwards with laugher. More champagne and caviar old chap?”
by holytrinity31
Friday, January 27 2012, 8:50AM
“Archbishop Rowan Williams has clearly come out in support of Occupy, saying that Jesus would be with them. St Paul's Cathedral staff have put their jobs on the line--yet Exeter seem to be batting for the other side ??? This is not the face of justice . The church has a responsibility to side with Occupy--for Occupy is doing the job the church should be. For the church to act against Occupy adds insult to injury. In New York an Episcopalian Bishop was arrested for leading the charge to Occupy a vacant plot of land. Why isnt the Bishop of Exeter leading the charge ? --and giving the full support of his cathedral to Occupy ? Exeter is out of step with the rest of the UK Anglicans --and the Archbishop--not to mention the worldwide Anglican communion. This is shameful for a Christian church.”
by holytrinity31
Friday, January 27 2012, 8:42AM
“Archbishop Rowan Williams has clearly come out in support of Occupy, saying that Jesus would be with them. St Paul's Cathedral staff have put their jobs on the line--yet Exeter seem to be batting for the other side ??? This is not the face of justice . The church has a responsibility to side with Occupy--for Occupy is doing the job the church should be. For the church to act against Occupy adds insult to injury. In New York an Episcopalian Bishop was arrested for leading the charge to Occupy a vacant plot of land. Why isnt the Bishop of Exeter leading the charge ? --and giving the full support of his cathedral to Occupy ? Exeter is out of step with the rest of the UK Anglicans --and the Archbishop--not to mention the worldwide Anglican communion. This is shameful for a Christian church.”