IJBM: The St Paul's protests

captainbrass

For non-Brits, this is the English end of the "Occupy [Insert Name]" protests, and involves several hundred people camping outside St Paul's Cathedral in Central London, causing it to close (briefly) for the first time since 1940. Why has this been unreasonably bugging me for a few days?

1. I don't like the idea of people being excluded from a church for any reason. I also suspect it was cynically chosen as a soft target by the protestors - the church authorities look especially harsh if they kick them out.

2. A lot of the people involved come across as either naive idealists, like modern hippies, or people who wouldn't know what to do with their lives if they couldn't go on demonstrations.

3. THOSE GUY FAWKES MASKS. Such a visual cliche since V For Vendetta and give me the feeling that Anonymous is just trolling London (including me).

Anyone else want to agree/call me a Daily Mail-reading fascist?

gentlemanorcus

Have to agree with you on the count that they probably think St Pauls is a great place to protest; if the church kicks them out, all kinds of bad word of mouth will most likely descend on it.

IanExMachina

A minister of the church actually allowed the protesters to set up camp outside the church after they weren't allowed to do it at wall street, so it wasn't cynical choosing the church offered. 

(The minister has since resigned though.)

Yeah there are going to be a lot of people at these kinds of protests that are just protesting for the sake of it, however that shouldn't nullify the general idea behind this protests. (That of unfair disparity between rich and poor, etc)

I have no idea about the masks really.

Malkavian

"A lot of the people involved come across as either naive idealists, like modern hippies, or people who wouldn't know what to do with their lives if they couldn't go on demonstrations."

I don't know what it's like in England, but having actually been to Wall Street's demonstration I really think that's a completely untrue media bias.

captainbrass

Ian - The minister you're talking about (I think) is the Canon-Chancellor of St Paul's - what a title! - and I thought he didn't so much invite them as they turned up and he said "Well, this is a jolly good thing." I could be wrong. I agree the C of E hasn't handled this terribly well, but they weren't put in an easy position.

Malk - I get the impression the New York protests were bigger. Perhaps this made them more socially representative. I think there's certainly something to protest about here, but I hate the way these things always seem to wind up with the usual suspects (meaning they're more easily dismissed anyway).

Malkavian

Keep in mind it's always 'the usual suspects' because it's a generation of people that have been thoroughly fucked over.

I agree that the majority of middle-class white youths make it easier for old bastards to dismiss it, though...

captainbrass

I resent the implication that I am illegitimate!

(You've got me on the old bit).

Bee

Has the Church of England taken a stance on the matter at all?  Churches on the whole have been pretty supportive so far, but this is one of the cases where I'd be wary of the CoE's leadership having a conflict of interest.  Granted much less so than it would've been a few centuries ago.

captainbrass

Bee - It hasn't as a whole, but of course the Cathedral has had to, and the Bishop of London and Archbishop of Canterbury have also weighed in. They've all kind of wavered between - "We don't like greedy financiers either and sympathise with your protest" and "but you're actually being a complete pain to us practically and financially, so please go away."

That's what I mean by not handling it well, and by being put in a difficult position, given that Christianity has a long tradition of criticising the rich but the C of E has a large, expensive cathedral to run. It's also complicated by legal/organisational issues e.g. the local bishop doesn't technically control the cathedral. It's run by its own clergy.