Protest at Aber

Here are some pictures of Cymdeithas yr Iaith's protest at the Welsh Government's Office in Aberystwyth this morning.

     

     

     

“The language won’t be lost overnight but over a number of years and decades.

"The latest census has shown a serious decline in the numbers of Welsh language speakers – a sign that, we as a nation, could actually lose a key part of our heritage over the coming decades.

"Only through civil disobedience is it possible for us to convey the seriousness of the situation. We are determined that our generation will not allow the language to decline and that's our main aim as campaigners today – to make a stand and to challenge Carwyn Jones' inaction.

“Like us, Carwyn Jones himself acknowledges his concerns about the state of the language. Unlike us however, he shows difficulty in thinking of a strategy that can stabilise the language. He has failed the citizens of Wales in that respect. We have outlined a strategy that goes to the heart of this crisis. All that we ask of Carwyn and the Labour-led Government is to show the leadership that reflects the seriousness of the present state of the Welsh language.

"With positive protest and political will, we can change the fate of the language, and ensure it flourishes over the years to come. At the moment, it seems courage is lacking. The government need to take brave and significant steps to ensure a fair and sustainable future for the Welsh language. This is what has brought us out as a group today to protest.”

Sioned Hâf, on behalf of Cymdeithas yr Iaith

Gweithredwch

It's good to see Cymdeithas Yr Iaith taking action to highlight just how little the Welsh Government is doing about Welsh, both with Robin Farrar's can of spray paint earlier this week and today's protest in the reception area of the government's Cathays Park offices.

     

     

I want to express my support for what what they're doing, and would like to see them keep up this campaign of peaceful pressure until it spurs the government to take more action than they've shown any appetite for so far.

Rally against Wylfa B

For those that didn't watch the launch of Sianel 62 on Sunday evening, this is an extract from one of the programmes about nuclear energy on Ynys Môn. It shows a rally held last month to oppose the construction of the proposed new power station:

     

There's no doubt that building a new nuclear power station will bring jobs to the area, but most of the jobs will not be for local people and the population influx is inevitably going to damage local communities and the Welsh language in those communities. That's why Cymdeithas yr Iaith played such a prominent part, alongside PAWB, in the protest.

I really doubt that those in favour of the plan to build this new nuclear power station have thought things through. At present some 600 or so people are being employed to decommission the nuclear power station at Trawsfynydd, which has long ceased to produce any electricity. So in terms of jobs, there will inevitably be plenty of work for many decades to come just decommissioning and making the existing Wylfa power station safe.

-

Building a new power station will also have serious consequences in terms of independence, for it is clear that the provisions being made to get the operators of new nuclear power stations to set aside money for the future clean up are inadequate. As with so much else under the agenda being followed by successive governments in Westminster, it's fine for private companies to make their profits, but the risks end up being taken by the taxpayer. As Wales is on course to produce more than all the electricity we need from renewable sources, the electricity that a new Wylfa B will produce will be superfluous to our own needs and will have to be exported from Wales. While we remain part of the UK, we could expect the UK government to pay for the excess costs on decommissioning after Wylfa B stops producing electricity. But when we are independent, who will pay the excess on the costs for decommissioning? Are we naïve enough to expect the English government and English taxpayers to do that? Fat chance. We will be stuck with the liability of cleaning up the mess for something that was built primarily to benefit people in England.

So politicians like Dafydd Elis-Thomas, who have always been opposed to independence before now, are supporting the construction of a power station that will make independence that much more difficult to achieve. That sort of thinking could only make sense to someone who was opposed to independence.

-

And as for the damage to the language, I don't think we should kid ourselves into thinking that someone like Dafydd is particularly concerned about that either. Just look at his track record in recent years as Llywydd. He was the one primarily responsible for changing the Cofnod (the Record of Proceedings) in the Senedd from something that was fully bilingual into something in which Welsh contributions were translated into English, but not vice versa.

Thankfully, that shameful decision has been reversed, but only now that Dafydd has stood down as Llywdd and been replaced by Rosemary Butler. So I would again warn people in Plaid Cymru to be very careful about him; so many of the policies he advocates simply make no sense for someone who purports to be a Welsh nationalist. I'll be the first to give him credit for some of the things he did in the early days of his political career, but he sold out on nationalism years ago.

Systematically undermining direct action

There was always something odd about the conviction of a group of twenty climate activists for planning to shut down the coal-fired power station at Ratcliffe-on-Soar in Nottinghamshire late last year. Double standards were at play, because in 2007 a Greenpeace group actually succeeded in occupying Kingsnorth power station in Kent and painting "Gordon" in huge letters on the main chimney stack ... yet they were acquitted of the charges against them on the grounds that their protest was justified.

I posted an article about it here. It's well worth looking at the video of their story again:

     

The reports from the Guardian and Independent at the time are here:

     Not guilty: the Greenpeace activists who used climate change as a legal defence
     Cleared: Jury decides that threat of global warming justifies breaking the law

The Independent's headline was misleading. The significance of the verdict was that this direct action was not in fact against the law. Yes, there was damage, but the court decided that the damage was justified in order to prevent greater damage.

At first I wondered if the conviction in this case was more because of differences in perception between the north and south of England, and thought that the similar differences between Wales and England explained why a jury in Caernarfon would not convict the Penyberth Three, so that the trial had to be moved to a place where the UK authorities could find a jury that would convict them. In fact I looked forward to the time when a jury in Wales would refuse to convict those from Cymdeithas yr Iaith for the very minor damage to shops resulting from their direct action, on the grounds that it was justified in order to prevent much greater damage to the Welsh language.

-

Yet today the picture widened in a way that shows how large the gulf is between the largely sympathetic way the public see peaceful civil disobedience and the way the authorities fear it. The trial that has just been abandoned was against another six people arrested at the same time, but on more serious charges. This excellent article from Newsnight gives the background:

     

It beggars belief that the rather disturbing National Public Order Intelligence Unit should plant an undercover officer for a period of seven years. How can such tactics—not to mention the cost—be justified against non-violent protesters? How many more officers might currently be doing the same?

I think Mark Stone/Kennedy deserves some credit for finally doing what is right. If he hadn't spoken out, I'm sure that the trial would have progressed with neither the defendants nor the public being any the wiser. He might also be at risk as a result. Some might say he deserves it, but he was just a pawn. I think the authorities that run the United Kingdom deserve much greater condemnation for systematically indulging in what can only be described as political policing to suppress those who are prepared to take principled, non-violent direct action on things that matter.

Rali S4C

The picture should say it all. Not least because of the impressive number of organizations that have joined Cymdeithas in this protest to keep an independent, securely-funded S4C.

    

Stand up for the things that matter

I've just read an article by Menna Machreth, the chair of Cymdeithas yr Iaith, which I hope she won't mind me publicizing. It's on the Lausanne Global Conversation website, and can be read by clicking the link below:

     Why I’m so passionate as an evangelical Christian about my Welsh identity

It's addressed to Christians across the world; many of whom will not know much about Wales, and probably know even less about our culture and language, and the threats it has faced and still faces.

But of perhaps greater interest to us who do know about Cymdeithas is her explanation of how protest and non-violent direct action dovetail with her faith. For me, these two paragraphs stood out:

Non-violent direct action means acting in a way which respects life without hurting or abusing anybody. This means accepting full responsibility for all actions and being ready to face the consequences and punishment. Within the Welsh Language Society, the ideal is no fist violence, no verbal violence, and no heart violence. It is emphasized to all members that we should not act out of reactionary feelings and should avoid contempt towards individuals within the authorities. Instead, the non-violent principle urges members to act out of a desire for change, a desire for justice in a reasoned and calculated manner. As Christians within the movement, we must act out of love at all times and must remember to love all the people we’re involved with. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ clears the temple but there is no suggestion of violence against people but towards the tables and throwing the animals out as a symbolic act. The life and teachings of Jesus Christ is the foundations of non-violent direct action for me; loving your enemies combined with a stance over truth and what is right.

Government and institutions are violent through their law and policies towards the Welsh, their language and identity. Using violence against this injustice will not solve anything. But we can choose not to conform to violence. I consider apathy towards injustice as co-operation with that injustice. In that sense, we are all guilty for our lack of action whether it is towards identity, world poverty or damaging the environment for example.

I want to say that I fully agree with her. And although I didn't do it in the specific context of faith, I outlined very similar principles on direct action in this post last year. I would urge people to think hard about it.

As far as the language is concerned, there is every indication that the government in Westminster will impose its agenda on Wales with little realization about the consequences of its actions. We will need to protest, and we might need to go further. Alongside that—and done for the same reasons and with the same lack of realization about the consequences of its actions—we will see economic and social injustice leading to resentment and anger on a scale that we haven't seen for decades.

Faced with this it is easy for us to get angry, but not nearly so easy to direct a justified sense of anger in a direction that will make a difference. This is a time for people of principle to think hard about how we stand up for the things that matter.

On direct action

This is a video about the Greenpeace group who shut down Kingsnorth power station in Kent. A coal fired plant that pumps out 9 million tons of CO2 a year.

     

I think protesters who take direct action on matters like these deserve our respect. There are very few of us who are prepared to put our freedom on the line for the things we believe to be important. But there are certain basic rules that apply:

• the action should be done openly
• the reasons for taking the action should be explained clearly
• the people involved should not run away or avoid arrest
• there should be no violence

We have a fine tradition of people who have been prepared to take such action over things like motorway building, airport expansion, the unfairness of the Poll Tax, votes for women, trades union rights, civil rights, nuclear weapons and other military instalations ... and the Welsh language too. It was very heartening that a recent survey had found that most people in Wales agree or strongly agree that protecting the language is as important as protecting the environment ... 55% in total with only 26% disagreeing, a margin of 29%

-

Yes, of course I think that it is always best to use democratic means and peaceful protest to the fullest extend. But I would not condemn anyone who in good conscience decided that they needed to go further in order to make a point that was important to them. They do so in the clear knowledge that if they break the law they must accept the full consequences of doing it. In fact being fined or going to prison is perhaps the most eloquent and persuasive way of showing how much the issue matters to you.

Right or wrong is a matter of morality and judgement. It is most certainly not the same as lawful or unlawful. For example, are the rights or wrongs of say foxhunting decided by what the law says about it? Hunting with dogs was made unlawful because enough of our legislators thought it was wrong. Not the other way round. Nobody would say that it suddenly became "wrong" at the moment the law against it was passed ... it merely became unlawful. We should be very wary of anybody who defines right and wrong solely by what is or is not lawful. Most especially politicians. After all, one of the main jobs of a legislature to make and change laws.

-

Anyway, the other factor which prompted me to write this post was the news that Ffred Ffransis was sent to prison for five days for refusing to pay a fine imposed on him some years ago. The action taken by Cymdeithas in 2001 fully fitted the criteria I outlined above.

     

Unlike a few people whose views I have read on the case, I do not condemn the fact that he was either fined or eventually sent to prison for refusing to pay that fine. The law is important, and it is important that the law takes its course. If I were the magistrate hearing the case I would have sent him to prison too. I would probably have been inclined to make the sentence longer. It is important for any society that the law is upheld and that people who break the law accept the consequences of their actions. Those principles have now been satisfied ... and Ffred Ffransis has had his say. Justice has been done.

-

But who comes out with more? Well, I have no doubt that it is Ffred Ffrancis and the cause he wanted to highlight by taking the direct action in the first place. In fact the long delay in justice only serves to re-emphasize the point he and Cymdeithas were originally making ... because nothing has changed in the past eight years. That is shameful.

We still do not have a new Welsh Language Act (or now Measure) despite the political assurances that we would. As anyone who was concerned about the issue at the time will remember, Labour were highly critical of the 1993 Act passed by the Tories, and said they would pass an improved Act when they were elected. They were elected in 1997 ... and have had all of twelve years to make good on that promise.

-

Also, too many public bodies (or firms to whom the work of public bodies is contracted-out) have simply paid lip service to the requirements of the 1993 Act. The NHS is a good example: even now, sixteen years after the Act, the chances of being able to go to a hospital in many parts of Wales and get your consultation or treatment from NHS staff that speak Welsh are very, very remote indeed.

And so too, as Ffred Ffransis has now been able to highlight, is the prison service. As reported here the largest prison in Wales had no bilingual official forms, no bilingual signs and notices ... not even a Welsh bible.

So again, who comes out with more? These revelations are an embarrassment only to the National Offender Management Service and the government in general, not to Mr Ffransis. It is a supreme irony that the prison authorities have now been shown to have failed to comply with the requirements of the law. I think Ffred Ffransis will smile and say that this alone was well worth the price of admission.

-

We talk about a broken political system. But one of the main complaints is that politicians all too often fail to take any notice of what those who elected them elected them to do. For as long as that continues, protest and direct action have important parts to play in building and maintaining a healthy society.