Do I have a say? Do I have a voice? That is a question I have asked myself many times. Of course, I do, I am using it to speak right now, I use it to speak whenever I like, and to say whatever I like. The question really is, then, why does no-one listen. Why does no-one listen to what young people have to say? Why does no-one represent us? And the answer is this; we live in a democracy, a Great British democracy. A democracy of the elites, a democracy of the powerful, and a democracy that attempts to over-power those who do not fall into line. It is an arrogant ideology, one that condescends and condemns patronises those who oppose it. Is it worth killing for? Of course it is, because without killing, it wouldn’t even exist. And above all, it is not a real democracy.

I want to take a few minutes to analyse the state of our society. Let’s take the issue of women’s rights; how women are valued in our society, how women are treated, and what our society is doing to actively fight for and promote the rights of a historically oppressed and marginalised section of our society. In England, women are beaten up by their partners every day. In England, women are hospitalised by their boyfriends and husbands every day. In England, women are killed every week by the people who are supposed to love and protect them. In our society, women are objectified on television as objects for our sexual and visual pleasure and nothing more. In our media, we sell and package and advertise sex to children of younger and younger ages. What do we do to protect women in our society? Men that beat up their girlfriends, or wives; that brutally assault the women they live and sleep with, can expect, at most, a sentence of a few years. Many are released, and do exactly the same thing again.

What do we do to protect young people in our society? What do we do to actively promote these young minds, the people that hold our future in their hands, the people whose smiles brighten our day, and whose eyes will see many years after we leave the Earth? How do we harness their potential, and encourage them to succeed. We bombard them with advertising every day, and feed them a diet of consumerism and constant obsession with material goods. And then when shops are smashed open, and the goods displayed in windows, the goods that we tell young people they need to survive, when they are stolen and looted… WELL! Then it is time to condemn our young people, to demonise them, to single out this “sick section of our society”. Actually, I think it is the one’s who loot the natural resources of entire continents who are really the lowest in our society.

What are we doing to combat racism, to empower and respect ethnic minorities, and to encourage racial harmony in our society. People of many races, but majority black people, die in the custody of the police and not one single person is held to account. As Benjamin Zephaniah once wrote, “How has it become so official, that black people are killed, without any killers?”

That was written in a poem dedicated to Stephen Lawrence. When Nelson Mandela came to visit his mother, Doreen, in 1993, he said to her, “we are used to this in South Africa, where black lives are cheap. But I did not know this was also the case here in the UK.” It took eighteen years for Stephen Lawrence’s parents to see two, only two of his five killers, put in prison. Five men that the police themselves knew were responsible for his death. It took years of tireless campaigning. It took a public report in 1999 which confirmed what most of us already knew, and still know today, that the police are insitutionally racist. So, when did that “institutional racism” disappear? I, for one, am a big fan of our democracy… I mean, black people are still 30 more times likely than white people to be stopped by the police, so it’s really unlikely that I’m ever going to get stop and searched! I might get pulled out of my wheelchair every now and then instead, but at least I won’t be denounced as a drug dealer or gang member immediately afterwards.

What do we do to promote the equality of disabled people in our society? For a start, they are forbidden from travelling on the public transport that every one else enjoys through it’s inaccessibality. On the forms of public transport that are accessible, buses for example, they are hassled by drivers, treated as a liability, refused entry, ignored, bullied and humiliated on a regular basis. Disabled people are denounced as scroungers, and their benefits, which are so meagre that no-one could live on them, are the amongst the first to be cut. In fact, I think the government who have such a loose touch, not even a touch of reality, to ask for £60 million to buy the Queen a boat for being alive… it seems like they are scrounging a lot more than disabled people.

It is dangerously easy, I think, to lose hope in this country. We are pumped with propaganda from morning to night, told that our politicial is the best system, the only system, and indeed that other people in the world are begging for us to “intervene”, to give them the gift of western democracy. Of course, this is not true. From my own experiences, it seems that people in other parts of the world are pursuing their own political systems, independent of foreign influence, and are succeeding. Let us take, for example, Venezuela. In this country, we speak about an idea that I find very strange; “representative democracy”. The idea that we need people to “represent” us, to make our decisions for us. Even if we thought this was a good model of democracy, which I don’t think it is, it is quite clear that the people in political power do not represent us. Why should I vote for one of three candidates, none of whom can relate to my background, understand my experience or have knowledge of where I come from.

In Venezuela, they speak of a participatory democracy. That is to say, a political system where the people directly participate in political decisions and have a say in the direction their country is headed. When the constitution of Venezuela was written, in 1999, it benefited from the suggestions, amendments and additions from tens of thousands of people. Mothers, fathers, brothers and sisters. Now, you can buy a pocket-sized copy of the constitution from any street corner in Caracas. Now, articles of the constitution are printed on the back of rice packets in government-subsidised supermarkets in poor neighbourhoods. That is supermarkets where people can buy healthy, nutritious food for way below the normal price. What do we have? Iceland in Peckham selling frozen junk and KFC and McDonald’s in the centre of Brixton. Thank you very much western democracy.

Where is our constitution? Do citizens of this country know what their legal and social rights are? Or do those rights depend on your wealth, your social background, or the colour of your skin? Where is the encouragement for young people, or indeed any people, to engage in the political process in this country, when they know they have been, are being and will be consistently lied to by politicians in all of the main political parties, and that no-one will be held to account. In Venezuela, a referendum to recall any publically-elected official can be held if a petition signed by 20% of the electorate demands it. In 2004, some Venezuelans did exactly that, and a referendum was held to determine whether Hugo Chavez, the President of Venezuela, should be re-called or not. Almost 5 million people, 58% of those who voted, said that Hugo Chavez should remain in office. What a despicable dictator, winning those elections over and over again!

Where are the referendums in this country, where are the chances to throw our elected officials out of office? That is a fun event that all the family could enjoy! There are none, and so instead, young people take to the streets, where they are disgracefully brutalised by the police. When it gets really serious, threats to send the army are hovered in the air. Do you know what happens when this occurs in another country. It is called civil war and extreme repression, if practised by a government that is unfavourable to our interests, and we demand for sanctions to be imposed. We reward the people of countries we happen to not like, usually based on the foreign policy of their government, by sanctioning them. If it is practised in countries that are favourable to our interests, then it is described as unrest. Nothing wrong with a bit of unrest, is there?

So, there is another election in Venezuela this year. How will we denounce Mr. Dictator Hugo Chavez this time? Will we cry about the lack of media freedom, in a country where the private media actively supported, promoted and called for a coup against the elected President of the country in 2002. Can you imagine if ITV News were broadcasting announcements, telling people to get down to Downing Street and drag David Cameron from his bed at number ten? Do you think, in that context, that ITV News would retain their license to broadcast? Do you think that if ITV and Channel 4 News were calling David Cameron a “monkey” on national television, that the British government would tolerate it? Luckily, we don’t have to worry about issues as petty as freedom of press in this country; when we are going to war, or when the going gets tough, the media know which side their bread is buttered on. Or if, like Press TV, they have a different agenda, it is not difficult to quickly sweep them off the air. Thank you so much for Western democracy; as a journalist, I really love the freedom it gives me.

In Venezuela, a trip from the barrios, the poor neighbourhoods in the hills, down to the centre of town; a trip that used to take up to two hours, now takes 15 minutes on the cable cars the government have built. They are free, clean, quick, and provide a beautiful view over the city for children on their way to school, and men and women on their way to work. Personally, I much prefer the London tube, which I can’t get on because of the fact I use a wheelchair. Thank you very much equality-loving Western democracy.

There is a simple concept that a lot of people seem to find difficult to comprehend. As great, lovely, free, caring and positive the political system is in this country, and this is coming from someone who really, really loves Western democracy, it isn’t for everyone. Unfortunately for us, other countries have found alternative systems that actually work. The people of those countries are not going to sit down and welcome foreign invaders with open arms, whether they come in the form of NATO-bombs or IMF restructuring programs; they never have, and they never will. The question is, do we want our Empire to sink whilst writhing about and splashing in the ocean of change, or do we want to accept and embrace those waves in all their beauty.

Thank you.

Sometimes, you have to wonder which planet David Cameron is living on. For me, the question of Scottish independence has always been a simple one. In 2011, the Scottish National Party won the parliamentary elections by a landslide, becoming the first ever majority government since the Scottish Parliament was set up, in an electoral system designed to prevent precisely that from happening. The SNP, whose main campaign policy is for Scottish independence, won 69 out of 129 seats. The Scottish Labour Party, in comparison, suffered their worst electoral defeat since 1931. The leaders of the Scottish Labour, Liberal Democrat and Conservative Parties were all forced to resign after such atrocious results. You would think that figures like this give a fairly clear image of public opinion in Scotland.

Nevertheless, David Cameron seems confused, and he thinks that the people of Scotland might be confused too. When the SNP were elected last year, First Minister Alex Salmond said that a referendum on independence would be held in the second half of their term in government. Again, a clear proposal and time frame, and one that they certainly had a mandate to put forward after such a large electoral victory. However, self-proclaimed Master of Scottish Interests Mr. Cameron says:

“It’s very unfair on the Scottish people themselves, who don’t really know when this question is going to be asked, what the question is going to be, who’s responsible for asking it. We owe the Scottish people something that is fair, legal and decisive. So in the coming days we’ll be setting out clearly what the legal situation is…”

Yes, it is really unfair on those poor Scots, isn’t it, Mr. Cameron? I’m sure they can’t wait for you to set out that legal situation for them, because they clearly can’t be trusted to deal with it on their own. If only Cameron knew how universally despised the Conservative Party are in Scotland, perhaps he would realise that the only thing he “owe[s] the Scottish people” is to stay out of their internal affairs.

It is nothing new for Cameron to speak with this kind of arrogance. However, even I was surprised by the stupidity of some of his comments.

“I think what Alex Salmond is trying to do…” Cameron continued, “I think he knows the Scottish people, at heart, don’t want a full separation from the United Kingdom – and so he’s trying to sort of create a situation where that bubbles up and happens.”

This is where the ‘what planet is he living on’ thought popped into my mind. Ummmm… “bubbles up and happens”? I don’t think that is quite how a national referendum on independence happens, Mr. Cameron.

It is looking increasingly likely that when a referendum on Scottish independence is held, it will be successful. There would be no “United Kingdom” in the form that we know it. But instead of facing the reality of Scottish independence, David Cameron, his supporters, and the entire English political spectrum would rather ignore, laugh and fight against it till the end. The delusions of a dying empire are still alive and well.

Of course, no such law exists, which makes you wonder how this ever happened. We do not have capital punishment in this country, which makes me wonder how I can receive messages saying ‘well, you’re not going to believe the story of a thief, are you?’ I think it is very disturbing to be moving towards a society that feels the need to make apologies and think of excuses for actions that are so clearly, so blatantly wrong. Whatever the crime, how could a person that uses a wheelchair pose enough resistance to 5-6 trained police officers to justify the use of a taser? This is the type of tactic you would expect to be deployed in a fascist state, but we have no sympathy for what happened to this person? Last year, people died after being tasered by the police, yet the weapon continues to be used with such utter impunity?

“On the 31st of December 2011 Shocket Aslam was driving on the M6 motorway in Staffordshire when 3-5 police vehicles together with a helicopter apprehended him after he had left a petrol station without paying. As soon as he saw the police coming he stopped his vehicle on the hard shoulder and as officers approached aggressively and asked him to put his hands up and get out of the car he confirmed that he was disabled. Two officers had tasers aimed at him in the driver side and on the passenger side as well, and a police officer on his side smashed the window and repeatedly hit with him a kosh. He protested and again tried to explain that he was disabled and it was hard for him to get it out but he was then tasered from behind in the shoulder and dragged out of the car by 5/6 officers. Two of these were trying to pull his arms around his back and his face was held on the floor. One officer saw the wheelchair and stated this to the other officers but they continued to hoist him out and dragged him along the ground and threw head first into a police car. When Shocket asked for help and water he was sworn at violently by the officers and wished happy New Year by them!”

Do we have to wait for a disabled person to die in police custody before anyone bats an eyelid?

Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Grenada, the Bahamas, Belize. All countries that are formally independent, yet have the Queen as their official head of state. Jamaica is another country that falls into that category, but today, Portia Simpson Miller, elected Prime Minister for the second time in last week’s election, pledged to change that. As she was sworn in, Simpson Miller made a 45 minute speech in which she vowed to drop the Queen as head of state and make the country a republic. She also promised to replace the privy council in London with the court of justice as Jamaica’s highest court of appeal, which she said would “end judicial surveillance from London”.

Jamaica became an independent country in 1962, and the very idea that they would retain a head of state who lives thousands of miles away seems extremely bizarre. Nevertheless, Simpson Miller has taken a bold step to mark her inauguration. Just one month after the first ever meeting of CELAC, the coalition of thirty-three American states, including Jamaica but excluding the US and Canada, it seems that the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean are in a stronger position than ever before. Most importantly, the people of the region have recognised the necessity of unity in the face of a common oppressor; the imperialist powers that seek to divide and rule them. Ever since the penning of the Monroe Doctrine, written by Secretary of State John Quincy Adams in 1823, the United States have viewed Latin America as their ‘backyard’, and acted accordingly.

But ‘America’s Backyard’ has become independent of the house. Of course, it is perfectly reasonable for a Caribbean island to not want an English head of state, but then again, it is perfectly reasonable for an island just off the coast of Argentina to not be an English colony. The fact is, these points are unreasonable where you are trapped in the mind-set of an Empire upon which the sun never sets. The sun has set, and it set a long time ago.

Once again, it seems that countries of the so-called “third world” are paving the way towards a progressive future, whilst England lags behind with an out-of-date, feudal, monarchy-based rule. A representative democracy in which the House of Lords are elected by no-one, and hold the power, second only to the Queen, to veto or change any law being passed. I’m sure none of these factors will stop British politicians lecturing other countries about “democracy”, “legitimacy” or how to run their internal affairs, whether it is Iran, Venezuela, Syria or, indeed, Jamaica.

CELAC held its first conference in Caracas on December 2-3rd 2011, exactly 188 years after the Monroe Doctrine was committed to paper. The coalition has given countries like Jamaica an extra impetus to demand the total freedom they are long overdue, and the new sense of regional solidarity will certainly pose a problem for those who spent so long salivating over the resources of the “banana republics” and sugar plantations. Latin America and the Caribbean have chosen freedom, and real independence. And a head of state that doesn’t live in Buckingham Palace.

I fail to find the inaccuracies in the above statement, but the tweet made by Hackney MP Diane Abbott has raised a storm of moral outrage and disgust. Apparently, calls were made for the MP to resign for the comments. Personally, I think that politicians should resign, or be re-called by their constituents, when they openly and blatantly mislead people, or when they are complicit in crimes against humanity. Not when they tweet something historically accurate. Nick Clegg, for example, whose arrogance you could hear dripping from his words as he denounced Abbott’s comments as “stupid and crass”; ironically, an apt and concise description of his political career since he was awarded the role of Deputy Prime Minister.

Although some find it a bitter pill to swallow, I have no problem with recognising the role that “white people”, “English people”, “rich people”, or whatever you want to call them, have played in drawing the borders of the world. There is no problem with recognising that. White people drew the borders of Africa. White people drew the borders of the so-called “Middle East”. White people invaded what is now known as the United States of America, and Australia, and massacred the indigenous people of those lands. It is not “self-hate”, it is simple, historical fact. And the phrase “divide and rule” would be a fairly accurate description of your country’s past if you came from Palestine, India or Korea, to name a few.

The less-than-140 characters tweeted by Diane Abbott do not equal racism. What does equal racism are the policies of British governments, both current and past, in upholding a global status quo of oppression and inequality. British governments have never had a problem of killing a few thousand brown-skinned people when “our interests” are at stake, whether it be land, profits or oil. There has never been a problem with a few black people dying in police custody in England, especially if they are sufficiently demonised as “gangsters”, “drug-dealers” and “criminals” in the immediate aftermath.

Is it not time that we recognise the real racism problem that exists in this country, in the form of the British government, and the newspaper headlines that join them in demonising young black, and Muslim people on a regular basis. The racist ideology that somehow gives some English people, still today in 2012, the inane belief that we have the ability and duty to act as some kind of moral authority when it comes to the internal affairs of other people’s countries. The Iranian people, apparently, could be the latest lucky winners of our humanitarian liberation bombs, with Defence Secretary Phillip Hammond today warning Iran that closing the Straits of Hormuz would be “illegal”, and that Britain would be prepared to use force to re-open them. Oh yes, Britain, that great arbitrator of international law; I’m sure Presidents and leaders of the world are lining up for lectures. I can’t wait to hear David Cameron’s plan for fighting racism!

But we are not meeting King here.  Down Acre Lane, we are meeting him at a home in Clapham, where he is staying.  There is an anticipation of uncertainty as we knock on the door; what do you possibly ask a man who has spent 31 years of his life in prison, 29 of which were boxed in the brutality of ‘solitary confinement’?  Nevertheless, King is relaxed as he comes in from the garden to greet us.  He has a busy schedule during his two weeks in the UK, but says he simply asks what event is happening today, and then goes to do it.

October is Black History Month, an event that sparks a new round of debate and discussion each year.  “There wasn’t any recognition of black history in America,” Robert King tells us, pausing to remember a time long ago, “it was snuffed out… repressed.  First of all, we had Black History Week, then it became a Month, but they gave us February, the shortest month of the year!”

BHM has been praised by many sections of the community as a chance to celebrate a common experience, but for King, many of the conditions that led to it’s creation still exist.  “People can recognise and commemorate, but there are still too many problems.  This can be one part of a forest [to rectify them], but it doesn’t become the forest itself.”

What about Boris Johnson, we ask, the Mayor of London who, last year, slashed the allocated budget for BHM from £132,000 to a mere £10,000.  At the same time, the £100,000 ‘Africa Day’ fund was slashed completely, only to be replaced with a new ‘America Day’ commanding exactly the same amount.  “It’s a shame and an affront,” says King.  “It’s an insult.  But when people in society are insulted, affronted, or placed into a position of poverty, they have to make their feelings known.”

Here is King’s attitude encapsulated within the space of a few words; never one to dwell on the bitterness or glorification of the past, he knows from personal experience of the importance of making your voice heard.  The words of another Mr. King, Martin Luther Jr, come to mind; “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

Whilst in prison, King was to feel the price of demanding his freedom or, indeed, that of the people around him.  He was placed into solitary confinement after being accused of ‘attempting to play lawyer for another inmate’ by the prison authorities, and would stay there until his release.

“They gave a lot of reasons but yeah, that was the initial reason,” King reflects.  “I didn’t know anything about no law, but if an inmate spoke up for another inmate… yeah, something would happen.  I wasn’t trying to play lawyer, although ironically, I did act as a lawyer for another inmate at a later date.  At that time, I was just trying to speak up for someone’s moral right that I saw being accosted.

I’ve seen people go in to solitary confinement as outgoing people, and come out as what many people would describe as insane.  In fact, I think people can sometimes just give up, and wilfully go insane.  But for me, during my time in prison, to allow my thoughts to retreat into a cocoon like that was completely out of the question.”

As well as Black History Month, this October also marks the 45th anniversary of the founding of the Black Panther Party, of which Robert King was a member.  I am keen to here his experiences of the Party, which he joined whilst in prison.  But King is eager to take us back even further.  The BPP, after all, was not created in a vacuum.

“The Black Panther Party emerged in 1966, but this started with many other organisations,” King tells us.  “The National Association for the Advancement of so-called “Colored People” is one of the oldest, and you had the National Urban League.  There were a long succession of organisations before us keeping black issues at the forefront.  In fact, people had been struggling continuously since slavery, but nothing was really changing.  Malcolm X came on the scene, he was assassinated.  Martin Luther King came on the scene, he was assassinated.  The Black Panther Party emerged as a result of this.  Malcolm X was killed in 1965, and the BPP emerged one year later.  We even had our co-founder, Huey P Newton, being a bodyguard for Betty Shabazz, Malcolm X’s widow.”

I mention the recent riots in London, and the way the people involved in them were denounced throughout the English media as ‘violent animals’.  Were the Black Panthers demonised in a similar way?

“Of course!” King emphatically replies.  “We had Emory Douglas doing our artwork, but the police would also draw posters, in the same style as ours, to try and portray us as violent.  They would say that we started all the confrontations but, conversely, it was the police shooting in on the Black Panther Party.  Why did they do that?  Because we were raising the consciousness of the people.  We said that if racists or if the KKK attack you, then you should defend yourself.  You don’t need any law to have the right to defend yourself.  But our biggest self-defence were the survival programs.”

For many people studying the history of revolutionary movements, the Black Panthers have become a symbol of the “ideal” organisation.  Through their survival programs, the Panthers provided local communities with the clothes, breakfasts, housing and education that they either couldn’t afford, or weren’t recieving elsewhere.  But King seems intent on emphasising the naivety of relying purely on organisations for a way forward.

““I did become a member of the Black Panther Party,” he tells us, “but, more than that, it was a struggle that I was joining.  This is what we really need; a constant struggle of people.  It goes beyond organisations.  Because sometimes, when organisations de-activate, people also de-activate.  That is why I am emphasising the importance of the people!  People say that someone should re-start the Black Panther Party, but you can’t re-invent the wheel.  You can, however, make the wheel better!  The Black Panthers don’t have a monopoly on what you should do; maybe young people here can take what they see as the best parts of what we did, and apply it to their own situation.  And not just us, but any organisation that you think did something good.”

Perhaps there is a sense of frustration at people’s tendencies to focus solely on the achievements of the BPP, rather than the people behind it.  Or perhaps this is a recognition of a system similar in its foundations, but ever-changing in its methods of oppression, and a need for a response that can challenge it in any context.  Of course, there is no use looking back to the past without using it to inform your actions in the future.  So, I ask King, how has the movement developed since the Black Panthers were established.

“I think things have regressed,” he replies.  “Since 1966, perhaps there have been individual successes in race relations.  But institutional racism still exists.  The system that was built on racism still exists.  In the US, you take privilege from your skin colour.

45 years ago, the prison population was 350,000, if that.  Now, we have over two million, as well as another four million on indirect probation.  So, have things progressed?  No, they have worsened.  There might be more black people in politics, there might even be a, quote, black President.  But he just happens to be a black man; first of all, he is a politician, and he is an American.  An American politician.  If you take an oath into a system built on racism, they will not allow you to deviate from that.

People are saying that having a black President means that racism doesn’t exist any more!  Well, you still have a huge amount of people who didn’t vote for Obama.  The Republicans are making statements like “We want our country back!”  They would probably rather assassinate the guy!”

What about Troy Davis, the man recently executed at Georgia Diagnostic and Statistics prison, after spending 22 years on ‘death row’.

“There was evidence and too much doubt for this man to be executed,” says King.  “People say that this was legal, and therefore correct.  I tell people that it was completely legal to own a slave!  It is not until people took a stand against legalised slavery, from a position that it was morally reprehensible, that we achieved anything.  I’m not saying slavery disappeared; indeed, it reversed itself and came back in the form of a prison.  People seem to think legality and morality are friends; in the courthouse, they are not.

It was legal to kill Troy Davis.  It was legal to hold me in prison for 31 years, 29 of them in solitary confinement, but morally it was reprehensible.  That’s why we need to change the mind-set, to show people that just because something is legal, it doesn’t mean it is correct, or something deified by God.  This is what America is constructed on; a legalism that is completely void of morality.”

Who are Robert King’s role models?  People like Harriet Tubman, Assata Shakur, and his grandmother, he tells us.

“It wasn’t until I was five or six years old that I realised that this woman bringing me up was actually my grandmother, not my mother.  She didn’t have an education.  She worked for a nickel a day cutting sugar cane… getting hand-me-downs and left-over food.  But she worked so that we ate.  She’s my hero.”

Jody McIntyre

The rain had been pouring for the entire journey there, so huge puddles turned the grassy ground to muddy water.  Fences had been erected to stop people going in or out of the site, and as soon as we tried to do so, ten of the bailiffs’ heavy men came over to firmly inform us that we would not be able to get in.  You could be forgiven for not knowing that it is the travellers who actually own the land.

I saw a young girl in a light blue tracksuit walking from inside the camp, jumping from stone to stone to avoid the puddles.  Some ominous looking men, also wearing blue jackets, but with “Security” instead of “Bailiff” written across the back, let her out of the newly-erected gate, and she came over to greet us.

She told me that her name was Cathlin, she was eleven years old, and that she could show us another way to get into the site.

As we waited around the corner, observing the bailiffs movement from behind a fence, Cathlin started talking to us about her community’s plight.  “We’ve lived here for years,” she began, “and now they want to kick us all out.  Today I went to talk to a man living in one of the houses across the road, and I asked him if he was happy that the council were getting rid of the travellers, and he said ‘Yeah, I’m 100% happy’.  They’re just being racist towards us; we’re human beings too, but they treat us like we’re rats.”

The community had been facing threats of eviction for years, but only now were their worst nightmares finally becoming a reality.  I thought back to my experiences in East Jerusalem; the parallels were too strong to ignore.

“The council offered a few of the families here hostels or flats to live in,” Cathlin continued, “but that isn’t our way of life.  And what would happen to us there?  We’d just get even more racism against us.”

We were told that pubs in the local area had put up “No travellers” signs in their doors. Authentically apartheid, in a “democratic” setting.

Cathlin was meant to be in school that day, but when she had seen the police and the bailiffs arriving at 8am, she decided not to go in.  Laws were past a few years ago to prevent travelling communities from driving in convoys, so families at Hovefields seemed to have settled down to an extent; Cathlin’s generation are amongst the first in their families to attend school.

But now, they are being uprooted again.  “If it’s illegal for us to travel, and it’s illegal for us to live here,” Cathlin asked, “then where do we go?”

Surely, this is the question we must all ask ourselves; where do we go from here?  Surely, now more than ever, it is essential that our struggle takes on a new sense of urgency.  Cathlin and her family are amongst the unwanted in our society, the victims that will always remain forgotten.  If we are serious about demanding equality, then their struggle is our struggle too.