|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
RE. FLOWERS OUTSIDE THE CHINESE
EMBASSY, a letter sent to the Met Police |
|
Update - D.P.G have replied to second letter see below. |
|
|
|
Dear Inspector I met you on August 23 outside the Chinese Embassy during the special vigil for Tashi Tsering, a Tibetan who dared to raise the Tibetan flag in the central square of the capital Lhasa, was badly beaten up by the Chinese and subsequently died in prison. On that day 21 police were at one time present and you expressed the view that they could be better employed elsewhere. I expect you are correct, and this letter seeks to look at the issues involved. Tibet Vigil are a smallish group who follow the Dalai Lama's political/spiritual call for people to do what they can for Tibet in a non?violent way, Since 1989 the Vigil has met once a week (occasionally more)and has never been involved in violence, We have held approximately 600 vigils and have crossed the road approximately 40 times during that time, to lay wreaths, present petitions etc. We see the laying of flowers as part of that long tradition of peaceful demonstration which we have outside the embassy. It is nonviolent, peaceful, and we feel it to be legitimate and also part of the current way people in the U.K. make a strong visual statement about matters they feel strongly about such as Princess Diana's death, Sarah Payne's murder and the deaths of numerous pedestrians killed by cars. So what, given the just outlined background, could justify the summoning of 21 police to deal with approximately 30 demonstrators who had crossed the road on August 23 ? ( Just over 50 people came to the vigil of whom 30 approx crossed the road ). Perhaps a look back at the special vigils held during the last eighteen months may throw some light on things. On March 10 1999 at a candlelit vigil attended by 250 people, approximately 200 crossed the road and placed 200 bunches of daffodils on the railings of the Chinese Embassy. After a while the D.P,G, officer on duty came over the road to say that China had complained that the flowers were on their property. The D.P.G. said that the flowers could legally be placed on the pavement at the base of the fence. We thanked the D.P.G. for their diplomatic handling of the situation, and the D.P.G. then placed the flowers with care on the pavement. Maximum police number at any one time ?? 6 to 250 demonstrators. That demonstration epitomized the peaceful event with good policing which had taken place between 1989?1999. Three days later the annual march took place. This was not policed by Marylebone or D.P.G. I don't think, however a new feel was apparent on the march. No one was permitted to stop opposite the embassy during the march . The next special vigil was on April 25 1999 for the birthday of the kidnapped Panchen Lama, the world's youngest political prisoner, the D.P.G, officer told us he had been ordered to prevent us presenting anything so we were unable to leave a birthday cake and birthday cards at the front door, (Although we later managed to deliver them through the side door). On May 17 at the special vigil for the anniversary of the Panchen Lama's detention there was no D.P.G. presence outside the embassy. We were able to deliver a three foot yellow key to the front door and left it attached to the door knob with a message to free the Panchen Lama. There was no other vigil at which anything was taken across the road before the Jiang Zemin visit. So on to 2000, On March 12, approx 20 people attended a womens' vigil in memory of the Tibetan womens' uprising. 14 women crossed the road to place 3 daffodils each on the pavement in front of the embassy, an action they believed to be in harmony with police directions from the previous year. The D.P.G. officer called for reinforcements who arrived on two motorcycles and five cars and quickly removed the flowers altogether. On the Panchen Lama's birthday vigil the same thing happened with the police kicking the flowers about and removing them by van, Consequently at the Panchen Lama's detention vigil on May 17 attended by 24 we all crossed the road in support of our flower laying. We left when requested to do so by police reinforcements. The flowers were removed by van. On August 23 we crossed the road as a group again and this time announced our intention to remain there for 5 minutes which we did before returning across the road. The flowers were quickly removed. Since March 10 1999 we have seen a big change in police approach to the vigil which we can only explain in political terms. You say you don't want to waste so many officers at the site so the question has to be asked?? then why do you? The number would seem to be unwarranted unless you are making a statement to the Chinese, And of course you could stop preventing the laying of flowers on the pavement which did not seem to be regarded as 'offence to the dignity of China' before this year. It looks to us as though nebulous conventions are interpreted according to the convenience of the political directives of the moment. Consequently your response to the flowers is a central issue here. I look forward to your reply and your suggestions. Yours, Simon (for Tibet Vigil) |
|
Having recieved no answer to the first letter, a second has been sent. |
|
|
|
Dear Police, I am sorry that two months later I have received no response
to my letter concerning the laying of flowers outside the Chinese
Embassy during peaceful protests about the Chinese occupation
of Tibet. I therefore continue to think that laying flowers outside
an embassy can be legitimate action. Yours, Simon Gould for Tibet Vigil, |
|
UPDATE In reply to the above letter the Diplomatic Protection Group
rang Simon on Friday 8th December and agreed to our proposals
for the laying of Flowers. |