There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village


10:00 am - July 3rd 2010

by Sunny Hundal    


      Share on Tumblr

I’m getting tired of the stupid arguments pretend-Libertarians and authoritarian lefties use to justify evicting Democracy Village protesters in Parliament Square.

A little anecdote first. A few weeks ago I went by Parliament Square at night. This time I stopped and parked my motorbike, came back into the Village and uprooted this sign on the side in support of 9/11 Truthers. I nearly managed to carry the banner off the field and chuck it in the bin but I ran into the Villagers.

And so a long debate ensued about whether it was right to have the sign there, whether they were achieving anything and what exactly they were protesting against. In the end I gave them back their silly 9/11 banner.

I’ll come back to the point about most lefties being like those Villagers (great at protesting, rubbish at strategic action and coherence) later. What I did accept was that the one philosophy they did abide by was that the camp was welcome to anyone and they’d try and maintain as much free speech as possible. The BNP and English Defence League were welcome to debate and plant themselves in the camp if they wanted to.

Fairy nuff. Even if the stupid 9/11 Truther sign gave them a bad name, their dedication to free speech was admirable.

It’s a shame I can’t say that about other people who want to get rid of DV using really idiotic arguments like ‘they’re too scruffy‘ or ‘the rights of the tourists are being affected‘.

We have a real problem in this country. And that is the police have too much power. They have too much power to enter your house, to confiscate your property, to arrest you using spurious legislation, to stop protests arbitrarily and even deny you the right to protest.

A few months ago the Sikh play Behud, a follow-up to the play Behzti (which was shut down following protests by Sikhs), nearly did not go ahead thanks to the police. The original play was closed because the local police could not be bothered to provide sufficient protection to the theatre (thanks to pressure by local politicians). That meant their insurance would be nulled if the play went ahead and people / property were destroyed. Play closed.

This time around they wanted £10,000 a day to cover the costs of policing! Eventually the theatre convinced them to drop the charge, and the play was able to go ahead. If this was the US, the police would be legally required to offer protection if there were threats. And they wouldn’t be able to charge the Theatre for what should be their jobs anyway.

The liberty to protest and hold a demonstration should be non-negotiable because it is fundamental to democracy. You make idiotic arguments like ‘the tourists don’t like it‘, and the next thing you know corporations and politicians will ban protests that affect them too.

And yes, I fully support the rights of groups like the BNP and English Defence League to hold protests and demonstrations.

I’m not surprised at all that Tories want Democracy Village shut down – their libertarian streak has always been a façade so they can sound all edgy without association too close with Thatcher.

But the fact that some Labourites are falling for this crap shows they have more in common with Tories than they’d like to admit.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunny Hundal is editor of LC. Also: on Twitter, at Pickled Politics and Guardian CIF.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog ,Civil liberties

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


I’m getting tired of the stupid arguments pretend-Libertarians and authoritarian lefties use to justify evicting Democracy Village protesters in Parliament Square.

Agreed entirely.

This is one of those rare issues where there is no left/right paradigm- it is purely a libertarian/authoritarian issue and I agree that any “libertarian” who supports the eviction of the protesters is a fake.

2. Matt Munro

Fing hell ! I never thought I’d type this, but I agree 100% with Sunny

Just to put a sting in the tail though – didn’t that nice Mr Blair bring in some special law to ban protesters near Parliament, mainly to get rid of the harmless old gent who staged a vey long running war protest ?

Do you then feel that the right to start living on publicly owned land or property is sacrosanct?

If I want to go and protest something or the other, should it be legal to build a campsite in the local park? How about the swimming pool changing rooms? What about the library?

What if I decide to dig up the local park, because I feel it is my civic right to grow my own vegetables? What if I want to plant a tree as a symbol? Should all these things be legal?

Should I pay council tax if I decide to live there?

Sorry, I just don’t agree with you about this. This isn’t a violation of the right to protest. They can still come and protest there every day if they so choose.

4. David Boothroyd

I suspect the fact that the ‘Democracy Village’ is proclaimed as a political protest is befuddling several people’s minds. The issue of political free speech is actually a red herring and let me explain why.

The question we are posed is “Should a group of people be allowed to camp out indefinitely on Parliament Square Gardens as part of a political protest?”

But by the time you’ve got to “Should a group of people be allowed to camp out indefinitely on Parliament Square Gardens” the answer is already “No”. Any more information isn’t needed. Any objective consideration of whether political protest is an exception, or subjective consideration of whether this particular political protest is worthwhile, isn’t needed.

Just because a ‘free speech’ argument can be shoehorned into an issue does not make it automatically acceptable.

Sunny, glad to see you using the expression I like to use…… ‘pretend libertarians.’ It can not be said enough.

All Libertarians are pretend.

6. Flowerpower

A few weeks ago … I stopped and parked my motorbike, came back into the Village and uprooted this sign on the side in support of 9/11 Truthers. I nearly managed to carry the banner off the field and chuck it in the bin …………… so a long debate ensued …. their dedication to free speech was admirable.

So what you seem to be saying is that your own dedication to free speech is only a few weeks old, and was down to the Villagers.

Really?

people who want to get rid of DV using really idiotic arguments like ‘they’re too scruffy‘ or ‘the rights of the tourists are being affected‘.

How about the “idiotic argument” that has been raised quite a lot that the right to protest also comes with the responsibility to do so in a sensible manner.

We have a long standing tradition in the UK of allowing protests – and long may it continue – but when did that extend to occupying land on a mere whim and doing so seemingly forever?

My big worry is that this camp will lead to a tightening of the laws on protests to prevent such things happening again – and then everyone loses.

“How about the “idiotic argument” that has been raised quite a lot that the right to protest also comes with the responsibility to do so in a sensible manner.”

I don’t know why you’re using “” because your argument is an idiotic argument.

You have a responsibility when protesting not to be violent or to do harm to others, causing minor inconvenience should be lauded, this is what citizenship in action looks like.

Where would Ghandi have got to? What were the Salt Marches?

What’s the point in protesting if you do so in an unobtrusive way? Its about affecting change.

Now you go and protest about this Democracy Village in your bedroom please, you’re behaving in an irresponsible way.

Left Outside,

Gandhi’s Salt March was completely different.

He deliberately broke an unjust law, knowing that he would be sent to prison for doing so.

I don’t think that is what the Democracy Village people are trying to achieve.

Surprise surprise.

Now the Right is back in govt suddenly the trolls are telling us that protesting and demonstrating are not so high a priority. Remember all that guff about Magna Carta, and all the self righteous bull shit from David Davis and Green.

“We are becoming a police state” cried out all the right wing knuckle draggers when Green was made to understand what it is like to be held in a police station for 9 hours without charge. (something many inner city kids endure every day.) Now they are back in power, a police state is just fine.

Yeah fair enough, The Salt March was cool though…

That’s the annoying thing about arguing and then using the wrong example; it looks like I’ve lost.

Whereas I haven’t, the main point still stands, protests are meant to be inconveniencing, otherwise you may as well sit in your bedroom with a placard.

A better example, any protest where traffic or the day to day funtioning of a city is interupted, very inconveninent, very noticable. Thats the point.

If you don’t have to make sacfirices for a right, sacrifices like allowing free speech somewhere its “irresponsible”, then you are not granting someone a right at all.

Any inconvenience should be legal though, unless, like Gandhi, protestors are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions.

#4

So where do you draw the line?

Can protesters do an all-night vigil in Parliament Square for one night? What about a 48-hour vigil? Would sleeping out to protest about lack of support for homeless people be a legitimate and appropriate protest? What if rough sleepers came to join in the protest: how do you decide if they’re protesting or just sleeping there?

I’m almost in total agreement with Sunny, pagar & Matt Munro on this, which is a very very strange group to find myself in ;p

14. David Boothroyd

Tim, you’ve missed the point. You refer constantly to people engaging in political protest when the point of my post was that any political motive is irrelevant – and equally, the extent to which I personally happen to agree with their politics is also irrelevant. So your question about distinguishing between protesting and sleeping simply doesn’t arise in the first place.

Parliament Square Gardens is a public open space so its use should be consistent with that use. That includes public gatherings but it doesn’t include an indefinite campsite.

No, I got your point. My point is that you can’t make the political motive irrelevant without criminalising protest, and that it’s not up to you to decide what is indefinite and what isn’t.

16. David Boothroyd

In planning terms it is, actually.

17. David Boothroyd

It occurs to me that if you assert that Parliament Square as it is now is still public open space, then I should like to assert my right as a member of the public to go to any part of it, including the inside of any tent which may be pitched there, and to do so at any time of the day, including 3 AM. Would you have a problem with that?

#17 No I wouldn’t have any problem with that, providing you did not harrass any individual.

#17 Indeed, so long as you act within the law I think it would be wonderful if you were to protest agaisnt the Democracy Village. Set up an authoritarian hamlet.

20. Parasite

Not everybody who has tried to engage with the Democracy Village has had such a lovely time as Sunny has. Other journalists have recorded being spat at.

I would also question the squatters’ own explanation that they are protestors. One was quoted as saying they were there to highlight the war in Afghanistan lest the politicians forget. I’m not sure David Cameron and Liam Fox are going to let Afghanistan slip their minds were it not for a camp on Parliament Square.

21. Parasite

Oh, and actually, why are we calling this thing “Democracy Village”? The squatters don’t care for democracy – they want their unrepresentative voices to be heard first and foremost, and are using a form of blackmail – occupying Parliament Square – and threatening to stay there until their childish undergraduate pseudo-left demands are granted.

I’ll make a Libertarian of you yet, Sunny

Bottom line is their actions are not adversly affecting your life in any way so leave them alone.

If I want to go and protest something or the other, should it be legal to build a campsite in the local park? How about the swimming pool changing rooms? What about the library?

Yes, and why not? If you’re protesting against library closures by camping inside or outside a library – I’d fully support you.

If someone came by and said that their right as a local resident was being infringed because he/she couldn’t use the library without some nutter shouting in their area – guess what, I’d support you!

It’s a shame that many of you don’t get the point that free speech and free expression and the right to protest are often messy things.

You can’t just legislate against them because you think it steps on some planning permission, or that it inconveniences you or that you find it messy and unsightly or that the people protesting are hippies!

Those types of arguments are made by people who don’t understand free speech.

Any objective consideration of whether political protest is an exception, or subjective consideration of whether this particular political protest is worthwhile, isn’t needed.

Oh right. So you’ve decided it’s not a “worthwhile” protest and therefore it shouldn’t be allowed.

No wonder this country has gone to the dogs on free speech.

24. David Boothroyd

Again, I can’t help thinking that Sunny and others are letting the abstract concept of ‘free speech’ overwhelm all other rational arguments. Free Speech is extremely important but it isn’t an all-conquering absolute right which defeats any attempt at reasonable control. This is recognized by all legal systems including ECHR Article 10 which provides that the exercise of the right of free expression “may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society”.

Also I would like to know in what sense of the word ‘wrong’ is it argued that it would be wrong to require the removal of the camp at Parliament Square Gardens? Is it the legal sense? That will be decided by the courts but the initial judgment has upheld the right of the Mayor of London to remove the camp. If it is a wider ethical issue, then that could be disputed a number of ways, but it could also be argued that one of the central factors in a democracy is the rule of law. Strange that that is considered not to be an argument any more.

“Free Speech is extremely important but it isn’t an all-conquering absolute right which defeats any attempt at reasonable control.”

Yes it is. No shouting Fire in a crowded theatre (legitimate restriction), but if the theatre is a fire hazard you have the right to hand out leaflets in front of it.

Doggie policing. Look it up on Jack of Kent’s blog. If you let the police do something they will do it. You need safeguards and the ones you recommend are far far far far to lax.

When I, Sunny, Matt Munro and Old Holborn agree on something this means it is the correct position. It has only happened once.

“came back into the Village and uprooted this sign on the side in support of 9/11 Truthers.”

And you call yourself “Liberal”? Sounds like an act of the Righteous to me. Very illiberal, Sunny.

So, this camp has been sitting there for 5+ years under the previous government, protesting against something they actually did. And it is getting evicted within weeks of the new one, while you would have expected some of them to at least partially agree with the protesters.

Sunny’s reaction to this is to criticise _Labour_ as illiberal authoritarians…

The eviction of the protesters is absolutely classic Liberal behaviour. Make a lot of noise about standing up in principle for various abstract rights, especially when it suits your interest to do so. Then, whenever faced with a specific situation that you want to handle in a different way, come up with a different, equally abstract explanation for why you get to do what you want this time too.

That’s basically what liberalism _means_: deliberately choosing to ignoring the obvious human consequences of your actions on other people. Everything is about whatever abstruse logical self-justification you favour this week, which is and always has been universally applicable and eternally unchanging.

Until next week, when your self-interest requests something different.

You the Roger Thornhill who compared egg labelling with the holocaust?

Soru the camp started not long ago. After this govt was elected I believe anyway, and the jurisdiction is Boris Johnson’s (and Tory controlled Westminster council) not central government’s.

Roger – I took the sign down because it was an insult to the people who died at 9/11, and a strategic mistake (if their main focus was troops out of Afghanistan). Turns out they weren’t thinking very strategically…

@Left Outside

No, the one who highlighted the danger of trying to trivialise concerns about Authoritarianism that creeps forward step by step, each single step seen as just a little thing, quite harmless.

My mistake was to forget that some readers are lacking in comprehension skills or choose to discard them so as to try and defend their position by shouting OVER THERE.

You have done it again right now.

For, even if that happened as you so wrongly assert, does it alter the fact that Sunny declares he is a Liberal and did what he did?

No.

You are thus trying ad hominem again. It does somewhat make you out to appear both a bully and a coward.

Sunny,

An interesting though in my view incorrect notion.

So do you think it should be legal to protest a swimming pool closure by building and indefinitely living in a campsite inside a library?

Why does a protest which involves taking over a library have to be concerned with the library itself? Protest on public property is protest on public property, right?

And if I decided, in the process, to use the library to grow my own snacks by planting cress on one of the carpet tiles, that would be OK as well? Because that is essentially happening at Democracy Village too.

[29] Sunny,

it is not your remit to declare who it insults and who it does not, let alone act upon it. Freedom of Speech does not have to yield to your opinion, even if widely held.

I do agree that it might well insult some people and would undermine the wider message of Afghanistan IMHO and I would find that sort of poster absurd, but there is no law giving anyone the right not to be insulted. There is no law granting Sunny Hundal the authority to censor or judge posters at the Democracy Village. My view of it being absurd should have no bearing on if it should be on view or not.

Your reply does make you out to be acting in a Righteous manner. Can you not see that?

I don’t think that they have ”the right” to sleep there continuously , do they?
I’d have thought it was more a discretionary thing, like letting people sleep rough in the shop doorways of the Strand just up the road.
A library is a public place, but you’re not allowed to sleep in them.

Their numbers have been quite small and so it hasn’t been a real problem.
But larger numbers would need a couple of portaloos for a start.

Would you still support it if a bunch of people from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children turned up to camp permanently? With their aborted fetus posters and statues of ”The Virgin Mary”?

In the US they are very strict on just declaring that city parks, and bits of green – with no fences, are closed at dusk or at a certain time.
And you better not be in the park when the cops come past.
They even declare that city beaches are closed at dusk – to stop homless people camping on them and deter crime.

Or maybe it could all be sorted by just putting up a few ”Keep off the Grass” signs.

Far right wing back in govt so trolls arrive to tell us that protest is not important.

Yes, the same trolls who were spouting idiocy when their man Green was in a police station for 9 hours. Tory trolls hate freedom.

35. Chaise Guevara

“I took the sign down because it was an insult to the people who died at 9/11, and a strategic mistake (if their main focus was troops out of Afghanistan).”

Free speech: fine until Sunny disagrees with what you say.

Many people, however erroneously, consider anti-war protests to be an insult to the soldiers who have died in conflict. Better silence them too, eh? And of course the Satanic Verses is insulting to some Muslims, so we should obviously burn that. Meanwhile, pretty much every political opinion can be called insulting by someone somewhere. You know what to do.

36. Chaise Guevara

Sally, while I don’t generally agree with the people you call ‘trolls’, at least have the decency not to mislabel your opponents. “Troll” does not mean “tory”, or “person who disagrees with the article they are commenting on”, or indeed “someone who disagrees with sally”.

There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village

This time I stopped and parked my motorbike, came back into the Village and uprooted this sign on the side in support of 9/11 Truthers. I nearly managed to carry the banner off the field and chuck it in the bin

This blog is hilarious.

I find it interesting – 10 days ago I escorted 3 non-Londoners around Parliament Square and none of of us noticed the democracy protest. Maybe it is not such an effective protest. Maybe it is just a bunch of squatters who need to be moved on.

38 Shorter Tory troll

I hate freedom and I hate protests. Magna Carta can go fuck itself.

Tell David Davis. Oh wait he is slimey piece of shit.

Would you still support it if a bunch of people from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children turned up to camp permanently? With their aborted fetus posters and statues of ”The Virgin Mary”?

Err, yes. And I’ve said above I’d support the right of the BNP and EDL to demonstrate – and I’ve written about that in the past as you very well known damon. So stop coming up with absurd examples.

PS – I took down the 9/11 Truther sign because I thought the camp was concerned with Afghanistan and that would detract from the main message. It wasn’t claimed by anyone – someone had just planted it. Anyway, I shouldn’t have tried to destroy it, and I let them have it back…

You could find a fair number of landowners and farmers who would be happy to house this permanent protest for a small fee provided by the DHSS. They could manage latrines, access, etc, and even a little patch to grow vegetables. Or isn’t there a patch of pavement outside Sunny’s house where they could stay? Sure the right of protestors in a righteous cause to encamp where they wish should trump the right of the public to walk where they wish?

@40

So stop coming up with absurd examples.

Well I disagree. Protest where you want by all means, but there is no right to have a semi-permenant camp where ever you like. Try setting up a camp in St. James Park and I think you’ll fall foul of simple bylaws. Like overnight camping is not allowed. No tents and things like that.

From wikipedia: ”In the 1980s, Lincoln’s Inn Fields attracted many homeless people who slept there overnight. In 1992, they were cleared out, fences were raised, and since the re-opening of Lincoln’s Inn Fields with its new railings in 1993, gates have been locked every night at dusk.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lincoln's_Inn_Fields#Homeless
You don’t have the right to just camp where you want.

In Australia I used to find these ”no everything” signs on the beach to be really annoying when I just wanted a place to put up my tent for the night.
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1388/1461590589_a06c4f78a3.jpg

And I have to disagree with this from Left Outside @11

….. protests are meant to be inconveniencing, otherwise you may as well sit in your bedroom with a placard.

What a load of middle class nonsense. Who gives you the right to frustrate other people going about their business just because you want to campaign against air travel or something?

When it comes to ongoing long term protest camps, there is a line to be drawn somewhere between what is legitimate protest, and what might become a semi-permenant ”counter culture movement” – which I think would be rather fun, but can see how councils and authorities who were directly responsible for an area might take a different view.
If a summer ”peace camp” was declared in say Hyde Park London, it could attract people from all over Europe, who might turn a corner of Hyde Park into something like the Climate Camp was at Blackheath last summer. So what you might say.
There should be tolerance of things like that IMO – but just not anywhere surely?

“What a load of middle class nonsense. Who gives you the right to frustrate other people going about their business just because you want to campaign against air travel or something?”

Middle class? Oh thou art much prolier than I! I shall go and cry into my crumpets if you continue to be such a terrible working class oik!

(Sometimes I wish I could comment and express myself as cogently and sensibly as Sunder Katwala, but then I think “nah.”)

The right to protest is more important than the right not to be inconvenienced. You must agree?

It depends what weight you put on the maintenance of a free society, it doesn’t happen on its own, it must be fought for. There’s no authority who can decide which protest is just or not, but so long as basic principles such as non-violence are adhered to then the state has no business there even if it does make people late for work or get to the shops too late to get that most bourgeois snack crumpets.

People today have very odd attitudes to Tolerance. Everyone claims to be tolerant, and I am sure you are happy with gay people and black people and the nice Indian family that run your local shop, but you don’t get tolerance.

It is as ridiculous to say you tolerate short people or people with blue eyes anymore to say you tolerate gay or black people. They are just normal. It is no longer tolerance.

Tolerance is only tested by things that inconvenience you, or revolt you, or with which you fundamentally disagree. The democracy village is a test and I am sure it would fuck me off if I lived near it, but you must tolerate it if you value tolerance at all.

Yes it was ad hominem Roger, you deserve it.

You compared the EU to the Nazis. That is a statement of fact. You might want people to draw other Hayekian Road to Serfdom inferences from it, but 99% of people will not.

You are one of those vulgar libertarians, weights and measures are one of the core competencies of a state that no one other than an out and out anarchist could question.

For those who are confused please head over to Nosemonkey’s

http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/?p=2568

Best anti-EU comment ever.

47. Chaise Guevara

“The right to protest is more important than the right not to be inconvenienced. You must agree?”

I would argue (stopping briefly to say that your ‘prolier’ comeback nearly made me spray lemonade all over my keyboard) that any real-world stance on this issues would be about finding the balance between these two rights, not just deciding one trumps the other. I’m fully in favour of the right to protest, but if protesters randomly decided my front gate was the ideal place to stand and thus actually physically prevented me from being able to leave the house, I’d say something was amiss.

Similarly, and more realistically, people who protest about car-related issue by delberately holding up traffic (perhaps standing on zebra crossings with placards) are not only unfairly fucking things up for a number of people, they are effectively holding the road to ransom: “Regardless of what the government and the electorate think, unless our views are made law none of you are going to be able to get home.”

My personal view is that protesting should never be illegal in itself, but if you break the law while doing it, the fact that you were protesting is no defence (although I also feel it should factor in heavily as a mitigating circumstance where relevant).

You the Roger Thornhill who compared egg labelling with the holocaust?

Roger Thornhill compares everything to the holocaust. He used to run a blog called “neuer arbeit macht frei” – a clever pun on the sign over gate of Auschwitz, complete with photoshopped pic – to slag off New Labour. Geddit?

The man’s an absolute halfwit.

49. jimmy glesga

I wonder does the village have an intenet connection?

The right to protest is more important than the right not to be inconvenienced. You must agree?

Not necessarily. For example, I don’t think the God Hates Fags nuts should be allowed to inconvenience the relatives of dead soldiers by interrupting their funerals. Do you?

Instead of immediately resorting to absolute judgements on this issue (i.e. declaring this to be an either/or – a libertarian/authoritarian – division) wouldn’t it be more reasonable to admit that there is a need for balance.

Of course people should have the right to protest outside Parliament. That’s cool. Even if I disagree with the 9/11 troof nonsense, I accept the right of people I consider to be politically insanse to express their opinions.

However, this right has to be balanced with the right of different groups to gather in Parliament Square and the right of democractically-elected authorities to uphold planning laws and properly maintain public spaces (which may seem boring but are also important for society).

Therefore, it seems fair to call on the protestors to declare a time limit to their occupation of the Square. If they refuse then, having had a few months to make their point, it’s not exactly a sign of an impending police state takeover when the authorities decide to move them on.

Is Brian Haw allowed to stay or is he to be evicted too?

I do find it hard to believe that so many people on Liberal Conspiracy would defend a permanent camp being established on Parliament Square if the protestors were fascists with banners decrying race mixing etc

Maybe there’s a case for Parliament Square being treated differently to other public spaces (e.g. Hyde Park, libraries, swimming pools etc. as mentioned above), and having the planning laws relaxed to permit the village, or various other semi-permanent protests, but only in this one location.
I’ve been past the site a lot of times and it doesn’t really add a great deal to the quantity of banners and things that have been there for ages anyway, so I’m not sure it’s made a big difference to the tourist experience. Before too long, if it stays, the Democracy Village will become a tourist attraction itself – I would imagine Brian Haw already is.

Therefore, it seems fair to call on the protestors to declare a time limit to their occupation of the Square. If they refuse then, having had a few months to make their point, it’s not exactly a sign of an impending police state takeover when the authorities decide to move them on.

Broadly agree with that.

I’m with 53 – make Parliament Square the place for random demos/camps/protests. Like speaker’s corner – the place where you can stand on your soapbox and spout nonsense/speak the truth without a copper telling you you’re blocking the highway and you’ve got to move on.

Yes, Brian Haw is a tourist attraction nowadays – I saw a party of Japanese tourists snapping him a few months back. Unlike the square itself which is an unlovely traffic island, the best thing to happen to it in recent years was Churchill getting his turf mohican and the planting of various plants which would be illegal if dried and smoked…


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  2. Tom Wheatcroft

    Nice argument. RT @libcon: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  3. sunny hundal

    There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  4. House Of Twits

    RT @sunny_hundal There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  5. Lucia

    RT @sunny_hundal There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  6. Jackie

    RT @libcon There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/91KnRa

  7. Mind In Flux

    RT @sunny_hundal: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  8. Old Holborn

    RT @sunny_hundal: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP >>Sunny turns into a Libertarian?

  9. GuyAitchison

    RT @sunny_hundal: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  10. Tom Major

    RT @sunny_hundal: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  11. Christina Zaba

    RT @sunny_hundal: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  12. John Belford

    RT @sunny_hundal: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village http://bit.ly/b05rTP

  13. Political Fund Consultant » Blog Archive » There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village | Liberal …

    […] Continue reading here: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village | Liberal … […]

  14. There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village | Liberal … -Political Fund USA

    […] link: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village | Liberal … Tags: befuddling-several, fact, free-speech, red-herring, suspect-the-fact, village Leave a […]

  15. Bertromavich Reibold

    There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village | Liberal …: Even if the stupid 9/11 Truther sign gave the… http://bit.ly/bNEqGG

  16. Political Campaign Expert » Blog Archive » There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village | Liberal …

    […] Continue reading here: There are no arguments to pull down Democracy Village | Liberal … […]

  17. Mike Power

    I've only just seen this pile of old cack from Lord of the Leftweb Hundal. The man gets worse and worse. Jeez. http://is.gd/deWBq





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.