Chapter 10 in Cameron, A, Dickinson, J and Smith, N (eds) (2013)

Body/State, Farnham: Ashgate

Unruly Bodies (Standing Against Apartheid)

Gavin Brown

Introduction

For nearly four years from 19th April 1986 the members and

supporters of the City of London Anti-Apartheid Group [hereafter

City Group, as they referred to themselves] maintained a Non-Stop

Picket on the pavement outside the South African Embassy in

Trafalgar Square calling for the release of Nelson Mandela. They

stayed on that pavement twenty four hours a day, 365 days a year

until he was released from jail (and then some – the Non-Stop Picket

did not actually end until two weeks after Mandela’s release). For

most of that time, as a teenager, I was part of that protest. This

chapter describes the distinctive culture of solidarity created by

the material space of the Picket and the practices that sustained it

(Brown and Yaffe 2012). It examines how the cosmopolitan friendship

networks created amongst Picketers enabled them to see beyond their

own life experiences and extend their understanding of solidarity in

important ways. City Group and the Non-Stop Picket had a culture of

direct action against the representatives of the apartheid regime

(and their supporters) in Britain. Through this non-violent, but

confrontational political stance, the young Picketers learned to

think and act against the (British) state, using their bodies in

unruly ways. In the pages that follow, I examine both the positive,

empowering aspects of holding this stance, but also consider the

understandable, but less positive, paranoia that this could lead to.

In doing so, I highlight the uneven terrain of this unruliness,

demonstrating how some picketers could take (and get away with) the

risks associated with being unruly more safely than others; whilst

some found themselves positioned as ‘unruly’ in relation to the

Picket’s own culture.

Standing in Solidarity

City Group was formed by Norma Kitson (an exiled African National

Congress [ANC] member), her children, friends and supporters in 1982

(Kitson 1987). City Group’s unconditional solidarity with all

liberation movements in South Africa (not just the ANC) and its

principled linking of the struggle against apartheid with anti-

racism in Britain led to group’s eventual expulsion in 1985 from the

national Anti-Apartheid Movement which viewed the ANC as the only

legitimate liberation movement in South Africa (Fieldhouse 2005;

Thörn 2006; Trewala 1995). City Group deployed diverse tactics,

including direct action, to express its solidarity with those

opposed to apartheid. Due to the national Anti-Apartheid Movement’s

close allegiance to the exiled leadership of the ANC and South

African Communist Party, it refused to extend solidarity to

activists from other political traditions in South Africa, such as

the Pan-Africanist Congress, Black Consciousness Movement of Azania

or the imprisoned trade union leader Moses Mayekiso. In contrast,

City Group took up their causes. Its support for those sidelined by

the exiled leadership of the ANC was valued by activists in South

Africa (Bozzoli 2004, Maaba 2001). The Picket played a key role as a

‘convergence space’ (Routledge 2003) through which transnational

activist discourses and practices addressing the politics of race

were articulated – fostering dialogue and the exchange of ideas not

just between British and South African activists, but wider networks

of activists from diverse nations who passed through London and

engaged with the Picket.

The Picket was a highly visible protest against apartheid.

Through its constant presence, the Picket developed a distinctive

appearance, culture and sense of community. Bright hand-sewn banners

(often in black, green and gold, the colours of the ANC) provided a

backdrop to the Picket, declaring its raison d'etre; additionally

picketers carried placards which declared their solidarity and

commented on topical events and campaigns in South Africa. Members

of the picket would leaflet and petition passers-by, whilst others

made impromptu speeches on a megaphone or sang South African freedom

songs. This petitioning served both as an opportunity for political

debate with the public and also as a means of collecting donations

to sustain the Picket’s campaigning (and to send as material aid to

the families of political prisoners in South Africa). Larger themed

rallies were held on Friday evenings, and on Thursdays the Picket's

numbers swelled as supporters danced to the music of a group of

street musicians, the Horns of Jericho.

The culture of the Picket not only conveyed its political

message of solidarity, but helped individual participants define

their personal identities (Thörn 2009). For many picketers, but

particularly the young, the opportunity to stand on a pavement in

the centre of London singing, shouting and pushing the limits of

legality with the police was powerful and empowering. This is not to

throw their commitment to the struggle against apartheid into

question, or accuse them of apolitical delinquency, but to recognise

that the act of standing in solidarity, against the policies of the

Thatcher and Botha governments, unleashed powerful emotions

(including rage, fear, despair, pride, righteousness and joy,

amongst others) that exceed easy political categorisations. To be on

the picket was the bend or break the rules of appropriate behaviour

in public space. The social and political life of the Picket had a

particular emotional geography through which individuals overcame

social isolation, transformed their sense of self, and enjoyed being

‘unruly’ in public space (Roseneil 2000).

The geography of the Non-Stop Picket extended beyond its

location and its relationship with the struggle in South Africa. The

combination of the Picket’s central location and its expression of

solidarity through confrontation with the representatives of

apartheid attracted a broad and diverse group of mostly young

activists from the UK and beyond (including participants from many

European countries, Australia, Brazil and the USA). Some of these

‘international’ picketers were studying in London at the time, some

were migrant workers and some, having first encountered the Picket

whilst on holiday, moved to London to be part of it. The Picket

provided ‘uncommon ground’ through which friendship networks

developed that crossed boundaries of nationality, ethnicity and

social difference (Chatterton 2006). Brought together by their

common opposition to apartheid, young picketers protested alongside,

and socialised with, people from very different backgrounds to their

own. Although their activism entailed extending solidarity with

distant others, the everyday life of the Picket fostered more

immediate experiences of subaltern cosmopolitanism and enabled

participants to see beyond their own positionality and (often

limited) prior life experiences. The Picket provided a safe and

supportive milieu in which to experiment with different identities

and ways of being. This was not, of course, without its problems or

limits. For example, at times the Picket became something of a haven

for young street homeless people living in the West End, although

their involvement was often short-lived and marked by the

reassertion of social hierarchies by more settled and privileged

members of the Picket.

Transnational solidarity connects people across territories

where often there was no obvious prior ‘connection’ between them

except a shared critique of existing power relations (Massey 2008;

Olesen 2005). Such solidarity frequently seeks to reconfigure

spatial relations between (and within) nations. Real and imagined

connections forged through the international anti-apartheid movement

(which was active in more than 100 different countries) contributed

to creating contemporary global civil society and addressing global

political concerns in new ways (Sapire 2009; Thörn 2006). Solidarity

is a practice of taking responsibility for geographical inequalities

(Massey 2004; Thörn 2009), but solidarity activists can still

themselves be complicit in reproducing uneven geometries of power

within their movements and colonial power relations towards those

distant others that they seek to support (Koopman 2008; Sundberg

2007). White activists on the Non-Stop Picket were not immune from

accusations of racism and these unleashed many tense political

debates amongst the group. Similarly, class privilege could

sometimes be reproduced on the Picket – particularly in the ways

homeless youth were treated with suspicion by some picketers,

discouraged from interacting with the public and relegated to the

role of 'klingon' (holding the banner for extended periods of time).

This does not negate the potential for grassroots cosmopolitan

connections to be forged through the contacts provided by

transnational solidarity. As Thörn (2009) has articulated,

transnational anti-apartheid activism transcended some borders (of

race and nation), but it also (re)produced others (between different

liberation movements and solidarity groups; as well as reinforcing a

'them' and 'us' attitude towards most white South Africans). Such

complex power relations further complicate the emotional geographies

of activism that are the internal life of movement politics (Bosco

2007; Brown and Pickerill 2009; Goodwin et al 2001) and which inspire,

sustain and, at times, curtail on-going political involvement.

Learning to Be Against the State

Positioned on the pavement directly outside South Africa House, the

picket was strategically placed (Bosco 2006) to draw attention to

apartheid and bring pressure to bear on the regime's representatives

and allies in the UK. The Picket did not just stand outside the

Embassy bearing witness to apartheid’s crimes it took direct action

against apartheid’s representatives. This inevitably brought

picketers into conflict with the police, courts and other

representatives of the British state. These experiences of arrest,

harassment, surveillance and, at times, police violence led many

young activists to question the role of the state. Through the

Picket, many picketers learned how to act against the state

(although this did not necessarily produce anti-state perspectives

or challenge state-like thinking-behaviours within the group).

Standing in solidarity provoked picketers to critically reflect on

the functioning of the state and the exercise of political power ‘at

home’. In this way, transnational solidarity became a reciprocal

process with knowledge and learning flowing in more than one

direction (not just from Britain to resisting distant others). Here,

I consider how this happened.

Over the years, several attempts were made to surround the

Embassy. This was achieved on 16th June 1988 at a rally to

commemorate the 22nd anniversary of the massacre of protesting

schoolchildren in Soweto in 1976. On this weekday evening, over 1500

people joined the protest and the Embassy was completely surrounded,

hundreds of commemorative black balloons were released and, as

frequently happened at rallies both large and small, flowers were

laid on the Embassy gates. This audacious protest provoked a violent

response from the Metropolitan Police who attacked the Picket and

physically threw many picketers over the (largely ineffective)

crowd-control barriers. Five picketers were arrested. At 10.30pm

that evening there were still over three hundred protestors on

Picket.

The ‘Surround the Embassy’ protest was characteristic of the

high profile, spectacular actions City Group could mobilise and the

direct action approach that they favoured. On 6th September 1989,

the day of what turned out to be the last whites-only election in

South Africa, the best part of a thousand protestors took direct

action blocking the road directly outside the Embassy for over two

hours. To block the road, protestors used their bodies in unruly

ways – darting through lines of police to enter the road, risking

their safety by lying in front of cars and buses, linking arms and

going ‘limp’ to hamper police efforts to remove them from the

roadway (and then jumping straight back in again). Despite the

significant disruption caused to the evening rush hour traffic in

central London, the police were more restrained on this occasion –

undoubtedly on political orders, as hundreds of arrests outside the

Embassy on that day would have been politically embarrassing to de

Klerk’s government and his supporters in the British Parliament. The

state’s response to this event highlights the relational nature of

policing and protest on the Picket – picketers would try out new

forms of protest, using their bodies in new ways to confound

established police tactics, but they could never fully anticipate

how the police would respond to their unruliness.

Actions on the Picket were undertaken for a number of reasons.

Sometimes they sought to directly disrupt the functioning of

apartheid’s representatives in Britain, sometimes they were designed

to produce photo opportunities or significant arrests that could

generate press coverage for the Picket and its message; and, at yet

other times they were more symbolic. For example, in August 1988, a

group of women activists marked Azanian Women’s Day by taking

scrubbing brushes to the fabric of the Embassy to wash off the

bloody taint of apartheid and draw attention to the double

oppression of women under apartheid. These actions embodied the

Picket’s spirit of unruliness – part of the challenge (and fun) of

even the most low key action was to see how far the police could be

pushed. The unruly presence of the Picket was often performed

through small acts of defiance that sought to assert and expand the

space controlled by the protestors outside the embassy. Whether

active participants in these actions, or witnesses to them,

picketers learned to take an unruly stance in relation to the

police, the courts and other representatives of the British state.

The Embassy repeatedly complained to the British Government about

the Picket’s presence:

You are well aware of the numerous fruitless attempts to

terminate or contain the City of London Anti-Apartheid

Group picket outside South Africa House which to our mind

constitutes harassment and impairment of the dignity of

the Embassy. [Extract from a letter a letter from a South

African Embassy official to the Foreign and Commonwealth

Office dated 10 December 1987] (FCO n.d).

The Embassy encouraged the British government to restrict and ban

the protest, and for nearly two months (6th May-2nd July) in 1987,

the Picket was removed from outside the Embassy by the Metropolitan

Police (following an action in which three City Group activists

threw several gallons of red paint over the entrance to the Embassy

to protest the whites-only election taking place in South Africa on

that day). During this period, the Picket relocated to the steps of

nearby St. Martin-in-the-Fields Church and activists repeatedly

risked arrest to break the police ban on their protest and defend

the right to protest outside the Embassy. The police used an arcane

Victorian bylaw, "Commissioner's Directions", which allowed the

Metropolitan Police Commissioner to curtail public gatherings within

a mile of Parliament, to allow MPs free movement to go about their

business, to ban the Picket during this period. Prior to the paint-

throwing action on 6th May, the Metropolitan Police had briefly

moved the Picket under Commissioner’s Directions on 30th April 1987.

Clearly, under pressure from the Embassy, they were looking for an

excuse to relocate and restrict the protest. This bylaw, designed to

facilitate the movement of those bodies essential to the functioning

of the liberal democratic state, was used to limit the presence of

those bodies that challenged its policies, authority and legitimacy.

Eventually, the ban was broken when four MPs protested outside the

Embassy alongside other picketers and the police were unable to

justify the ban any longer (Bailey and Taylor 2009: 318). In total

173 people were arrested during City Group's campaign to break the

police ban and defend the right to protest. All charges were

eventually thrown out of court. During the period of the ban on the

Picket, City Group supporters acted in an unruly manner, breaking

the law in order to defend their right to protest and thereby defend

a space in which to be unruly. The irony of both the manner in which

the Picket was restored to its place in front of the Embassy and

picketers’ subsequent legal victories in court was that the

Metropolitan Police were exposed as bending legal ‘rules’ in order

to curtail unruliness.

City Group’s activism was not restricted to Trafalgar Square:

picketers took direct action against apartheid across the UK and

toured the country mobilising solidarity. These extended campaigns

of direct action away from the Non-Stop Picket included 'trolley

protests' against the sale of South African goods in supermarkets

across London, where activists filled trolleys with South African

produce, took them to the checkout and then refused to pay for them.

At their most effective, these protests could tie up the majority of

checkouts in a targeted supermarket simultaneously. In October 1986

City Group coordinated simultaneous trolley protests at seven

supermarkets across ethnically diverse areas of inner London. In a

similar vein, City Group organised frequent occupations of the South

African Airways (SAA) offices in Oxford Circus through their "No

Rights? No Flights!" campaign. These offices were frequently closed

through successive occupations several times in a day. As the

security staff at the SAA offices increasingly recognised repeat

‘offenders’, activists needed to utilise more and more imaginative

disguises to enable their initial access to the premises. During one

protest on South African Women's Day in 1988 a large party of women,

varying in age from their mid-teens to their seventies, successfully

entered the SAA offices dressed as nuns and a class of convent

girls. Finally, City Group activists took direct action at sporting

venues around the UK, including pitch invasions at various rugby and

cricket grounds, in protest at sportsmen and women who had broken

the sports boycott of South Africa (Maaba 2001). For these actions

to be successful, activists used their bodies in particular ways to

occupy space or block certain activities from taking place. They

relied on their bodies’ potential for intense speed (or slowness) to

get into place to protest, evading capture by police officers or

security guards, or to hamper their removal from the South African

Airways offices or the cricket crease at Lords’. Frequently they

would disguise their bodies or mask their identities in order not to

appear unruly or out of place, thereby enabling their planned

unruliness. Very often, as I have noted, these disguises could take

absurd forms – so much so that it is a wonder they were not spotted

and caught out more frequently. Timing was everything – protestors

waited patiently for the optimum moment to act, and coordinated

their arrival at an action carefully (to arrive too early could draw

attention to oneself, but being late could leave others exposed and

vulnerable). As should be clear, to create the potential to use

their bodies in unruly ways, picketers exercised a high degree of

calculation and control over their bodies.

Paranoid Stances

I turn now to an examination of how City Group established and

applied its own rules and consider how certain bodies were

positioned as unruly in relation to the political culture of the

Picket. Unlike the functional anarchism of some of other long-term

protests in 1980s Britain, such as the Greenham Common Women’s Peace

Camp (Roseneil 2000), the Non-Stop Picket was highly organised and

City Group operated through a hierarchical leadership structure.

Political leadership was provided by the Group’s Convenor, Deputy

Convenor and Secretary; a committee met weekly to plan and organise

the Group’s campaigning, and a volunteer Picket Organiser worked to

ensure that shifts on the Picket’s rota were adequately covered. On

each shift (of either three or six hours), one picketer acted as the

Picket’s Chief Steward. For the most part, this responsibility was

taken by an experienced and trusted (but not necessarily older)

picketer, but a competent and committed activist could quickly find

themselves in this role (especially on those shifts that were harder

to cover on the rota). The role of the steward was, first and

foremost, a political one. As an internal ‘user guide’ to the

Picket, circulated in the final few months of the Picket in early

1990 stated,

“The rules and policies of the picket are established at

democratic meetings of City of London Anti-Apartheid

Group. These rules and policies obtain despite the

disposition of the picket at any given time. It is the

responsibility of the Chief Steward to defend what City

Group stands for. There is a political duty to ensure

that the message gets through. The Chief Steward is the

‘custodian’ of the picket’s political message.” (City of

London Anti-Apartheid Group 1990: 1)

The rules referred to here were simple, few in number and stood

throughout the duration of the Picket. These rules served to ensure

the political integrity of the protest and the safety of its

participants. They banned the use drugs and alcohol on the Picket,

and stated that no-one under the influence of either was allowed to

be present there. Participants were encouraged to fully participate

in the political work of the Picket and to ensure that it was tidy

and presentable. The rules expressly forbade picketers from engaging

in conversations with the police (or responding to taunts and abuse

from racists).

Despite how the Non-Stop Picket fostered unruly stances in

relation to the state, the group did not tolerate unruliness in

relation to its own standards of conduct. The Chief Steward was

empowered as the sole conduit for impromptu negotiations with the

police. The same user guide advised,

“In all tactical decisions consider:

I. What do we stand to gain?

II. What do we stand to lose?

Discuss situations as they develop. Let the whole picket know what the problem is.

Consider whether to stand firm or make a tactical withdrawal. Always look at a

decision in terms of what is to be achieved and what is to be lost. If in doubt,

consult [the Convenor],” (City of London Anti-Apartheid Group 1990: 1).

This level of organisation certainly enabled the Picket to continue

as long as it did with a clear political message and, to an extent,

to minimize avoidable arrests and conflict with the police. Some

picketers benefited more from this framework than others.

Participating in the Picket, and particularly in direct actions, was

riskier for some picketers than others.

In the autumn of 1986, six months into the Non-Stop Picket, City

Group led a campaign against police harassment of women picketers,

several of whom had been strip searched in front of male police

officers, groped and assaulted, and subjected to lewd and abusive

remarks following arrests on the Picket. Around this time, and

throughout the four years of the Picket, high profile Black

activists were also targeted for repeated arrest by the police. City

Group took the defence of its supporters seriously, arranging for

people to wait outside police stations until arrestees were

released, organising and funding their legal defence, and supporting

them in court. In the case of the sexual harassment of women

picketers in 1986, a writ was even issued against the Commissioner

of the Metropolitan Police and civil action taken in the courts.

This level of organisation, support and solidarity was effective as,

of the more than 500 arrests made during the first two years of the

Picket, City Group secured a 92% acquittal rate. City Group may have

stood against the state, but it was very effective at using the

courts as a political platform when necessary.

City Group did not just experience arrests and harassment at the

hands of the Metropolitan Police, they were the subject of ‘dirty

tricks’ by agents of the apartheid regime. On at least two occasions

bogus leaflets were distributed in an attempt to smear City Group

and cause further divisions between the Picket and the mainstream

anti-apartheid movement. These leaflets carefully mimicked the house

style of City Group’s publicity material, contained correct contact

details for the group, and even promoted the group’s regular weekly

meetings.

In this context of police harassment and dirty tricks, City

Group activists were aware that they and their activities were under

surveillance not just by the Metropolitan Police and British Special

Branch, but also by the South African state’s intelligence services.

They were aware that the group was probably infiltrated by the

police and South African agents. Although no such agents were ever

identified with any certainty, this suspicion was justified – after

all, the ANC’s Chief Representative in London throughout the 1980s

Solly Smith (real name Samuel Khanyile) was later revealed as a

long-term agent for the apartheid regime. He was a key player in

engineering City Group’s expulsion from the national Anti-Apartheid

Movement.

That City Group managed to operate so effectively, and its

activists were able to pull off so many clandestine direct actions

over the years, was in large part a measure of how seriously they

took security. In this regard, Norma and David Kitson, drawing on

their experiences of operating underground in South Africa in the

early 1960s, were fine mentors for many young activists. This regard

for security infused many of the practices through which the Picket

(and the broader work of the group) were constituted. One of the

reasons for directing conversations with the police on the Picket

through the serving Chief Steward was to minimize ‘careless talk’.

Similarly, picketers were discouraged from having personal

discussions on the Picket, and from bringing personal diaries or

address books with them there. All key activists took care over what

they discussed on the phone. Great care was taken to maintain the

security of the Group’s office and new activists often had to wait

quite some time before they were trusted with knowledge of its exact

location. Again, given that the London offices of the ANC were

bombed by South African agents in March 1982, this concern was not

exaggerated. By following these precautionary security practices,

activists enabled the success of many direct actions, and undermined

the efforts of the police to successfully prosecute activists on

conspiracy charges that could have resulted in lengthy custodial

sentences.

This regard for the security of the Group’s actions at times

fostered paranoia in many activists. Although City Group operated in

an open and democratic manner, and the Picket survived for so long

because the Group was pro-active in encouraging the participation

and inclusion of new members and supporters, it was easy for

individuals to find themselves the object of suspicion. If the act

of standing in solidarity on the Picket produced unruly bodies

prepared to break the law to demonstrate their opposition to

apartheid and to take on the state to defend their right to protest,

then at times the internal life of City Group could produce state-

like relations between people in response to events that were

perceived to jeopardise the integrity of the Picket. Over the years,

a number of activists were investigated by the group, called to

disciplinary hearings with the Committee, with several expelled from

the Group and banned from the Picket. Within City Group, the most

unruly bodies were those that were suspected of stealing from the

Group or acting as police informers.

Conclusion

Throughout this chapter I have outlined the distinctive culture of

solidarity created on and by the Non-Stop Picket of the South

African Embassy in London in the late 1980s. In examining (and

remembering) life on and around the Non-Stop Picket, this chapter

makes three important contributions to debate. First it offers a

deeper understanding of the embodied nature of activism and direct

action. Second, it offers new insights into the emotional

geographies of activism and resistance – examining both how protest

spaces can foster the empowerment of their participants, but also

the limits of this that result from paranoid cultures of security

(reproducing certain forms of state-like social relations). Third, I

have articulated the reciprocal nature of transnational solidarity,

arguing that the Non-Stop Picket did not just extend solidarity to

those resisting apartheid in South Africa, but that in doing so it

also created a space to think critically about racism in Britain and

the role of the British state. In this regard, the cosmopolitan

friendship networks created amongst picketers enabled them to see

beyond their prior life experiences to question accepted political

wisdom and experiment with the boundaries of social conventions.

These grassroots cosmopolitan networks cohered as a result of shared

opposition to apartheid, but through their quotidian reproduction

contributed to extending and deepening cultures of (transnational)

solidarity.

A study of the Non-Stop Picket’s culture of direct action

against the representatives of the apartheid regime has been central

to this chapter. I have argued that through this non-violent, but

confrontational political stance, the young picketers learned to

think and act against the (British) state, using their bodies in

(sometimes mundane, but often extraordinary) unruly ways. The space

occupied by the Picket, on that pavement in Trafalgar Square, and

the vibrant noisy culture of the protest, allowed teenage protestors

and others the opportunity and freedom to express themselves in ways

that they found constrained in other areas of their lives. More

spectacularly, picketers used their bodies on and off the Picket to

physically block the normal functioning of apartheid’s

representatives in Britain, trade with South Africa and those who

sought to break the international sanctions against apartheid. In

these ways, individuals not only learned how to use their own bodies

in unruly ways, but through repeated joint actions with other

picketers developed tacit knowledge of how other bodies would

respond in particular circumstances. These embodied memories of

(one’s own and others’) unruliness are persistent – more than ten

years after the Picket ended, I had chance encounter with some

former picketers on another protest. Frustrated by the timidity of

other protestors when faced with the private security guards

employed to protect the object of our protest, it took little more

than a few exchanged glances for the three of us to click back into

action, work our bodies together and anticipate what each other was

about to do next. A new younger generation of protestors followed

our lead, with one asking me with admiration “where did you learn to

do that?” Twenty years on, although many current activists have never

heard of the Non-Stop Picket, its legacy ripples through

contemporary protests around Britain and beyond.

Note

Azania was the preferred, decolonized, name for ‘South Africa’ used

by the Pan-Africanist Congress and groups working in the Black

Consciousness tradition developed by Steve Biko and others.

References

Bailey, S and Taylor, N (2009), Civil Liberties Cases, Materials and

Commentary 6th edition, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bosco, F.J. 2006. The Madres De Plaza De Mayo And Three Decades Of

Human Rights’ Activism: Embeddedness, Emotions, And Social

Movements. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 96(2): 342–365.

———. 2007. Emotions that Build Networks: Geographies of

Human Rights Movements in Argentina and Beyond, Tijdschrift voor

Econmomische en Sociale Geografie, 98(5): 545-563.

Bozzoli, B. 2004. Theatres of Struggle and the End of Apartheid. Athens, OH:

Ohio University Press.

Brown, G. and Pickerill, J. 2009. Space For Emotion In The Spaces

Of Activism. Emotion, Space and Society, 2 (1): 24–35.

Brown, G. and Yaffe, H. (2012), “Non-Stop Against Apartheid:

practicing solidarity outside the South African Embassy,” Social

Movement Studies.

Chatterton, P. 2006. ‘Give Up Activism’ And Change The World In

Unknown Ways: Or, Learning To Walk With Others On Uncommon Ground.

Antipode, 38(2): 259–281.

City of London Anti-Apartheid Group. 1990. The Non-Stop Picket: A User

Friendly Guide. Unpublished internal document.

Foreign and Commonwealth Office. n.d. City of London Anti-Apartheid

Group (CLAAG) – Activities/ Non-Stop Picket of South African

Embassy, London 1985–1991. Response to FOI Data Access Request.

Fieldhouse, R. (2005), Anti-Apartheid. A history of the movement in Britain,

London: Merlin Press.

Goodwin, J., Jasper, JM. and Polletta, F. (eds.) 2001. Passionate

Politics: Emotions and Social Movements. Chicago: University of Chicago

Press.

Kitson, N. 1987. Where Sixpence Lives. London: Hogarth Press.

Koopman, S. 2008. Imperialism Within: Can The Master’s Tools Bring

Down Empire? Acme: An International EJournal for Critical Geographies, 7(2): 283–

307.

Maaba, B.B. 2001. The Archives of the Pan-Africanist Congress and

the Black Consciousness-Orientated Movements. History in Africa, 28:

417–438.

Massey, D. 2004. Geographies of Responsibility. Geografiska Annaler B,

86(1): 5–18.

———. 2008. Geographies of Solidarities. In Clark, N., Massey, D.

and Sarre, P. (eds). Material Geographies: A World In The Making. London:

Sage and Open University Press.

Olesen, T. 2005. International Zapatismo: The Construction Of Solidarity In The

Age Of Globalization. London: Zed Books.

Roseneil, S. 2000. Common Women, Uncommon Practices: The Queer Feminisms

of Greenham, London: Cassell.

Routledge, P. 2003. Convergence Space: Process Geographies

Of Grassroots Globalisation Networks. Transactions of the Institute of British

Geographers, 28 (3): 333-349.

Sapire, H. 2009. Liberation Movements, Exile, and International

Solidarity: An Introduction, Journal of Southern African Studies, 35 (2):

271–286.

Sundberg, J. 2007. Reconfiguring North-South Solidarity:

Critical Reflections on Experiences of Transnational Resistance.

Antipode, 39 (1): 144-166.

Thörn, H. 2006. Anti-Apartheid and the Emergence of a Global Civil Society.

Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan.

———. 2009. The Meaning(S) Of Solidarity: Narratives Of Anti-

Apartheid Activism. Journal of Southern African Studies, 35 (2): 417–436.

Trewala, P. 1995. State Espionage and the ANC London Office.

Searchlight South Africa, 3 (4): 42 -51.