'Occupy Toronto' - inspiring, but there are still serious issues of concern

 

Bay Street 'Occupied'

Thousands congregated in the heart of Toronto's financial district on October 15 as the movement (with obvious inspiration from the recent and ongoing  people's uprisings in Arab and North African countries) that started on New York City's infamous Wall Street a month earlier moved north and swept around the globe.

Following the initial rally at Bay and King Streets, an estimated 3 to 5 thousand people marched east to the park surrounding St. James Cathedral, where an ongoing encampment patterned after the NYC protests was established. Similar events have been taking place across Canada, the United States and around the world in a massive global 'Day of Action' that had been called for October 15.

Encampment at St. James Cathedral park

Participants in Saturday's march in Toronto included Palestinian solidarity organizations, unions and groups like the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty and the Toronto Stop The Cuts Network that are organizing to combat the destructive  'austerity measures' being imposed at the local and provincial levels.

The cops have been remarkably laid back thus far and were present in considerably smaller numbers than one might of expected for an event of this scale. How they will behave in the future obviously remains to be seen...

The numbers and general energy have been inspiring thus far. But there are still (in my opinion at least) some issues that remain of serious concern that need to be addressed.

~ A small group of First Nations men attempting to address the crowd on Bay St. using a megaphone apparently had their efforts thwarted by event organizers, their eloquent words about the hundreds of  women from First Nations communities who have been murdered or gone missing in this country in recent years being insensitively cut off. This profound display of disrespect was unacceptable and it is essential this be taken up and responded to in a serious way.

~ On the same note, the 'Occupation' rhetoric itself has proved problematic as we already dwell on lands that have been 'occupied' (Read: stolen) by European settlers for more than five hundred years, with the Nations whose land it is having been ruthlessly driven forth, assimilated and subjected to cultural genocide as well as being literally murdered.  Some positive dialogue on these concerns appears to be underway in some of the U.S. cities like New York and Boston where 'occupation' actions are taking place. In light of Saturday's events Toronto clearly still has quite a ways to go.

~ The 'human mic' system being used to communicate at the general assemblies: While the concept of trying to create a 'level playing field' for participants in this way is laudable, certain unavoidable physical factors including the acoustics/background noise one finds in a large city and the amount of background chatter (there were still over 1,500 people in the park when Saturday afternoon's assembly took place) made it virtually impossible to hear. Things improved when the 'human mic' was augmented by a facilitator picking up a megaphone, which made things easier to hear. (Should have happened from the start because unlike in NYC we aren't as restricted in our use of sound equipment at Toronto protests). Fortunately minutes were also  taken and are available online.

~ The evening march: Patterned on the NYC protests, ongoing regular marches through the city are anticipated from the 'occupation zone'. The first happened about seven PM on Saturday when about 300 people made a peaceful but boisterous foray onto Yonge St, stopping briefly at Yonge/Dundas Square before threading their way back to the park. Chief among areas of serious concern was the uncritical support for the cops that was being encouraged from marchers (and yes, I will admit the Toronto cops have shown remarkable restraint thus far, but that does not in any way change what they represent, or the inherently violent, repressive nature of policing). 

(An aside: My own approach here was to try speaking to individual participants about a series of shocking attacks by Toronto police in recent weeks that have left two people (a mentally disabled man in his forties and a fifty-two year old grandmother) dead and two other men gravely injured. This kind of violence by the police is routine toward racialized communities and poor people in general, with many of the deaths/serious injuries at the hands of the cops also resulting from botched 'mental health'-related interventions).

As well, in the course of the march the crowds broke into several enthusiastic renditions of Canada's national anthem (See my initial comments in this post to understand why this one seriously got under my skin). To put it in no uncertain terms, this shit's gotta stop.

For now I'm chalking most of these issues up to the relative political inexperience of the people involved in organizing along with an analysis that is still in its infancy. This is where us more experienced activists can make an important contribution by sharing of what we ourselves have learned as we took our own baby steps into the world of political/community organizing, with all that entails.

Please don't get me wrong with what I've said here. What started in New York just last month is now sweeping around the globe and is a tremendous inspiration and cause for hope. Many of the issues I've attempted to point out here in my own clumsy fashion have undoubtedly been encountered by other social movements while in their infancy, and attempts to respond to them  remain ongoing. Addressing these sooner rather than later (preferably in a non-judgmental manner) will increase the likelihood of sustainability and help to create a global juggernaut of human resistance that is truly representative and respectful of everyone.

Why I find the philosophy behind 'non-violence' to be problematic

First and foremost is the fact that it can serve to re-silence and re-victimize those who have already experienced violence firsthand, and thus by default serves to exclude such innocent victims from any effective movement for social change.

An abuser's greatest allies are the passivity and silence of their victims. On that basis alone, I find it inconceivable that anyone with such life experiences would wish to embrace a political or social ideology that offers them no recourse for self-protection or even the right to honestly verbalize objection over how they are being treated, yet insists they walk right into extremely risky or threatening situations under such restrictions.

When defining 'violence' such philosophies tend to view specific acts in isolation and ignore the broader context in which they occur. When using the term 'violence' to these ideologies refer to any deliberate, forceful physical (or verbal) engagement with people or other living beings (or even inanimate objects of property)? Or is the reference only to such acts as are intended to acquire power over people and other living beings; such acts that may leave one with no apparent alternative but to protect their own lives and those of others as best they can by whatever means come to hand?

Does the use of the word 'violence' refer to the complex, pervasive, insidious manipulation of humans (not to mention other living beings) by which means this societal construct maintains itself, no matter what the cost to the vast majority of us? Or does it refer to the actions of those indomitable free spirits who finally say 'enough!' and are prepared to put their asses on the line in a determined struggle for liberation on their own terms?

The answers to these questions have yet to be made clear.

It is not my wish to criticize how specific communities choose to conduct their struggles, or to pass judgment on an approach that at times will find legitimate strategic or tactical application within a broad kaleidoscope of possibilities. When it becomes seriously problematic is when (as applies to anything else) an inflexible attitude of 'my way or the highway' is adopted by movement leaders, or the very real needs of specific individuals are not taken into account.

When any community of people shows broad consensus for adopting a non-violent approach, their wishes are to be respected. Period. Be it Indigenous communities in Canada or Palestinian villages in the Middle East, the right of communities to reach their own conclusions about precisely how they will approach the task of achieving their own liberation is beyond negotiation.

But looking at the flip side, it is equally true that no one has the right to arbitrarily impose any kind of tactical/strategic restrictions upon a body of people when many are not comfortable with such an approach, for whatever personal reasons they may have. In my opinion, doing so is itself an act of violence. Peer pressure that plays on peoples' fear of being excluded or ostracized, or that lays a guilt-trip on the masses for not believing in a particular strategy or philosophy is enormously coercive and has no place in our movements.

I have also heard the notion expressed that people will carry over the tactics of struggle they employ into how they interact with others in the normal course of their lives; and that such justifies embracing a strictly 'non-violent' approach. To my mind this is an extremely simplistic, negative and cynical appraisal of human ability.

I am of the opinion that people are capable of creative, flexible, diverse responses to an incredible range of circumstances, with no carry-over at all of approaches that are unsuitable in other situations no matter how rapidly the dynamics may shift. The notion that someone who is left with no choice but to engage in desperate physical conflict in defense of themselves, their family or community will automatically revert to similar measures in situations that pose no threat is ludicrous.

The irony is that an enforced philosophy of 'non-violence' itself can have the effect of creating such rigidly inappropriate responses, in this case to situations where the ordinary and expected reaction would be to act in defense of individual or collective safety; if not by active physical engagement then by at least getting one's self and others who feel the need out of harm's way.

Initiating force of any kind against anyone who poses no clear threat is wrong. By the same token, it is the natural, inalienable, sacred right of all living beings (including humankind) to protect themselves, their communities and their resources from harm or exploitation. No one should be under any obligation to accept having violence done to them without being able or permitted to respond. The consequences of such situations need to become the oppressor's - not the victim's - burden to bear.

The ultimate goal needs to be finding some form of acceptable reconciliation between all of these seemingly divergent realities - not imposing a single restrictive philosophy on everyone who commits to struggling for liberation.

(This is an essay - with minor edits - that I wrote  in the period leading up 

to the G-20 summit that happened in Toronto, Canada in June of 2010).

The hordes descend on the 'Curved Castle'

 'The masses are off their asses' 

Thousands of trade unionists and community members massed outside Toronto City Hall for a peaceful but spirited rally on the evening of Monday, September 26. Following the rally a symbolic 'gravy social' (mashed potatoes with the aforementioned garnish were served to attendees) was organized by Toronto Stop The Cuts Network.

On several occasions Nathan Phillips Square and the City Hall buildings were completely surrounded as mass picket lines were formed over the course of the event. Once again Council member Giorgio Mammoliti revealed the workings of his lizard brain when he described the huge crowd of ordinary Torontonians as 'the usual suspects'. (Yeah, right, Giorgio.)

As well, a massive banner was dropped from the elevated walkway on the south side of the square, remaining in place for close to an hour before organizers safely retrieved it. (pretty rare when it comes to banner drops - usually the cops get to them first!)

'Gravy Social'

A special session of City Council is currently examining the recent Core Services Review that recommended devastating cutbacks to many essential city resources.  While most of the cuts have been deferred until budget development begins in about two months' time following hundreds of deputations opposing them from members of the public, essentially nothing has changed - Ford and Co. are simply getting craftier in maneuvering their agenda through.

Last week a number of actions  happened at City Hall in response to the Ford agenda - on Thursday dozens of kids and their parents set up an affordable daycare outside the Mayor's office before invading Council Chambers and inducing Council members to 'pinky-swear' not to support the cuts before offering them snacks.

Last Friday members of AIDS Action Now! staged a mock funeral procession and die-in both inside and outside City Hall to protest planned cuts to HIV/AIDS resources in Toronto. This event was also well-attended despite driving rain.

Banner drop - I think this

made the message perfectly clear!