Occupied confusion

Large congregations of people have gathered in various cities across Canada and the United States. They live humbly in tents, play djembes and meditate communally. However — aside from their presenting an alternative to conventional lifestyles — what message should I be receiving from members of the Occupy movement?

Undeniably, the police response has been negative at times. Chancellor Linda P. B. Katehi of University of California Davis publicly apologized for the actions of two police officers, who doused peaceful protestors with pepper spray. This San Franciscan university, which decrees free speech a cornerstone of its belief system, is totally appalled by the actions of these officials. This is just one example of police brutality, so, is the point of the Occupy movement to display the harsh methods of law enforcement? In my opinion, the police have been using a “move or we will make you move” mentality, is the Occupy movement trying to display the inefficiency of current police practices?

Presently, various groups are seeing eviction notices posted on their tents in cities across the country, including Toronto and Ottawa. These groups are being evicted from the various parks that protesters have been calling home. For me personally, this seems to be the greatest concern of Occupy confusion. The protesters should be banding together and forming a proper NGO. They need a mailing address: a legitimate place to meet and discuss their goals and hopes for society. Furthermore, it is winter in our glorious country. With the exception of a few places, protesters cannot spend the entire winter outdoors. In Winnipeg, for example, protesters were removed from Memorial Park, perhaps thankfully, since –45 C weather is coming and with it the very real threat of someone dying from exposure in the middle of downtown. Is being forced from one place seen as the end of the potentiality of the Occupy movement?

Admittedly, I am aware of the goals of the Occupy movement. They wish to abolish corporate greed, give a voice to the underprivileged and see to the success of the lower class. Most importantly, they wish to see their goals achieved through non-violent protest. This is a remarkable desire; however, the means of accomplishment have shady details. Are the Occupy members protesting the government or big business? Which organization is more problematic for society and what are alternatives? Who are the representatives whom, as a media outlet, I can discuss with?

The aspirations of the Occupy movement are inspirational — the movement itself requires administrative tweaking. If I could talk to the Occupy movement as a whole, I would tell them that, as a storm, your thunder is very loud right now and without proper leadership and organization you run the risk of fading into the horizon.

Chelsea James is a 4th year religions studies student who is wondering if anyone else is confused about the Occupy movement.

3 Comments on "Occupied confusion"

  1. Ray Eskritt | January 5, 2012 at 7:54 pm |

    I am an occupier and here’s my answers to your questions.

    Aside from their presenting an alternative to conventional lifestyles — what message should I be receiving from members of the Occupy movement?
    My Response:
    There are a few main messages that Occupy supports. They include:
    • Canada had a bank bailout, by transferring millions of dollars into taxpayer debt.
    • Government needs to raise corporate tax rates
    • The middle class and the working poor are being ignored by their government
    • Democracy has be bought by lobby groups in favour of the wealthy
    • Government needs to work for the people, not for businesses
    • The current way of doing things isn’t working, and only benefits the top 1% of earners.

    Her Question:
    …is the point of the Occupy movement to display the harsh methods of law enforcement? In my opinion, the police have been using a “move or we will make you move” mentality, is the Occupy movement trying to display the inefficiency of current police practices?
    My Response:
    Nope, the police and governments have done that all on their own.

    We were expecting a response from the police, but we not expecting the violence we have seen. Pepper spray, beatings, rubber bullets, tear gas, intimidation and hundreds of arrests wasn’t what we were expecting, but I can’t say we’re surprised. Just disappointed. The police are paid by those that make the laws, and those that make the laws are paid of by business. So they have a need to protect the status quo, which is what Occupy is threatening.

    Her Question:
    In Winnipeg, for example, protesters were removed from Memorial Park…Is being forced from one place seen as the end of the potentiality of the Occupy movement?
    My Response:
    Absolutely Not! The camp was a strong symbol for Occupy Winnipeg, but the people that spent time there are what drove the movement, not tents and a fire pit. The camp gave us space to meet, discuss, plan and create, and was a community centre. It was an amazing experience to walk through, with the camp providing food, art supplies, workshops, a library, free store, and daily meetings.

    But now the camp is gone, but we the people are still here. The location has changed, but not the spirit and determination of the Occupiers. We are still meeting weekly, and hold weekly actions. We are petitioning government, talking to people, making scenes and challenging the current paradigm.

    We will not be defeated by missing tents. We are strong, and far from giving up.

    Her Question:
    Are the Occupy members protesting the government or big business?
    My Response:
    BOTH! Both government and big business have a role to play in this grand performance of capitalism. Big business has been operating irresponsibly with not only our economy, but our planet in general. It has ensured the degradation of our ecosystems, drinking water, energy resources and food supply. Business has been deregulated, (we’ll get to that later), but a person, no matter their place of employment, should place others in harms way in order to profit. Ethics has disappeared from our business world. It isn’t “the cost of doing business”, it’s immoral.

    Government also seems to drink the free-market kool-aid. They have allowed big business to run wild, hiding behind the economy as an excuse. The thought pattern is based on “a high tide rises all ships”. Well, sort of. If government deregulates business, the thinking is that the free market will choose the best businesses with the best products and those firms will flourish. But this misses out that the free market has no consideration of ecology, human rights, dignity, conflicts, or ethics. They just want the cheapest product for the lowest price. The government’s job is to ensure the safety and rights of it’s citizens are protected. But when we are poisoning the water, food supply and ecosystems that support us, government has failed. When people are homeless due to interest rates, government has failed. When jails are being used to hold those better suited to rehab or mental health professionals, government has failed.

    Her Question:
    Which organization is more problematic for society and what are alternatives?
    My Response:
    Government. 100% Government. (Feel free to disagree in the comment section.)
    Government is responsible. Think about the State as a family. Government is the parent, business is a teenager, and citizens are children. Government’s job is to protect us, provide for us, ensure we get an education, food, transportation and health care. Business is to create objects and services. But Government can restrain business, but lately has chosen not to.
    My alternative?
    • Government that works for the people, not big business.
    • Moving away from money, and towards a new resource based economy.
    • Measuring happiness instead of GDP as the important factor within a State.
    • Teaching ethics and civics at an early age.
    • Make fines more expensive than updating equipment for resource extraction, instead of fines just being a nuisance or a “cost of doing business”

    Her Question:
    Who are the representatives whom, as a media outlet, I can discuss with?
    My Response:
    The media may speak to anyone in the movement. Just be aware that each activist holds their own biases, beliefs, and issues. Answers to questions may not be the same from one individual to another. But we encourage communication, and welcome anyone that wants to talk.

    You can send an email to Occupiers using occupywinnipegevents@gmail.com.
    Occupy-Winnipeg also has a facebook page where you can talk to anyone in the movement quite easily. https://www.facebook.com/occupywinnipeg
    You can also come to the General Assembly, held every Wednesday at 6pm. Check out the website for the location.

  2. Ray Eskritt | January 5, 2012 at 8:16 pm |

    There is a blog you can check out for all these answers in a better format. it’s
    occupy-winnipeg.blogspot.com

  3. It’s weird to me that you would write this article without apparently having tried to communicate with anyone from Occupy Winnipeg.

    What would you deem “proper leadership”? The leaderless nature of Occupy Wall Street and the other manifestations its inspired is part of what appeals to me.

    The best way to understand Occupy Winnipeg, I believe, is to attend a general assembly. There’s a lot more noise on the web that obscures what people are actually doing. Then maybe you can write a followup article… or actually *participate* in something.

Comments are closed.