I’ve Just Read Something Quite Awful.

I’ve just read something quite awful: here it is.

And here’s a summary of what I, as a participant in Occupy Toronto, stand accused of:

- manipulating and marginalizing the homeless
- being elitist
- denying people use of the park
- being “gutless blowhards”
- being unproductive
- not being on par with Jesus Christ (seriously)
- devolving to “increasingly debased forms”
- being too lazy to clean the toilets.

As you can see from the list of points, it’s a pretty damn interesting read and I suggest you check it out yourself. It tops the Toronto Sun’s Sue-Ann Levy for pure vitriolic entertainment! And, making it twice as ugly, this was written by someone I used to like and even admire.

It’s mainly insults, with a sprinkling of transparent misrepresentations and descriptions of situations the writer clearly has only the vaguest knowledge of. I mean, has she used one of the toilets herself? Experienced their sparkling cleanliness and springtime-fresh odour? I don’t think so. They’re portapotties!  They have shit and piss in them!  But they put the washrooms at the Java House to shame, and the city still gives that place a orange “conditional pass” on every sanitation check. And as to “devolving to increasingly debased forms”, yes, I’ve noticed the beginnings of a tail sprouting from my backside. I was worried it might be haemorrhoids until now – thank you for setting my mind at ease.

But the central point of this article, the one about the occupation’s “elitist” nature and our relationship to the homeless, deserves an answer. No, that’s not the right way to put it: the only way to arrive at a true answer would be going to the park, engaging with the people there, and arriving at a conclusion based on the evidence of direct experience. But, as this author is unwilling to do that before launching into a skreed about us being feral elitists, words will have to do the trick.

Being accused of elitism online, and by someone who’s obviously elite enough herself to engage in philosophical and political debate, is a bit rough. At least when Rob Ford accuses people like myself of the same he sets a bar low enough for a dachshund to step over. But this accusation coming from an articulate, literate person is an invitation down the rabbit hole; a chinese finger trap; the monkey’s paw in the coconut. To engage with these arguments at the level they’re presented would be offering a guilty plea.

Fortunately, however, the argument being made is more than political and philosophical. It’s also fallacious. It’s a false dichotomy, a binary proposition. And, like all such fallacies, it’s easily debunked by simply describing reality:

There are people who have jobs involved in the occupation. There are people who are utterly disenfranchised. Black people, white people, asian people, Native people. Educated people and people who may well be functionally illiterate. These differences cause tension. At the General Assemblies we’ve articulated “the differences that exist out there don’t exist here!” and we’ve echoed en masse via the people’s mic: “I’m an ex-con”, “I’m disabled”, “I’m a rape victim”, or “I’m a suburban kid from Etobicoke”. Looking into someone’s eyes, repeating words that come for different worlds; looking for connection, an affirmation, something like a shared understanding and respect – it means something.

But it doesn’t change anything. Occupy Toronto isn’t a “utopia”, as you and many others have cynically called it. It’s not a fairy tale where talking foxes cavort with dancing hounds around a magical ‘Togetherness Tree’. There are real conflicts between the perspectives those eyes and words represent. We argue and debate all the time: at General Assemblies, when we crawl out of our tents in the morning, when we do dishes. I’ve learned more from arguing confrontation and nonviolence with the punk sleeping a couple tents over than you’ll learn in a lifetime of clever tweets.

Because this is real. We don’t block each other, we don’t turn our backs and walk away from someone who’s saying something we don’t want to hear. Instead we take care of each other – because it’s cold; because it can be wet; because some people are vulnerable and need help. Because we chose to be in this together. We’ve chosen to place ourselves in a situation where we can’t hide from “the other”, disparage it in ignorance, isolate it, stereotype it, call it “lazy” “gutless” “worthless” and the rest of the demeaning labels you’ve given us. Instead we listen to each other.

Where else can that interaction happen? Is it valuable? Worthwhile? An opportunity? For this alone, the occupation is entirely justified.

But perhaps this is too abstract? You want a concrete reason why we insist on staying in this damn park? Ok. Here are two, tailored to your Toronto-specific interests:

1) During the G20 more than a thousand people were arrested without cause. This set a new Canadian precedent for the use of force in responding to public demonstrations, attacked our Charter rights to freedom of assembly and expression. Many people, myself included, are here to push back against negative changes to our culture that event represented, and to re-established a sane relationship between citizens and our government. Many people see our society accepting the door to public political action being shut by increments, both by our government and by increasingly apathetic and intolerant public opinion. Independent of any particular goals of the movement, our continued presence in St.James part acts as a wedge in that door.

Were that the only reason for the occupation, it’s justified.

2) Our mayor was elected on a platform of “trimming the fat, without service cuts”. And, having manufactured a crisis (ala The Shock Doctrine) by eliminating sources of income, he’s now begun to hack away at programs many Torontonians see as foundational to the city we want to live in; programs that have been developed and invested in for generations. When citizens responded to this bait-and-switch by showing up en masse to depute at the Executive Council meetings, we were disparaged and ignored. Their speaking time was reduced to a fraction, and the mayor’s hand-picked committee refused to listen. The occupation keeps eyes focused on developments in our mayor’s efforts to transform Toronto into the world’s largest strip mall, and provides a vehicle for organized response to the same.

Were that the only reason for the occupation, it’s justified.

I could go on to Federal issues: the Canadian Council of Corporate Executive’s mandate that Canada increase its military spending, which Prime Minister Harper is doing his best to oblige; the financial support given to Transcanda’s Tar Sands / Keystone project and its impact in stifling sustainable energy development; our perpetual sidekick role in America’s wars.  And I could talk about our support for people internationally who recognize similar issues, and the value of communication through the various occupations. Of course we support them morally, but our presence also supports them practically: we supply awareness and our occupation pressures news media to cover the often violent response to other occupations.

But perhaps this is all, as you said, “tedious”. Frankly, people commenting on the complexion, motivations, and viability of those they’ve not bothered to meet strikes me as tedious. But we each have our own tastes, I suppose.

As I write this, I’ve just left our general assembly on Sunday, during which we divided ourselves by our colour. Not the skin colour division you mention, but colours we’ve each chosen to adopt for ourselves when the police inevitably come calling. I’m a “red”, which means I’ll be amongst those willing to be arrested defending the occupation through nonviolent resistance.

You close your critique, after the really funny bit about how we’re unlike Jesus, by saying “things are changed by people who do, not by people who talk.”  That really reaches a high point of hypocrisy. May I ask: where will you be while I’m standing arm in arm with people I’ve come to know, respect, and love? Where will you be when I’m in jail for standing behind a movement I value, understand, and chose to invest myself in?

…on Twitter?