Just because something is a law does not make it right.
A couple days ago Occupy Toronto protesters were legally given an eviction notice from St. James Park on the grounds that it was a public space and thus they were trespassing by turning it into a tent city and forbidding other residence from using it. City Councilors and the mayor issued concern about "the protesters leaving peacefully", how Toronto could not "handle more violence after the G20". Statements were even made saying the homeless protesters and other would be provided with needed resources, once they evicted. Some even said that it was valuable that the protesters had put the question of resource inequality on the national dialogue. It all sounds, reasonable, level-headed, and Canadian. In my mind it is all a patronizing response to a real problem. Politicians hope that if the protesters go quietly into the night, everyone will forget their lives were ever unsettled. Sending kind thoughts doesn't help the 3,200,000 Canadian's who currently live in poverty. Allowing people who live near St. James Park to go to and from work without the sight of protesters disturbing their daily lives doesn't help improve the lives of our aboriginal people. Make Poverty History states that "while Canada officially ranks an impressive 4th on the UN Human Development Index, the statistics measuring poverty in Canada's Aboriginal communities would place us 78th" (http://www.makepovertyhistory.ca/learn/issues/end-poverty-in-canada).
The judge in the case ruled that by not asking the surrounding residence or their civil representatives permission to set up camp in St. James Park, the protesters were defying their own message of greater direct participation in the democratic process. Again, this sounds very nice and reasonable. But if you believe the system is flawed, then you don't believe you have real "representation" in government, so why ask civil representatives permission? The thought of asking residents, although it is a nice, Canadian one, does not reflect any version of protest meant to evoke change I have ever read about. Most protests that were successful, and many that were not, engaged in civil disobedience, because they believed the current system was wrong and ought to be changed, removing the option of acting within the existing system.
When you believe you have a message that is important enough, you must do everything within your power in order to make it heard. Even if that amounts to limiting the use of park space for the surrounding community. On a grand scale, the importance of being able to walk your dog in a convenient location, as compared to a systemic change of existing financial structures which benefit the already well-off and continue to cycle of poverty for others, which do you think is more important?
Consider writing St. James Cathedral who own half the park:
"info@stjamescathedral.on.ca"
To Whom it May Concern,
I am greatly disappointed by the response of the church to the
protesters at Occupy Toronto. Christians are called to side on
rights of the poor and currently 3,200,000 Canadian's live in poverty.
Standing behind the protesters would make a statement that the Church
continues to practice the teachings of Jesus and is not irrelevant in
a current day context. Consider the following verse:
James 2: 15-17
Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If
one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but
does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same
way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.
Nice sentiments are not going to make the difference.
With all due respect,
