Chauri Chaura

I've had to back away from Occupy Vancouver altogether.  Two reasons:

- OV has not succeeded in defining who they are such that they can define who speaks in the name of the General Assembly.  For example, there is a direct action committee which plans events without consulting the GA.  "Direct Action" could mean almost anything, including Black Bloc tactics.  I toyed with drafting proposals defining their authority, but I know they would never pass.

- OV can no longer be described as nonviolent.  Below the fold, scenes from a Nov. 7 confrontation with the police.  I have a long post coming about that.  Short version: if mass organised screaming is considered proper procedure, the group needs to take responsibility for members who lash out violently.


In 1922, Chauri Chaura was the site of a massacre of British policemen by Indian citizens during the struggle for independence.  "Gandhi felt that he had acted too hastily in encouraging people to revolt against the British Raj without sufficiently emphasizing the importance of ahimsa (non-violence) and without adequately training the people to exercise restraint in the face of attack," and therefore suspended the Non-cooperation Movement.

I'm with Gandhi -- I can't participate in a group which is purportedly engaging in non-violent resistance but which lacks the discipline and training required to remain non-violent.

Should I stay away?

I burned out.  Too much writing, too much standing out in the cold.  The occupation was ruining my health.  Taking a few days off was a choice that was good for the soul.

Unfortunately I may not be going back.

A woman died at the Art Gallery site from a drug overdose.  I don't believe I'd met the woman.  Her name may have been Ashley, though it has not yet been released by to the media.  I hope she died knowing that she was surrounded by people who respected her.  I've heard that heroin overdose is a quick and painless way to go, and I hope it was gentle for her.

It bears mentioning that 125 people died of overdoses in the Downtown East Side last year.

Mayor Robinson is using this death as a pretext to close the camp. "I have directed the city manager to expedite the appropriate steps to end the encampment as soon as possible with a safe resolution being absolutely critical to that."  His rival Suzanne Anton is living in a similar fantasy land.  There is no peaceful way to end the encampment.  Even if the protesters are nonviolent as they have sworn they will be, there is no nonviolent way to remove a person who will not budge.  At the very least, police will need to grab and drag them.

Being something of a coward, I'm a bit afraid to go back to the site.  Robertson is scaring away moderates from the site, leaving behind the more radical hardcores who will make trouble for him.  He's made this election issue louder, not made it go away. Well done, sir.

Looking in from the outside at Occupy Vancouver

I don't enjoy protesting in the streets.  That's one reason why I've hardly ever done it.

Prior to now, the only event I've ever marched at was a march organized by Renters at Risk.  It took a direct threat to my home to get me involved.  My corporate landlord had become notorious for evading rent controls through the practice of renoviction, evicting tenants on the pretext of making renovations and allowing them to return only if they were willing to pay a far higher rent for their purportedly beautified apartment.  So I went to community information sessions, did a little furtive flyering and in the end I hit the pavement.

It was more stately than most protest marches.  I'd guess that the median age of the protesters might well have been over fifty, not surprising since long term renters were the most threatened.  It was non-partisan.  Our MP and both our MLA candidates marched with us, either in support or for self preservation.  Media coverage was entirely sympathetic.  It was a tightly focused rally on an issue which I could wholeheartedly support.  In spite of the fact that it was as safe and conservative as a protest march could possibly get, I still felt like a fish out of water.  I was feeling shy and nervous, treating it like a grim duty, and I'm ashamed to say that I felt a bit irked at people for not feeling as glum as I did.  Why would anyone be happy at seeing the neighborhood as a whole rally around common values to change things for the better?

I can't see myself ever becoming comfortable at protests, but I think that's true of the vast majority of Canadians.   The average Vancouverite is not going to join the camp at the Vancouver Art Gallery unless the situation in Canada gets as bad as it is now in Greece.  Partly it's a matter of a culture clash between how Vancouverites see themselves and how they see the occupiers, and there's more to be said about that, but I think the main concern is time.  Most people don't have the option of joining a tent city, or going to a general assembly every day.  Many people have jobs and children.  Protesting is costly, getting arrested more so.

Democratic change happens when people who don't like protesting get involved.  Change wouldn't get started without a determined few raising awareness, but it doesn't become irresistible until middle aged folks in suits who have places they'd rather be get swept along after them.  Democratic change is risky for the forerunners, becoming safer and safer as community consensus gets broader and broader. 

Well here I am, getting swept along.  I've been thinking about how the Occupy Everything protests might matter to me.  If there's a place for uptight nervous introverts like me, it's a movement that's going to keep growing.