Occupying Vancouver (And Missing the Point)

In the United States, an unlawful assembly is defined as a meeting of three or more people with the intent to "carry out a lawful or unlawful purpose in a manner likely to imperil the peace and tranquillity of the neighborhood."When three or more people actually succeed in such an event, they have definitively committed the criminal act of rioting. 


I think it's fair to say that a gathering of, say, 700 people marching across the Brooklyn Bridge to protest the maligned middle class and the tilted personal wealth in the United States is something of a mild threat; the title, "Occupy Wall Street" has a strong and somewhat militant tone. A protest can show not only passive resistance but organizational strength in unwieldy numbers. A protest, even a peaceful one, is something of a threat display to an opposing institution. Governments aren't generally fans of letting legitimate concerns snowball from small gatherings into massive displays of solidarity. They block streets, close businesses, delay work, and have the potential to turn unwieldy. 


In a few days, a group called Occupy Vancouver intends on standing in solidarity with those who march in Washington by... doing something. Their website states that they will "demand a true democracy" and "will create a platform for people to speak and provide an audience that will listen." For starters, I'll call you when I learn what the true democracy is, as there are longstanding debates and arguments over what a true democracy is; from anarchism to totalitarianism democracies. I'm also not particularly keen on a group of uncertified loons spending the afternoon soapboxing on what they think needs to happen to Canada. Currently, their list of speakers includes a Grade 12 student, a guy suing Pfizer, and a man who wrote a book on the importance of smoking cannabis in ancient cultures. 


New York's fiscal concerns are legitimate; the country hinges on bankruptcy as every moment passes. One percent of the nation now owns 40% of the wealth, entitling protestors to moniker themselves as "99 Percenters." They've been hurt for the past 11 years by the Bush tax cuts and their extension, by a campaign system that required 5.3 billion dollars of Barack Obama's supporters to succeed, and by the opportunistic abuse of several major firms of the bailouts they've been given. I don't believe we have that here, and so for us to protest so maladroitly under their umbrella seems more than slighting; it seems downright embarrassing. I agree that Canada has it's problems; I've heard everything cited from exorbitant telecom costs to the fire sale of government-held properties to private interests, but I don't agree that Occupy Vancouver bears focus in this regard. Rather, it seems like a shallow attempt to ride the popularity of Occupy Wall Street with little focus at all.