hey, unless they are harbouring fugitives in there, i'm not sure why they should be evicted, really.   they are citizens.  whether you agree or disagree with them, they have just as much right to congregate there as anyone else.

my guess is that if they are evicted, though,. you will see the 'occupy' movement morph into something else, and i'd be fascinated to see what that would be. 

Hi sighsnootles,

I think that what is at the heart of the matter is whether there is some difference between "congregate" and "dwell."

I suspect that from the City of Toronto's perspective what will be raised is that the tents represent "dwellings" and the bringing in of port-a-potties (Are there permits for this use?) and food tents represents and attempt to transform the park into dwelling space.

What the Church does with their portion is the Church's decision provided it complies with municipal codes and by-laws.

What the City does with their portion is the City's decision.  Public property for public use does not allow the public to do whatever it pleases with the Public space.  Certain activity in public space needs to be approved by the city in some capacity.  I'd be surprised if permission had been sought and given to transform public greenspace into a residential area.

Moving the Occupy crowd from a Public Park where they have erected dwelling units is not an infringement on their right to Assemble.  It is telling them that they can not Assemble in this space, in this manner.

The Judge will be looking at the arguments from each party to determine which makes the better legal case.

Grace and peace to you.

John

I am waiting for the illustrious mayor to say something brilliant like "fine, let 'em stay. We won't have to sell Toronto Hydro. We will charge them rent, it is city property. Or better yet, let's call this ''affordable housing' or 'transitional housing' and we can say Toronto has oodles of it.... where are my spin folks and the people who tell me what to say? I am about one minute from saying 'nuke 'em' or 'riot police' someone stop me. Someone gag me or something..."

Hi Jennifer24.

Thanks for the anecdotes. I hope we will see more first person testimonials reflecting experience as participants, supporters and those curious enough to explore and assess.

George

The Anglican Dean of Toronto cathedral has made it clear"

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/17/occupy-toronto-toronto-church_n_1100028.html?ref=canada

it's not a matter of law. the law is what has permitted a tiny minority to take control of our lives. The law is what enabled them to send Canadians to drop tens of thousands of tons of bombs on Libyan cities. The law is what makes us, and not them, pay taxes.

Hitler's Gestapo were enforcing the law. The death camps were legal.

To survive, the law has to be made wisely, and enforced wisely. Much of ours isn't.

If I throw a candy wrapper on the gournd, I can be arrested. If I pollute a whole province, I can probably get an honorary degree.

State: "We will not have this occupation persist!"

Church: "We defer to the authority of the state."

"We have no authority to allow them to stay here or not,"

Have we no warrant by which we may provide sanctuary for those whose position has become precarious before the law

Might we not say that in all places law has prevailed but here Grace continues with the Occupation?

Might we not declare ourselves in solidarity with those who bring forward a public protest against the abuse of authority for the sake of capital gain?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/church-wont-let-occupy-toronto-use-land-if-eviction-is-upheld/article2239560/

I'm remembering the words of Gamaliel in Acts 5:33-39.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable".

-JFK

What is St. James park normally usually used for?  Dog bathroom, shortcut or nothing.  Now we have a whole lot of people who want to put the park to an important public use, namely, free speech and social change (the most significant and intensive use by the public of this park for valid public purposes in many years) and it is being characterized by authorities as "illegal camping".  

The courts should resist the attempts to narrowly define the use of the park by Occupy protestors and recognize the importance of the park as a gathering place for free speech (a traditional and historical public use of public space) and make an order that a significant  portion of it be set aside for use of protestors with the city to maintain and service it (for the reasons of public health which the municipality is so insistent is one of their main concerns) for a period of time to extend to, say, New Years, with a option of the protestors to return for an extension should a significant need still exist  at that date.  Failure by the city to properly fulfil its tasks under this order would be viewed as contempt of court.

In this way, the court could facilitate all of the various ideals (big and small, banal and profound) of free speech, creative social change, public health and legal camping.

Here is a picture of the area in which the Occupy protestors have located next to the Cathedral (for a thousand years the area beside the walls of a cathedral has been an accepted location for public assembly).  Note that except for what appear to be a couple of Parks employees in the foreground nobody is using it.  Certainly, on this particular day nobody would have been inconvenienced by the presence of protestors.

View Larger Map

Why do I get the feeling that if it was a Salvation Army church that the protesters plunked themselves down beside, that the doors would be open to use the bathrooms, coffee would be served in the morning, blankets would be handed out and everyone would be invited to Sunday service if only to get out from the cold? Is this being offered by St. James?

"We have no authority to allow them to stay here or not," Stoute said of the protesters.  "  

Now there's a Pontius Pilate moment if I ever saw one!   Is Rev. Stoute worried about loss of church revenue?? Mmmm.

It is disillusioning and sad that the church has become so domesticated to the status quo that it will not exercise its historical role of offering sanctuary in a just cause.

On another note, visitors to St. James park will find the bust of  Robert  Gourlay.   Gourlay was banished from Upper Canada for protesting against economic injustice.  There is a plaque on the side of his monument that bears these words:

"The first question in political economy should be, can the mass of the people live comfortably under this or that arrangement?  But this most necessary question was forgotten and many of the people have perished"   Statistical Account of Upper Canada, 1822  R. Gourlay?

How can we, as a people, have come so far and learned so little?

You can read more about this great reformer in the Dictionary of Canadian Biography  http://biographi.ca/009004-119.01-e.php?id_nbr=4465

Right now, my twenty five year old son is  living in the dining room of my small, one bedroom apartment.  His three jobs and small business are not enough for him to afford his own apartment and pay back his student loan, not to mention cover the cost of the extensive dental work he needs.  Among his friends who graduated from university at the same time, my son is considered successful.  

Reading Jennifer's post  I am reminded of Hannah Arendt's assertion of "the banality of evil".  

In the case of the persecutors of the Occupy movement the banality of "illegal camping" is arrayed against the principle of free speech and social justice.  The cowardice of, "We have no authority to allow them to stay here or not," is set against the courage of peaceful protest and self sacrifice.

I have Arendt's volume "Responsibility and Judgement"  open on my desk. Very briefly, she makes the case that a very small percentage of the German population (1%?) managed to mobilize the majority of the German population (99%?) to accept and execute, by increment, the horror with which we are all familiar and which we are all resolved to keep before us as a constant reminder.

The whole enterprise was executed by policy memorandum authorized by democratic consent under the auspices of law. The majority simply did what they considered to be their duty (see last lines of Luther quote below).

I suspect we all know quite well where the majority of the Christian church stood on the matter. Simply, they adopted the position Luther adopted in view of peasant uprisings and the threat of disorder.

What did Gamaliel say?

This says it all - with thanks to a Wondercafe friend who drew it to my attention.............

Yes they should be told to leave.

They are not being evicted, they are currently squatting and it is time to move on.

the city has given them ample opportunity to make their point.  they have no point

Protest all you want.  Picket Bay street

Walk up and down

Picket Queens park and hold assemblies

Go to City council meetings and explain how you want things chnaged.

For heavens sake    Vote

But living in a public park and letting signs sit around with your "points"

Get real

I was there Monday.  What a lame excuse for a protest.

And I couldn't get one person to give me an explaination, a set of demands or even an idea of what is wanted.

Now the park has become a homeless shelter with out any oversight.

It ois now filled with vulnerable people who need help.

Move on, figure out a way to get a message across if you can ever figure out what the message is

Well, it's always nice not to take any side at all - and criticize everybody who does.

Are you at all critical of the 99%? Or do you figure it's all part of God's great plan?

Have you any disapproval of the destruction of Iraq and Libya to get their oil? Would you rank that as better or worse than camping on a public square?

Any thoughts of why the economic collapse is happening?

Or do you just wish people would go away and stop talking about it?

This is the text of a speech given by Arundhati Roy at the People's University in Washington Square, NYC on November 16th, 2011.

Tuesday morning, the police cleared Zuccotti Park, but today the people are back. The police should know that this protest is not a battle for territory. We're not fighting for the right to occupy a park here or there. We are fighting for justice. Justice, not just for the people of the United States, but for everybody.

What you have achieved since September 17th, when the Occupy movement began in the United States, is to introduce a new imagination, a new political language into the heart of empire. You have reintroduced the right to dream into a system that tried to turn everybody into zombies mesmerized into equating mindless consumerism with happiness and fulfillment.

As a writer, let me tell you, this is an immense achievement. And I cannot thank you enough.

We were talking about justice. Today, as we speak, the army of the United States is waging a war of occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan. US drones are killing civilians in Pakistan and beyond. Tens of thousands of US troops and death squads are moving into Africa. If spending trillions of dollars of your money to administer occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan is not enough, a war against Iran is being talked up.

Ever since the Great Depression, the manufacture of weapons and the export of war have been key ways in which the United States has stimulated its economy. Just recently, under President Obama, the United States made a $60 billion arms deal with Saudi Arabia - moderate Muslims, right? It hopes to sell thousands of bunker busters to the UAE. It has sold $5 billion-worth of military aircraft to my country, India, which has more poor people than all the poorest countries of Africa put together. All these wars, from the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, have claimed millions of lives – all of them fought to secure the "American way of life".

Today, we know that the "American way of life" – the model that the rest of the world is meant to aspire towards – has resulted in 400 people owning the wealth of half of the population of the United States. It has meant thousands of people being turned out of their homes and their jobs while the US government bailed out banks and corporations – American International Group (AIG) alone was given $182 billion.

The Indian government worships US economic policy. As a result of 20 years of the free market economy, today, 100 of India's richest people own assets worth one-quarter of the country's GDP while more than 80% of the people live on less than 50 cents a day; 250,000 farmers, driven into a spiral of death, have committed suicide. We call this progress, and now think of ourselves as a superpower. Like you, we are well-qualified: we have nuclear bombs and obscene inequality.

The good news is that people have had enough and are not going to take it any more. The Occupy movement has joined thousands of other resistance movements all over the world in which the poorest of people are standing up and stopping the richest corporations in their tracks. Few of us dreamed that we would see you, the people of the United States on our side, trying to do this in the heart of Empire. I don't know how to communicate the enormity of what this means.

They (the 1%) say that we don't have demands… perhaps they don't know, that our anger alone would be enough to destroy them. But here are some things – a few "pre-revolutionary" thoughts I had – for us to think about together:

We want to put a lid on this system that manufactures inequality. We want to put a cap on the unfettered accumulation of wealth and property by individuals as well as corporations. As "cap-ists" and "lid-ites", we demand:

• An end to cross-ownership in businesses. For example, weapons manufacturers cannot own TV stations; mining corporations cannot run newspapers; business houses cannot fund universities; drug companies cannot control public health funds.

• Two, natural resources and essential infrastructure – water supply, electricity, health, and education – cannot be privatized.

• Three, everybody must have the right to shelter, education and healthcare.

• Four, the children of the rich cannot inherit their parents' wealth.

This struggle has re-awakened our imagination. Somewhere along the way, capitalism reduced the idea of justice to mean just "human rights", and the idea of dreaming of equality became blasphemous. We are not fighting to just tinker with reforming a system that needs to be replaced.

As a cap-ist and a lid-ite, I salute your struggle.

Salaam and Zindabad.

I'm not speaking for Lastpointe, but responing to your comment because I think it's an important point. I don't want "them" to just go away, I don't want them to just be seen as a tent city and stagnate and stop moving. I want us all to be able to strategize as to how to move forward.

I read yesterday that even the founder of Ad Busters, the magazine that first proposed the Occupy Wall Street idea, said that perhaps now is time to move on to the next phase of "the movement" so that momentum is not lost...and it appears that there was a silver lining to OWS's eviction. Over 30,000 protesters marched the streets of New York yesterday, as opposed to a couple of hundred that were settled in Zuccati park overnight. 

By the way...Hi Lastpoint. I haven't seen you here for awhile.

Thanks gecko! Wonderful citation, to which I give my unreserved amen. Hearing such a voice encourages and strengthens me and us; reminding us - we are not alone.

Thanks for posting this gecko. I agree with everything, except I am not sure how I feel about her point #4. If I had financial wealth (which I don't), and i had children (which I don't), I am not sure I would want the state telling me I can't give, at least a good portion of my money, to my kids. Even if an extremely wealthy person were required to give a percentage of their wealth specifically to social funding in addition to other taxes, that would be fair, and could alleviate a lot of poverty, but to say that a child of a wealthy person cannot receive a parent's money is none of the state's business, imo....because where is the line drawn? Does in mean that family heirlooms that might happen to be worth money can't be passed down? Does it mean that adult children cannot live with their parents if they face hard times? Does it mean that parents can't give their children opportunities or help them up if they fall? I am not even a parent and I can identify with those protective instincts. I fully agree with everything else.

Well put.

Kimmio, Number four sounds harsh to me too, but the "inheritance" they are passing on to their children, was never theirs to begin with. It was yours, it was mine, it was ours. Their children are not the sole heirs of this earth, we all are, and the well to do have been mishandling our inheritance far too long.

I may be mistaken, haven't lived in Toronto for nearly twenty years now, but  I remember St. James as a homeless shelter back in the 80s that housed hundreds of men.  Thus, if my memory is correct, there is a certain irony here.

Perhaps Vancouver is different but I found the following interesting about how one group perceives a situation....

***********************

City wins injunction against Occupy Vancouver

Globe & Mail, Nov 18, 2011

He refuted city allegations there were fire safety concerns, dangerous trenching that imperilled valuable art stored beneath the surface of the plaza, and rats on site.

During the morning court session, Mr. Gratl quoted from regular reports by Vancouver Coastal Health inspectors who found no evidence of rats at Occupy Vancouver.

Noting that many commentators had referred to the presence of rats, Mr. Gratl said the reality of the situation must have been well known to the city. “This amounts to no more than an unsubstantiated smear,” he said.

As to the trenching issue, Mr. Gratl said an affidavit from a city employee attesting to the danger did not contain a single photograph.

He produced a number of recent photos showing no trenches deeper than four or five centimetres, likely caused by rain runoff, and noted that Art Gallery representatives have said they are not worried about damage to the art in their below-ground vaults.

The city’s claims, he said, represent “a gross exaggeration and an unnecessary spin that amount to fear-mongering about conditions at that site.”

Mr. Gratl also referred to statements from Fire Chief John McKearney, who said he was generally pleased with Occupy Vancouver’s compliance with fire safety orders.

“We are left with a situation where there are no significant fire, safety or health hazards, as opposed to the very vague generalities of the city, which are overwhelmed by the detailed evidence presented by the [protesters].”

The city has based its injunction bid on health and safety concerns, violation of its land use regulation bylaw, and the protesters’ trespass on city-leased land.

Occupy Vancouver representatives would welcome discussions with the city to obtain a proper permit for the site, said Mr. Gratl, and is more than willing to respond to requests for other organizations to use the space.

**************************

Despite evidence contrary to the City's claims, the protesters still lost the battle.  My hope is that they don't lose the war.

LB

----------------

It is said that if you know your enemies and know yourself, you will not be imperiled in a hundred battles; if you do not know your enemies but do know yourself, you will win one and lose one; if you do not know your enemies nor yourself, you will be imperiled in every single battle.
     Sun Tzu, The Art of War (2nd century BC)

It's really very simple. Either we have a democracy in which the government is answerable to all of us. Or we have (what has largely happened) a corporate form of government. Check the dictionary. the latter is called fascism.

We are also facing the collapse of the western empire which has lasted 500 years. Its only salvation is war which would almost certainly go nuclear.

We're standing on the tracks. Pretending the train isn't coming won't help us.

If corporatism wins out, we're faced with fascism and a war nobody can win.

It not good enough to clutch at our skirts, and say those protesters should go away.

We have to make some real choices. And we don't have much time.

Catherine Porter, Toronto Star columnist, adds her perspective ...

http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/1089566--occupy-toronto-they-can-t-evict-a-conversation?bn=1

the occupiers can't make the change. It's way too late for that. Volunteerism and soup kitchens are irrelevant. Corporations have openly taken control of western governments. Coupled with that, they have destroyed their own economies and, thus, their power to wage the wars they desperately need to steal resouces and get cheap labourf and captive markets.

The coming year will be economically worse, not better. There is no reason to expect anything but more disorder around the world - and the possiblity of a nuclear showdown. The great nuclear threats to the world are not Iranian. A handful of nuclear weapons gives Iran retaliatory potential. nothing more. You need power to obliterate an enemy in one strike. The US has that power. Perhaps Russia does. Certainly, Israel does. These are the dangerous ones.

Iran with a small nuclear arsenal would be in no position to attack Israel. It would be in a position to retaliate if Israel attacked it. That's what this is all about - that and the west wanting to regain ownership of Iranian oil.

The only chance for a quick change is massive, popular protest. Shrugging your shoulders and leaving it up to few others who are under constant autthority and police threats is going to achieve nothing.

Sorry, kids. That's reality. Democracy or fascism. What's your choice? Decide now. Because very soon, it will not matter what you decide.

At this point, we don't need a detailed programme of cures. At this point, we need a massive popular and public protest. Scratching our rear ends and dithering isn't a big help.

Either join the protest, or practice your fascist salutes. Or stand their pretending this will all go away - which is essentially what last pointe proposes.

"Multitudes, multitudes, in the valley of decision."

Graeme,

the question asked was if the squaters should leave the park.

Yes they should

Should they give up trying to create change?  No , but is there some magic of squatting that is creating change?  Of course not.

For two months there has been attention given to this issue.  It is starting discussions.  It is time to take this "protest" to a different level. 

Otherwise this is a protest about real estate and I dont think that is the purpose.

The various people involved want to jump start a change to our society.  Maybe it's needed maybe not.  Depends who you listen to but the way to go about it is not to live in the park .

They run the risk of becoming so ridiculous that they turn off all of the folks who have some interest in the issues

and Graeme i bet when you were little your favourite book was Chicken Little.  I have never seen someone who shouts "the sky is falling" as much as you

Well, if the wealthy family we are talking about were oil tycoons or owners of nuclear power plants or genetically modified foods manufacturers, for example, I fully agree. I'm still not sure how I feel about others. Maybe I don't have a good grasp of it...but say, a Mom and Pop Shoe Cobbler Shop got wealthy because they were the only one in the town for generations and noone else had the skill or inclination to do what they did, and they passed that skill on to their children...did they not earn it and can their children not benefit?

The sky has fallen. We have an economic crisis caused by "flaws" in our system. There is every reason to expect it to get worst - and no reason to expect it to get better.

Corporations have, long since, taken over control of US political life. As a result, the US is committed to economic survival by war - and that survival does not include most of the American popujlation.

Torture and arbirtrary arrest are now accepted practices in the world's largest "democracy"; and Canada is going the same way. In fact, we have already been involved in both.

The sky has fallen for Guatemala, for Iraq, for Afghanistan. It is about to fall for Syria and Iran. Drone bombing that daily kills innocent civilians in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia - well, what the hell - its only kills foreigners.

Yes. I am saying the sky is falling. But you won't say so until it falls into your lap. It was like this in Germany just before Hitler. When we get him, he'll tell us who to blame for all this.

A thoughtful post, Graeme, with lots to consider............

My comment on first reading is that we humans are such messy creatures - we don't tend to make choices between A and B - democracy or fascism.

Both are preceded by enormous civil unrest (think of Germany and the crippling reparations demanded by the Allies after WW1).

Democracies based on capitalism are tottering the world over. It's picking up pace - the economic collapse of European countries is rapidly becoming an unmanageable situation........

I think we're heading for civil unrest on a huge scale - which ultimately could involve nations to the point of war.

WW2 was preceded by the Great Depression and massive unemployment the world over.

But after that war there came a period of relative sanity, stability, and sustainable economic growth. There was low unemployment and governments stepped up social services for those that required it. Taxation was based on income -and thus the differences in the boss's salaries and the workers were not at the obscene levels of disparity that we see today..........

Graeme, I would love nothing better if folks would simply choose democracy over fascism.

But, like I said, we're such messy creatures............... 

Graeme, calm down.  There is one huge difference between now and 1933.  Young men in the West are for the most part not the slightest bit inclined to go to war with anybody!

The Western countries can't start wars with each other if their men won't fight with each other.  And they won't.  The number of people who voluntarily join the Armed Forces is very small.  

We have problems Graeme, but it is not correct in any way to imply that another WW II is just around the corner.  In 1933, Germany was full of men (and women) who did not even believe they had lost WW I -- they believed it was a plot of some type that deprived them of victory, possibly involving Jews and large corporations.  (Some of same people you like to go after, for that matter.)  Just who is acting like 1933 here?  Sounds like you.

http://livenews.thestar.com/Event/Toronto_Now_-_Nov_21_2011

[crickets]

yep. I t's not like 1933 at all. I mean, that led to a war in lots of us got killed. Now, we're fighting more wars - but it's ay-rabs getting killed. So that's okay. And there's no depression, I mean, not officially.

Actually, the west is quite happy to go to war. - just so long as the fighting is done by drones, hired assassins, mercenaries - and just so long as most of the dead are foreigners.

Until 1950, Canada had fought as a nation the war of 1812, boer war, ww one and two, and Korea. That's five wars in some 150 years.

In the last ten years, we have fought in Afghanistan, Libya, and have indicated a willingness to fight in Syria and Iran. Just one more and we will equal the record of 150 years. The government has also made its biggest single  defence purchase for a fighter bomber which has no value for defending Canada.

I don't see any of that as a sign of things quieting down.

I like to go after Jews?

That is a disgusting accusation. I am certainly critical of Israel. Israel is not Judaism. Your accusation is worse than boorish.

But, yes. I do like to go after corporations. I feel no need to apologize for that.

yep. I t's not like 1933 at all. I mean, that led to a war in lots of us got killed. Now, we're fighting more wars - but it's ay-rabs getting killed. So that's okay. And there's no depression, I mean, not officially.

Actually, the west is quite happy to go to war. - just so long as the fighting is done by drones, hired assassins, mercenaries - and just so long as most of the dead are foreigners.

Until 1950, Canada had fought as a nation the war of 1812, boer war, ww one and two, and Korea. That's five wars in some 150 years.

In the last ten years, we have fought in Afghanistan, Libya, and have indicated a willingness to fight in Syria and Iran. Just one more and we will equal the record of 150 years. The government has also made its biggest single  defence purchase for a fighter bomber which has no value for defending Canada.

I don't see any of that as a sign of things quieting down.

I like to go after Jews?

That is a disgusting accusation. I am certainly critical of Israel. Israel is not Judaism. Your accusation is worse than boorish.

But, yes. I do like to go after corporations. I feel no need to apologize for that.

I find your statement that Iran needs nuclear weapons to protect itself from Israel to be in the category of someone who is only semi-sane.  It is grossly insulting to Israel to suggest that it, unprovoked, would attack Iran.  Why would they do that?

Perhaps I was wrong about the anti-Semitism.  After, you have an irrational hatred of the US also, so perhaps it is the same kind of thing.  I will take it back.

But I am starting to think you are in the black helicopter crowd, and not a serious person to talk to.   Please give me some details on the exact nature of the catastrophe that you feel is about to unfold.

you're right. poor little Israel only has 250 nuclear warheads to protect itself.

Israel has been publicly pushing for an attack on Iran for at least ten years. And for all those ten years, it has said Iran is on the verge of developing a nuclear bomb.

If Iran is a threat to world peace with one bomb, what are the US, Israel, Russia, Britain, China, France, India, and Pakistan and North Korea  with their 8,000 or so.

If nuclear bombs are seen as a threat, why has the US not been a leader in encouraging disarmament. In fact, it has consistently worked against nuclear disarmament since 1945.

You're right . For you, I'm not a serious person to talk to. Try Kristol. You'ld like him.

Do you not understand why Israel feels under threat from the Iranian regime, which has been virulently anti-Israel since 1979?  Or do you not believe it is virulently anti-Israel?  Everyone knows that!  They say it openly.

None of those other countries are making belliigerent statements about their neighbours (well, perhaps Pakistan/India, another troubled area).   

Who is Israel is pushing for an attack?   The govt?  Or simply people who are voicing their opinion but have no connection with the govt?

Do you not further realize that the govt of Iran is millennial, like the fundamentalist Christians who want to bring on the End Times?   Do you not know about Shi'ism and the Mahdi and how Ahmadinejad is trying to hasten his reappearance?

OK, this totally off topic.  Perhaps you could direct any further replies to the thread I started on Sanctions against Iran.

I will even apologize for calling you anti-Semitic.  

You should not be insulted by my reaction to your ludicrous defense of Iran (unless, I should double-check, you have become a Shiite Muslim, and an extremist one at that.  Otherwise, you are in complete disagreement with almost everyone, including large numbers of people in Iran and most Arabs, who are extremely distrustful of Iran).

Today, Occupy Vancouver cleared out of the art gallery space, about 100 people(maybe more)  marched around the block with their big tent structures intact, and re-occupied the BC Courthouse grounds, it's split level property which is not easily accessible by vehicles, there's a covered underpass/ walkway portion joining the buildings which is out of the rain, and it is right above the UBC downtown campus. Me thinks this is going to get really interesting!

I watched the live feed, quite a crowd there, there were people singing, families w/ kids were there again.

Graeme, I would love nothing better if folks would simply choose democracy over fascism.

But, like I said, we're such messy creatures............... 

[/quote]

That's so true Pilgrims Progress!   I think our current economic/political/social structure needs to change if our children are to have any hope a decent future.    And yet... once you tear down a system a big power gap opens up.  Look at Egypt's ongoing difficulites.  Sure they've ousted Mubarak.  But now they are dying in the streets to try and oust the military.  The Russian and Chinese Revolutions also produced really scary resutls. Out of the frying pan into the fire.  

If the Occupy Movement becomes militant, I do fear that we'll just go from bad to worse.  I hope for a more evolutionary process based on changing our collective value system from consumerism to a sense of global responsibility for eachother, for the generations to come and for our planet.  Though perhaps we have run out of time.

My enthusiasm for the Occupy movement really began because I think that the underlying message is about a shift in spiritual values - that is a shift in what we understand to be ultimately meaningful.  When looking at any political or economic system, I find it helpful to ask "What are the underpinning values of this system that makes it behave the way it does." 

We know that the value of  unending consumption and exploitation is killing us and our planet.  We know that key to our survival as a species is really dependent upon mutual support.   It's the implementation that is so difficult.

Ronald Wright's book "A Short History of Progress" is very appropos at this point in the world's history.

Thanks for these three sentences, Jennifer.

Amid the many, many, comments posted here on Wondercafe  - and article after article I've read in various newspapers - these sentences  are a compelling - and much needed - focus.

So why, if we know that "unending consumption and exploitation is killing us and our planet" - and that "our survival as a species is really dependent upon mutual support" isn't it happening???

The pessimist in me says that, despite our huge brain and it's truly amazing capabilities, we are just another animal -and our animal nature drives us when push comes to shove.

We'll soon be extinct like many species before us -if we don't learn to adapt to our environment.

The optimist in me sees a feeble flickering candle of hope.

That hope is based on the development of our spiritual values en masse.

That is what is required if we are to turn things around........

Jesus gave us the blueprint to live out our lives - "Love God and love our neighbour as ourselves".

Forget our new bathrooms and kitchens, forget the latest i-bloody-thingie, and practice love.

A militant occupy movement would be no threat. And it's playing up to hysteria to say it would be. Occupy protesters don't have armour like riot police do. They don't have unlimited access to pepper spray or tear gas. They don't have guns like the army, or tanks. They don't have big money to buy these things.

Violence, almost everywhere throughout history has been started by the rich and powerful. They like it. It's their final solution. Show me a time when, in all of Canadian history, the weak and poor have threatened a government. Show me a time when that has happened in the US. (the leaders of the US revolution were largely  the rich and powerful. George Washington was the one percent of this time.)

EO - I don't care if I'm called an anti-semite. What I care about is that you see a world of good guys and bad guys. You don't see people. You see stereotypes. the beginning of Christianity is to forgive - meaning not to say it's okay - but to say I understand. You are a person, reacting in a way that is natural to people. Otherwise, you end up, as Mely has, in a frenzy of fear and bigotry.

Extreme Moslems mistreat women? So do extreme Israelis. Moslems hate some people? So do most Israelis. Moslems kill Israelis? Israelis kill Moslems, and so far, more of them. Moslems have threatened to destroy Israel? Israel has threated Iran with nuclear bombing. So has Hilary Clinton.

Sorry but I don't agree with your assessment of me, Graeme.  Or the statements following your assessment.  I have presented my arguments elsewhere on those topics and will not clutter up this thread.

Thanks Pilgrims Progress. 

I struggle to have hope if only  because I believe it is our responsibility as spiritual people, of whatever religion or even no formal religion, to have hope.  

It is. And hope isn't passive. It means taking stands, and takiing action.