And this I think sums it up pretty well.

[feral]

MEDIA RELEASE: "Occupy Vancouver." November 11, 2011.

Vancouver, BC.

(9pm. No embargo).

Backgrounder.

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

Headline:
"Reformers and Revolutionaries - the shifting sands of OV and the
compliance-vs-defiance continuum.

Subhead:
Occupy Vancouver still impaled on the horns of a near-eternal dilemma:
resist at every turn or comply in the interests of building a mass
movement?

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

As it enters its second month the Occupy Vancouver camp at the
Vancouver Art Gallery now has another week or so (at least) to wrestle
with a fundamental tension that has existed inside the camp - and the
larger movement - from the start.

Simply put, the 80 or so Occupiers who still routinely sleep overnight
on the site and roughly the same number who regularly attend meetings
of the almost 20 committees and work groups, are divided along a
compliance-defiance continuum.

At the far end of the spectrum - on the compliance side, are those who
favor OV and the "tent city" in particular complying fully and on time
with each and every requirement of the Vancouver Fire Department, the
Vancouver Police Department and City Hall. This faction is also keen
to be welcoming to for-profit media and to keep ahead of critical
media attention by putting out a regular stream of media releases and
presenting a consistent voice and image of the camp as a place
welcoming even to families with young children and to the mainstream
of the "99 percent."

Briefly, this side argues that compliance presents a positive image of
OV and will draw more people to the site, and lead to more favorable
public opinion. When OV is big enough, the argument goes, it can use
its power of numbers to insist on hearings with government and other
authorities and have its "demands" taken seriously.

On the other side are those who favor defiance of all government
authority and the for profit media. Again, simply put, most of those
in this camp consist of three affinity groups - First Nations, a small
but influential "anarchist intelligentsia" and a majority of the tent
dwellers, many of whom are among the most marginalized and traumatized
Vancouver and BC residents - homeless, cut off even from the most
basic welfare payments, and wrestling with often profound addiction
and mental health challenges.

This is a dilemma which faces the City of Vancouver in particular,
with its high homelessness, large urban aboriginal population and high
number of long term hard-core addicted, and which has confounded both
City Hall and the provincial government.

Briefly, this side puts the case that all levels of government are so
intent on serving the interests of the most wealthy - who keep them in
office - they have almost totally failed the interests of the poorest
five to ten percent of society, and that the tent city and larger OV
movement have taken the place of government and outside society. They
say the VAG site IS the sole and legitimate home of the tent dwellers,
the land IS the property and therefore under the jurisdiction of
indigenous people, and therefore it is the police, fire and city
officials who are trespassing on the site.

It is difficult not to agree that each camp has a compelling and
legitimate argument. Regrettably, the Vancouver and BC for-profit
media, among the most hostile to the Occupy movement anywhere in North
America and beyond, has so far focused exclusively on the growing
number of incidents on the site related to drugs and the tents
themselves - and how that plays out against the backdrop of a tense
mayoral race.

The camp and media are now in a limbo of sorts as we all wait for the
injunction hearing to get underway for real this next Wednesday,
November 16.

In the interim a number of alternatives are being considered by Occupy
Vancouver. One option attractive to many of the most committed
Occupiers who make up the bulk of the committees and work groups is to
have the tent city and the remainder of the OV part ways. The tent
city would either move to and set up on just one other site and remain
there indefinitely, or it would become a roving occupation moving from
site to site mostly within the city of Vancouver but perhaps even
including other Metro Vancouver municipalities.

Almost all of the remaining infrastructure and activity of OV would
continue at the VAG site - the committee and work groups meetings,
speakers on the weekends, launching of rallies and direct actions, and
the nightly "General Assemblies" - the central forum at the heart of
each occupy camp. City hall has said that once the "sleeping tents"
(as opposed to work tents) are gone it will allow this, and even
continue to provide free water and electricity.

This side favors the tent city fully complying if city hall wins its
injunction and moves to evict the sleeping tents.

Many people associated with the three groups identified earlier that
favor non-compliance are vowing not to comply but to resist only
passively, in a "Gandhian" way, without violence, but will return and
set up tents again once they are released from police cells. Some have
said they will remain non-violent unless the police use unnecessary
force in their zeal to evict the tent dwellers and remove their tents.

An example of the tension came on Thursday, when tent dwellers moved
to fully comply with fire department demands by the 2pm deadline,
removal of tarps covering tents, removal of empty tents and spacing of
tents with at least three feet between each. Within an hour a
prominent member of tent city and of the "anarchist intelligentsia"
announced by microphone from the main stage that nobody inside OV
should speak to any government workers or for-profit media at all.

Further, some inside the "defiant" camp say that even if the city wins
its injunction, they will not comply as they do not recognize the
authority of the state, only the authority of indigenous elders, as
the VAG site is part of unceded Coast Salish territory that covers all
or nearly all of Metro Vancouver and large areas beyond.

Under the headline "Vancouver fire officials say Occupy site isn’t
safe," the Globe and Mail reported at 8.46pm today (Friday November
11)  that "Activists at the Occupy Vancouver tent encampment have
failed to deal with fire-safety concerns raised this week by the
city’s fire chief, prompting high-level talks among city officials
about what do next about the settlement at the Vancouver Art Gallery."

The report stated: "Capt. Roder said fire officials have been
challenged in dealing with the activists because there are so many
different groups in the community on the north plaza of the art
gallery. “Some are co-operative. Some just don’t want to co-operate."

This is now the internal dynamic which consumes the time and energy of
the camp. Some progress is still being made in a number of areas,
including discussion of the "demands" or grievances/commitments of
Occupy Vancouver, refinement of the communications processes and
programming of speakers and preparation of marches and rallies on the
weekends. Tomorrow, Saturday November 12, a major march dubbed
"Housing is a right, not a commodity" is expected to draw as many as
1,000 people.

In the meantime OV continues to suffer from a near total siege from an
overtly hostile for profit media. One Occupier noted that he had one
week ago invited nearly all major Vancouver media to attend committee
and work group meetings - the "demands" discussions in particular, but
that to his knowledge not a single reporter had ever, even once,
attended any committee or work group meetings, and that even reports
which feature any coverage of the nightly 7pm to 9pm General
Assemblies are few and far between.

--
_____
Fact:
1. Ninjas are mammals.
2. Ninjas fight ALL the time.
3. The purpose of the ninja is to flip out and kill people.

[Iain Marjoribanks]

i strongly disagree with your dichotomy of compliance vs. defiance.  ask yourself: would the "defiants" agree with your characterization?  i would like to suggest compliance vs. "autonomy."

for what it's worth, i agree with your conclusions, but you have to be fair in representing their perspective.

iain

[Sarah Beuhler]

That's a post by David Beattie. He hates tent city so much i think he has become slightly unhinged.

Sarah

[Iain Marjoribanks]

don't get me wrong, i like david, but i think he's been off his hinges for quite some time. 

iain

[Sarah Beuhler]

I find him scary, but yeah, lack of hinges. Sigh. I think it's disingenuous to describe anyone as a faction - that to me implies a fairly high level of organization.

[feral]

Well it's even difficult to use the word faction without incurring negative subtext unfortunately. I"m talkin' it back.

[Sarah Beuhler]

I wonder if anyone has changed their mind about engaging with the city/police in good faith after they saw what happened in Halifax.

[Iain Marjoribanks]

im relieved that it's no longer my concern.

iain

[Sarah Beuhler]

Oh, Iain. I'm so sorry those narrow racist minds have driven you guys away.

[Iain Marjoribanks]

sarah,

thank you for calling it what it is.  it means a lot to hear it from you.

iain

[Sarah Beuhler]

It troubles me greatly. I stand with you guys.

Sarah

[Iain Marjoribanks]

thanks a lot. :)

On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Sarah Beuhler <sbeu...@gmail.com> wrote:

It troubles me greatly. I stand with you guys.

Sarah

On Nov 11, 2011 10:11 PM, "Iain Marjoribanks" <iain.m...@gmail.com> wrote:

sarah, :) 

[sabrina modder]

I like how, for the first while i can't really sense your stance. 

nice work, where is this going?