OCW Vancouver/Victoria Update

The few remaining hardcore activists in Vancouver and Victoria continue to discredit whatever legitimate grievances initial supporters of the copycat OCW movement in Canada may have purported to represent at the outset of the protests several weeks ago.

Last night, strident protesters shouted down a mayoralty debate in a church, eventually threatening possible riots, while back at the “occupied” grounds of the Vancouver Art Gallery, two firefighters were hospitalized after suffering “bite wounds” after attempting to extinguish an illegal blaze in an oil barrel.

Even some initial organizers of the demonstrations are now disgusted by what they feel has rapidly become little more than “a circus”…

Meanwhile, over in Victoria, a city worker was doused with a bucket of urine while attempting to remove a protester that had ridiculously ensconced himself (along with his tent and bicycle) in the limbs of a tree, vowing to remain there for months to come, flinging poo and eggs at the authorities…

Admirable restraint and tolerance has been shown by the city so far, but enough is enough. Time to get these degenerate losers and violent nutcases out of the park by whatever means necessary.

26 Replies to “OCW Vancouver/Victoria Update”

  1. “Time to get these degenerate losers and violent nutcases out of the park by whatever means necessary.”
    You sound exactly like a dictator…. Just saying….

  2. LOL Guess they bring out the worst in me.

    But look, I’ve seen this movie before… back when the “Camp Campbell” protest was allowed to remain on the front lawn of the legislature after the initial rally of 6,000 or so people protesting the new government’s agenda had dispersed. Tolerated at first, in the weeks afterwards, it steadily devolved into a nothing more than an increasingly dangerous and costly civic annoyance.

  3. “Corporatism temporarily came to be seen by many social scientists as either a new economic system, successor to capitalism, where the state controls and directs a highly concentrated but still privately owned economy; or a new form of state, where the important representation, decision making and administration take place not in the parties, parliaments and ministerial bureaucracies but in the tripartite structures where business, labour and governments are joined; or a new form of interest-group politics, where instead of the competitive, lobbying activities of many pressure groups, there is a monopoly of access to the state by one group from each sector of society, with the state exercising reciprocal influence over the groups.”



    The key quote is:

    “or a new form of interest-group politics, where instead of the competitive, lobbying activities of many pressure groups, there is a monopoly of access to the state by one group from each sector of society, with the state exercising reciprocal influence over the groups”

    However, in a Global-Capitalism model (as we now live in and under) the State does not have the leverage to exercise reciprocal influence over the groups. Neither does Labour. This interpretation of an evolution towards traditional corporatism was believeable when we lived in a State-Capitalism System – but that has been disintegrating since the late 1980’s

    We now live in a Global-Capitalist System – which means the traditional power of Government and Labour to modify the behaviour of Corporations does not exist. It has withered away. There are no checks. There are no balances.

  4. Comments like “by any means necessary” now take on an even more sinister tone, for who who directs the Police ? The Politicians.

    Who directs the Politicians? Follow the money.

    Who will watch the Watchmen ?

  5. I’m sure Red just meant something like free discount coupons for anyone who left.

    I’m gobsmacked by how many on the left (and eccentric dinosaurs like Aeneas) continue to avoid the fact that the OWS camps are becoming dangerous, unhygienic messes that contribute nothing of value or interest and continue to see them as a threat to “the man” and shocktroops for some transformative journey to a sunny future. You really have to be completely addicted to abstract gobbledegook to pull that off.

  6. By any means necessary, RT meant, “bribe the leaders with Starbuck’s gift cards.”

  7. Indeed Craig, as a conservative, I was thinking more WalMart specials than crunchy ex-radicals from Starbucks, but capitalism is nothing if not shrewd in co-opting.

  8. Sheesh. I didn’t think “by whatever means necessary” would be such an inflammatory statement – it really wasn’t meant to be.

    I certainly wasn’t suggesting the use of armoured riot police with shields, batons, tear gas and rubber bullets, or indeed anything of a brutal nature… More along the lines of simply enforcing the existing by-laws, ticketing them to death, if you will, and/or incrementally making life more generally inconvenient for the urban campers (e.g., cutting off access to City Hall restrooms, not allowing for open fires, gas generators, etc.).

    The thought of “bribing” them with gift cards and such also hadn’t occurred to me, but those are amusing ideas.

  9. There is something rather ironic about herding protesters into “free speech zones” during certain summits and the idea of somehow doing the same with occupy protesters (in a different manner) seems to imply that people should be complacent sheeple.

    I do understand that you did not mean “by whatever means necessary” to be inflammatory…

    As for “enforcing the existing by-laws” sure that will work and so will mother nature in due course. Maybe it’s time for people to stop following “the law” – gawd knows that many politicians and corporations have bent it so out of shape that it’s rather meaningless….

  10. “… ticketing them to death…”

    That is even sicker than “…by any means necessary…” You truly are depraved. Have you read Kafka’s “Ïn the Penal Colony”?

  11. Tomm: Yeah, I read pretty much all of Kafka back when I was a kid out of high school. I was working at an insanely boring job for the government at the time, so the affinity was quite natural.

    I have to say, that’s a highly imaginative interpretation of the expression “ticketing them to death”… Well done! 🙂

  12. CWTF: I was living in Windsor at the time the OAS Summit was held there to discuss a “Hemispheric Free Trade Agreement” that was quite the buzz back then in commercial circles and was just appalled at the security overkill before and during the event.

    In the week leading up to it, cement barricades were erected around the federal buildings downtown, fences topped with barbed wire were thrown up around the hotels where the faceless bureaucrats from the Americas would be staying, the downtown was flooded with thousands of local police and RCMP officers drawn from across south western Ontario, all kitted out with their latest riot weapons and toys… good grief, they even had mounted police with horses that had protective gear.

    Walking around downtown that weekend was a truly bizarre experience. Mostly because it was deserted… no traffic, almost no pedestrians… most shops were closed, and squads of police in menacing gear grimly patrolled the streets looking for trouble. A very creepy and oppressive “police state” ambience; certainly not what I ever imagined Canada to be as a country.

    But I digress…

    The reaction to the OCW protests hasn’t been anything like that for the most part – certainly not here in Canada, which is good. Perhaps the authorities here learned something from the G20 fiasco that was a truly appalling abuse of power.

  13. Peter — Walmart? Now that’s insulting! Therein lies the contradictions of this protest. Starbucks, yes, Walmart, no. And I suppose the people at Starbucks would want everyone to know how they are different from Walmart.

    “Meantime, at Starbucks business is up, because the corporate coffee shop has become an unlikely but popular nighttime Occupy Victoria hangout.”


  14. Craig- I would have thought a radical like you would have enjoyed the image of the OWS crowd taking over Starbucks and driving the 1% to Tim Horton’s. But you see, this is a good example of how we on the right are thinking outside the box. While the left is stuck with its tired punitive rhetoric about sticking it to the rich and gabbing wealth, we’re working on new, modern ways to persuade them to pay more taxes, and we think we’ve found it. We’re going to offer them 100 Air Miles for every extra dollar they remit.

  15. “While the left is stuck with its tired punitive rhetoric about sticking it to the rich and gabbing wealth, we’re working on new, modern ways to persuade them to pay more taxes…”

    Peter, the old-fashioned ways tend to work best. During the formation of the modern day Conservative party in the UK, Lord Churchill summed it up quite nicely when defending taxation to his cohorts within the privileged class by referring to them as ‘revolution insurance’.

    The Neoliberal, laissez-faire conservatives of today consider taxation to equal theft. The truth is taxation was the Conservative Party’s way of ensuring the class structure be maintained …to ‘conserve’ it, if you will.

  16. Peter; Not sure a park littered with discarded iconic US Corporate
    disposable Vendi cups and the like from “half-sweet this, low fat that” fit
    in the OWS message, even for the radicals(!) among us, notwithstanding the
    contradictions one invariably has when their “extremist political views” are
    compared to their own lifestyles. But then again, perhaps that contradiction
    perfectly captures the floating island of exploded societal debris and human misery, thanks to greed, air miles or not, that we have come to know as the OWS movement.


  17. Wow. Maybe Air Miles and the lash.

    This all has the feel of the late 70’s to me. Ideologues tend to see history in straightline terms, but human folly is cyclical. For about thirty years after WW11, progressive, Keynsian thinking and policies were in the ascendant, in fact they were pretty much the only game in town. They built prosperous, just societies on many scores, but by the late 70’s, they were spent. It was a time of out of control public spending, frightening inflation, union blackmail, urban decay, feckless foreign policies etc., but ideologues on the left just kept on screaming for more. Enter Reagan and Thatcher.

    I really don’t understand how anyone except dogmatic marxists, romantic poverty groupies and Eeyores like Aeneas could deny the “neo-liberalism” the left so loves to hate has brought the world anything other than a lot of overall progress and prosperity, but, once again thirty years later, the limits are being glarlingly exposed–financial corruption, in-your-face offensive wealth divisions, private debt excess, employment instability, etc. Most of all, despair for the future. What strikes me is, like the left in the 70’s, the right just keeps on screeching for more and ever-purer versions of free market economics and deregulation, with shriller and nastier rhetoric. Contrary to what Aeneas says, there are lots of moderate cons out there that won’t buy it, and it’s not because they are worried about revolution. It’s a great opportunity for the left provided it does some hard thinking about modern realities and doesn’t just think it can pick-up where it left off in 1979.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: