The Star’s Ethics columnist Ken Gallinger, who happens to live near St. James’ park where the protesters were ordered to end their five- week occupation today, weighs in on the ethics of kicking out the Toronto Occupiers.
I live close enough to St. James’ park that, on a good day, I could drive a golf ball from our solarium and hit the water fountain. And by last week, the novelty of having “those people” squatting in my park had worn thin.
Our goddaughter loves the park. She’s five, and the gazebo is her favourite make-believe playhouse. She mounts magical “productions” on the “stage” — with song, dance, and the world’s worst knock-knock jokes. So when we told her, on the weekend, that “those people” might soon be kicked out, she replied, without hesitation, “YAY! I get my stage back.” Such a reaction is totally appropriate — in a 5-year-old.
The hard question, from an ethical point of view, is whether such a response is appropriate in adults. In neighbours. In me.
There’s a fair amount that has bugged me about the Occupy movement — at least in its Toronto iteration. Their goals are highly unfocused — during a post-Santa-parade stroll through the park, I saw signs condemning the banks, the government, apartheid, police brutality, big business, oil companies, smoking, the war in Afghanistan, and someone named Rob. Those may all be greater or lesser evils — but when a movement is basically opposed to everything, it ends up sounding like a child throwing a tantrum — mad at the world in general, but incapable of reasoned dialogue in the particular.
I’ve been bugged by the amount of American rhetoric imported, often uncritically, by Canuck Occupiers — particularly in relation to Canadian banks. Okay — I get it — bank execs earn too much. But before I fired them holus-bolus and hired a bunch of dudes making $50K a year, I’d want to ask: whose banks would I rather deal with right now? American banks? Greek banks? Italian banks? Portuguese banks? Belgian banks? Or Canadian banks? Yup — sign me up, TD.
I’m also bugged about the movement’s lack of an end game. Much like two generations of Maple Leaf hockey teams, they have no idea what a victory would look like. Their stated goal was to camp in the park until — well, until what? The banks fold? There is no longer any income gap in Canada? Canadian cops stop beating people up? Hell freezes over?
But mostly, here’s what has really bugged me. This is my neighbourhood, dammit. And by the end of last week, I had had enough of cops on every corner, media trucks with indistinguishable anchors reporting live from in front of a tent, Pentax-toting tourists from Kenora taking pictures to prove they were “right there, mom, with the protesters,” and long-haired people with the dirtiest bare feet I’ve ever seen taking up space in my local Second Cup.
With 5-year-old Sarah, I want my Gazebo back.
But life is more complicated when you are not-five. It was John F Kennedy who, in 1962, famously said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
I’ve already said that I don’t really “get” much about the Occupy movement. But I have read The Spirit Level, the landmark book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. Citing decades of research, the authors demonstrate, with alarming clarity, something that we know already, that “societies with a bigger gap between rich and poor are bad for everyone — including the well off”.
One way (peaceful) or another (violent), Western societies have to address the ever-growing gap between rich and poor. About this, there is no longer any real choice. Having tents in my park has been an inconvenience ... a minor inconvenience. But if I have to choose between inconvenient and violent — well, the grass wasn’t going to grow back until spring anyways.
As a Canadian, I am quite prepared to set the ethical “bar” for acceptable protest at the level of “violent.” Violence is out. But if we want to keep it out, and if Kennedy was right, we may have to live with inconvenience a little while longer.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
I live close enough to St. James’ park that, on a good day, I could drive a golf ball from our solarium and hit the water fountain. And by last week, the novelty of having “those people” squatting in my park had worn thin.
Our goddaughter loves the park. She’s five, and the gazebo is her favourite make-believe playhouse. She mounts magical “productions” on the “stage” — with song, dance, and the world’s worst knock-knock jokes. So when we told her, on the weekend, that “those people” might soon be kicked out, she replied, without hesitation, “YAY! I get my stage back.” Such a reaction is totally appropriate — in a 5-year-old.
The hard question, from an ethical point of view, is whether such a response is appropriate in adults. In neighbours. In me.
There’s a fair amount that has bugged me about the Occupy movement — at least in its Toronto iteration. Their goals are highly unfocused — during a post-Santa-parade stroll through the park, I saw signs condemning the banks, the government, apartheid, police brutality, big business, oil companies, smoking, the war in Afghanistan, and someone named Rob. Those may all be greater or lesser evils — but when a movement is basically opposed to everything, it ends up sounding like a child throwing a tantrum — mad at the world in general, but incapable of reasoned dialogue in the particular.
I’ve been bugged by the amount of American rhetoric imported, often uncritically, by Canuck Occupiers — particularly in relation to Canadian banks. Okay — I get it — bank execs earn too much. But before I fired them holus-bolus and hired a bunch of dudes making $50K a year, I’d want to ask: whose banks would I rather deal with right now? American banks? Greek banks? Italian banks? Portuguese banks? Belgian banks? Or Canadian banks? Yup — sign me up, TD.
I’m also bugged about the movement’s lack of an end game. Much like two generations of Maple Leaf hockey teams, they have no idea what a victory would look like. Their stated goal was to camp in the park until — well, until what? The banks fold? There is no longer any income gap in Canada? Canadian cops stop beating people up? Hell freezes over?
But mostly, here’s what has really bugged me. This is my neighbourhood, dammit. And by the end of last week, I had had enough of cops on every corner, media trucks with indistinguishable anchors reporting live from in front of a tent, Pentax-toting tourists from Kenora taking pictures to prove they were “right there, mom, with the protesters,” and long-haired people with the dirtiest bare feet I’ve ever seen taking up space in my local Second Cup.
With 5-year-old Sarah, I want my Gazebo back.
But life is more complicated when you are not-five. It was John F Kennedy who, in 1962, famously said “Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.”
I’ve already said that I don’t really “get” much about the Occupy movement. But I have read The Spirit Level, the landmark book by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett. Citing decades of research, the authors demonstrate, with alarming clarity, something that we know already, that “societies with a bigger gap between rich and poor are bad for everyone — including the well off”.
One way (peaceful) or another (violent), Western societies have to address the ever-growing gap between rich and poor. About this, there is no longer any real choice. Having tents in my park has been an inconvenience ... a minor inconvenience. But if I have to choose between inconvenient and violent — well, the grass wasn’t going to grow back until spring anyways.
As a Canadian, I am quite prepared to set the ethical “bar” for acceptable protest at the level of “violent.” Violence is out. But if we want to keep it out, and if Kennedy was right, we may have to live with inconvenience a little while longer.
Origin
Source: Toronto Star
No comments:
Post a Comment