On Occupy Vancouver
I attended the Occupy Vancouver rally at the Vancouver Art Gallery on Saturday, October 15th 2011 to see what it was like. I’ve been following the Occupy events very closely on the news ever since it started in New York on September 17th. I find it very interesting as it’s one of the first large protests that has been organized mostly through decentralized channels online, and through word of mouth in North America.
I’ve also watched closely the different views and opinions that have been put forward at the New York occupation. Discussions of income inequality and corporate greed seemed to be the most pressing issues there. As a politician I don’t think it’s my role to be defining this movement. I actually think that any politician who openly endorses this movement lacks the understanding that people are upset with our current political system and its actors. When politicians endorse the Occupy protests this early on it looks like an attempt to co-opt a movement that isn’t looking to be defined or guided by the current system. In New York, it seems that people are frustrated with the debilitating polarization and inefficiency of the Democrats and Republicans management of their economic affairs.
It’s with these thoughts that I attended the Occupy Vancouver event. My primary motive for attending Occupy Vancouver is that I do not want to be the type of politician who hides from heated debate or public engagement. While my attendance at the Occupy Vancouver event shouldn’t be seen as an endorsement; it can be viewed as my honest willingness to engage with the public on any issue that matters to them.
I spoke to several people at this event about why they were there and what they would like to see a future City Councillor like myself do differently. Just being open and accessible was actually one of their biggest requests and they thanked me for attending this event and putting myself out there. The Occupy Vancouver event was very peaceful and had an air of a folk festival with a group of three people playing full drum sets for an excited crowd. This was in stark contrast to the violence that broke out in the Occupy Rome protests where cars were lit on fire and windows were smashed by instigators.
As a renter I certainly belong to the 99% of people that are not among the top 1% of income earners in North America. I empathize with the frustrations of the protesters that were at the Art Gallery that day. I think the most viable solution to increase our equality of opportunity isn’t to create a new organizational structure to replace the existing political system, but to get involved in our current system as an agent of positive change and to promote others to do the same.
I find the Occupy Vancouver protest interesting as they are already struggling to accommodate the many different personalities and agendas that are present there. In order to better organize their discussions they have formed a “general assembly” to structure and channel these different views, but it appears to be very close to the democratic structures we already have in place. I can understand how these disparate people have come together through a mutual feeling of being excluded and underrepresented in our current political system. Now that these people have come together they will need to discuss and create solutions to make long term change.
Not many people can afford to take time off work to become a full-time protestor at these Occupy rallies and our unemployment isn’t low enough in Canada to provide a critical mass of people to maintain an effective long-term occupation. That means this movement’s window of opportunity to exact change in Canada is narrowing by the day. Local residents and businesses slighted by the loss of their public space and access to roads might feel at odds with the Occupy movement as time goes on.
Like many direct action movements it will be difficult to maintain the buy-in of the public at large if it begins to negatively affect their way of life. Rather than recreating the very democratic systems that have evolved to manage our political affairs it might be of more use if these justly upset individuals engaged our legislatures and took to running for office. Or maybe not… again this isn’t really my movement to define or shape, but I do enjoy having a discussion on the impact it will have on our communities and our world.
One thing is clear; we need to work together with open minds and with people from all parts of the political spectrum to bring about positive change.
- Jason Lamarche is an NPA City Council candidate. More info can be found on his website: ELECTJASON.ca




The current system is not trusted, Jason. That's why the OWS movement. With the big corporations and the rich influencing the media and the legislative process to such a great extent, how do people stand on the same old platform and compete? You tell me.
We need a platform which is fundamentally new.
How? We do not know yet; it is under discussion throughout the world.
One thing is clear: whoever that can channel the current people's power into positive and concrete actions are going to become a new breed of world leaders. Jason L: are you willing to accept this challenge?
Thoughtful piece, thanks for posting it. A quibble: the notion of a political candidate "engaging with the public" implies the candidate is not part of the public. If that's what you meant, I think that view is a problem in our political environment. We are all part of the body politic, and (as Hannah Arendt suggests) too much of our political action has been about "ruling" rather than about democracy. IMO, we need far more smart participants and far less or no career rulers.
albest,
Deborah
The current system is not trusted, Jason. That's why the OWS movement.
Thanks for your comment 2011. I agree with that statement. The lack of trust in our current system is exactly why I didn't endorse or participate in the actual Occupy Vancouver protest. I want people to have these discussions and I want them to form some ideas without being lead or co-opted by any political actor.
The big problem with politics as I see it is that too few politicians are willing to publicly talk about issues that might expose them to risk or criticism. By being at the Occupy Vancouver protest I wanted people to know that I am willing to put forward a level of accessibility where others won't.
Too many suits in closed offices are a big part of what's undermining our democratic institutions, imo.
Thoughtful piece, thanks for posting it. A quibble: the notion of a political candidate "engaging with the public" implies the candidate is not part of the public. If that's what you meant, I think that view is a problem in our political environment. We are all part of the body politic, and (as Hannah Arendt suggests) too much of our political action has been about "ruling" rather than about democracy. IMO, we need far more smart participants and far less or no career rulers.
albest,
Deborah
Thanks for your comment Deborah. The way I see it, whenever there is a sensitive issue or event most politicians tend to stay away from it. When I said I was engaging people at Occupy Vancouver I really meant that I was putting myself out there in a way that few politicians do. And I was there to hear what people are saying which is honest engagement.
I didn't take a position on the actual event because taking any side would either do these people a grave disservice or would be a subtle attempt at co-opting their frustration for political gains.
If any politician who went to this event to listen is "not part of the public" then what title would be used for those elected officials who chose not to engage the protesters at all?