“They should quit while they're ahead.”
“I thought it was a good thing when it came,” said Peter Dombovary, a federal government employee. “But they had one death, another drug overdose -- now I think these guys are done.”
“What can they achieve by being here? They delivered their message, and people heard.”
Which message, exactly? “Issues of greed, housing, child poverty,” he said, pausing to think. “Well, I see a whole bunch of messages here.”
While most media outlets have lately focused on the overdoses, as well as predictable campaign trail sparring between Mayor Gregor Robertson and contender Suzanne Anton over the city's response, has Occupy Vancouver's message actually been heard? And what, precisely, is it?
One of the immediate difficulties for many observers – including the soundbite-hungry and frequently sensationalistic media – is the vast array of individual grievances seen on the placards, banners and direct actions of the three-week old encampment.
But with seemingly every grievance on display -- from political corruption and corporate greed to September 11 conspiracies and one placard decrying global occult rituals – one of the biggest struggles for observers seems to be understanding the movement's actual demands.
Trouble is, there are none.
And that, say some demonstrators, is what makes Occupy such a vibrant and unique political phenomenon in the first place.
“There's no point in just saying, 'End homelessness,'” said Suresh Fernando, an Occupy Vancouver activist who has been involved since before the protest even began October 15. “That's the old political way.”
“We're more about issues and dialogue than about demands. I mean, humans are supposed to be the most rational animal but we're destroying the planet. What one demand do you want me to make to end that? It would be a mile long.”
For activists like Fernando, the spread of the Occupy movement – in which tent villages have sprung up in nearly 2,000 cities worldwide – is precisely because it is a leaderless movement more concerned with democratic process than specific goals.
“Whatever demands we create have to reflect the broader movement. But it's taken hundreds of years to build up this architecture, it's not going to come down in 22 days.”
Of course, the movement has its opponents. An opinion poll recently showed support for the tent village has dropped substantially among Vancouverites – with three-quarters hoping it will end, and citizens divided down the middle on whether they support the issues raised.
With the Non-Partisan Association's Suzanne Anton hounding the mayor on his 'wait and see' approach, Robertson appears torn between fending off attacks on his leadership from the right, and fears that the forcible removal of protesters might escalate to violence such as that seen in Oakland, California, where two Iraq veterans were hospitalized last week – one shot in the head by a police projectile and put into a coma, the other allegedly being beaten so badly his spleen ruptured.
Robertson said he wants to avoid using force – but others speculate he also fears alienating progressive voters before the November 19 elections if the eviction went awry. But is it possible to peacefully remove demonstrators who have vowed to stay no matter what?