The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor, to sleep in the parks –Paraphrased from Anatole France
Police attacks on Occupy movements from Wall Street to
Oakland, Portland, Denver … have often been justified by the “need” to prevent
the use of tents or shelters in public places. Of course, we know that the real reason is that the powers
that be don’t like the political and social views that are being expressed by
the Occupations.
We’ll get back to tents in a minute, because I find this
part of the story fascinating, but lets look at the other pretexts that have
been used recently. From
Portland’s Mayor Sam Adams, to Oakland’s Jean Quan, to New York’s Michael
Bloomberg, suddenly there is a great concern for the “health and welfare” of
the protesters. Massive police
violence, pepper spray, beatings and “less lethal” projectiles leveled at
non-violent people does not arouse the same level of concern, although it is
without a doubt a far greater threat to “health and welfare” than anything that
goes on in the camps.
So, what does go on in those camps that is so terrible? Some of the allegations are so far off
base that they are just silly. For
one thing, after two months of occupations all these cities suddenly have terrible
problems of crime, drug use and homelessness going on in the camps. Obviously
caused by the Occupy movement(?)
And did I mention this is a few days before large demonstrations planned
for November 17 to mark two months of Occupy Wall Street? Jean Quan justified the attack on
Occupy Oakland by citing a murder. Actually that murder had nothing to do with
the occupation and was not in the camp. The most that could be said is that
somebody got killed near the camp. Unfortunately, people are killed pretty
frequently in Oakland. How does beating up a bunch of people that had nothing
to do with it, arresting them – not the
criminal - and throwing
away their possessions solve that problem?
Several cities justified their actions because homeless
people were moving into the camps. “That’s not protest” they say, “It’s just
dirty drug using homeless people taking the opportunity to move back into
public spaces. We can’t allow that”
Well, first of all having homeless people in the camps is a political
act. The whole point of the
movement is that a tiny minority has seized control over our economic and
political systems. They are enriching themselves and using the political system
to prevent any attempt to regulate or control their anti-social behavior. One of the results that we have been
seeing is that people are losing their jobs and their homes. They have nowhere
to go. Homelessness is one of the symptoms of our problem. As is drug use (and make no mistake,
alcohol is a drug). People are there to enrich themselves at the expense of the
hopeless. But the government ends
up criminalizing the victims because solving the problem would challenge the
entrenched system that relies on being able to keep people poor, keep wages
down and keep profits up for the 1%.
If people overdose, it would have happened wherever they were. It is not
because of the Occupy camps.
If those of us who have homes and some kind of jobs had to
really confront homelessness, we would want to change that system. And that
brings us back to why homeless people can’t be allowed in the camps. They become visible when they come out
of the hiding places they have been forced into by those who just don’t want us
to think about it. And that is why
there are laws against tents and against sleeping in public parks. This does
nothing to solve the problem. It just forces people to sleep under bridges or
deep in the bushes. It makes them invisible, which is, of course, the
point.
The authorities are using these same anti-tent or
anti-camping ordinances against the Occupy Movement. And for the same reason.
To make them invisible. To make
them go away. To keep them from challenging the system that makes some people
homeless, makes us all poorer (99% of us) and prevents the majority from
forming the more equitable society that most of us want to live in.
The movement can respond to the relatively rare crimes that
may be committed in their neighborhood.
When women were harassed at Occupy Wall Street they created a safe space
for themselves and set up women only tents. In general this movement has been
good about policing themselves. We wouldn’t raze a suburban street because
there was a crime committed there, and certainly not a gated community with the
stately homes of the wealthy. Why then use that excuse to tear down Occupy
camps? It has nothing to do with “health and welfare” and of course we all know
that.
Posts
