The Sun Shines A Little Brighter Today

Now that the courts have upheld the city’s right to evict the Toronto occupiers from St. James Park, maintaining common sense and rational civic discourse in the process, I think we owe a big tip of the hat to those bravely fighting for such principles in their vigilant opposition to the squatting, dope smoking union dupes: the Toronto Sun and, especially Sue-Ann Levy.

When we look back at the history of this movement here in Toronto, no doubt the turning point in phase one that tilted the first skirmish in favour of the reactionaries and status quo enablers will be Ms. Levy’s intrepid undercover work, Serpico-like, effortlessly donning the appearance of some wild-eyed crackpot complete with her own pair of tiny, sort of dogs that were all the rage with the protest set, and setting up shop in a park closer to home.

A mere stunt, you say? How long did she stay in her mock makeshift camp site, 5 minutes? Wrong. Guess again. Half an hour? Not even close. An hour? Try two hours, bucko. From 3pm to 5pm without so much as a pee break before the dark and cold sent her packing. And in all that time, her wishy-washy, fence-sitting newbie councillor, Josh Matlow, did not have the courtesy to come down (up?) and talk to Ms. Levy about her list of grievances.

What grievances would those be?

Ms. Levy is tired of paying taxes to maintain a park that others can use is ways she doesn’t approve. She is also aggrieved that despite paying taxes she still has to get a permit to host an event in a park, shovel her own sidewalk, take out her own garbage and cannot cut down any tree that so much as looks at her the wrong way. What exactly is she paying taxes for anyway? That’s the travesty stoned, hippie protestors should be protesting. The likes of Sue-Anny Levy having to shovel their own sidewalks.

In exactly 120 minutes and the two or three extra it obviously took Ms. Levy to hack out her column, she got right to the heart of the problem of the occupy movement here in Toronto. It’s failure to adequately represent the concerns and self-interest of the put upon 1%. Who speaks for them, Sue-Ann Levy seems to be asking. What about their demands?

There she was, sinisterly waving about some pretend flammable liquid, prepping a picnic table to sleep under but was anybody other than her camera operator paying any attention? She “…nearly got chased out of Oriole park by a ferocious area resident…”, causing me to wonder if, since it was getting dark out, Ms. Levy may’ve got spooked by a dog rather than an actual person mistaking her as “… part of the Occupy T.O. movement.” Aside from that encounter, it seems to have been a lonely vigil.

If the St. James Park protestors aren’t going to listen to the likes of Sue-Ann Levy and all the other voiceless Sun media practitioners, then clearly their priorities are hopelessly out of step with the rest of the vulnerable 1% and must be dealt with accordingly. With hysterics. Baseless innuendo. Wilful disregard of any thoughtful exchange of ideas. Hey, protestors! What about our freedom to walk our dogs in the park of our choosing and our dogs’ freedom to pee on the sleeping homeless person of their choosing?

Hopefully, Sue-Ann will take some time after this morning’s court victory to recover from her punishing ordeal that brings to mind the 1981 Maze prison hunger strike or Nelson Mandela’s time on Robben Island. This battle is far from over. If the past, 2500, 3000 years have shown us anything it’s that wealth and privilege can never be taken for granted.  Existing far outside the circle of power and influence, the wealthy and privileged can be set upon at a moment’s notice, for no reason outside of greed and envy of those who think it’s perfectly reasonably to camp out shabbily in our public spaces in order to try and get their way. We must remain open-eyed to creeping union subsidized socialism and close-minded to any points of view that differ from ours.

Rest up, Sue-Ann. Your job has just begun.

pep talkingly submitted by Cityslikr

2 Responses to The Sun Shines A Little Brighter Today

  1. Let us consider it read that Sue Ann Levy’s interest in her piece is simply to bulwark our mayor’s ill-considered decision to summarily turf OT after five weeks of steadfast disinterest in the encampment in St. James Park. That she gets to cast a brief spotlight on Cllr. Matlow’s characteristic lack of considered principles in the face of an issue is merely a bonus for the Toronto Sun’s resident screed.

    But, my dear Cityslikr, you decry Ms. Levy’s traffic in “baseless innuendo. Wilful disregard of any thoughtful exchange of ideas” while dismissing her complaints about the cost, inconvenience and damage caused by the encampment out-of-hand. Surely, such issues have a place in a thoughtful debate about the Occupy movement in general and the St. James Park in specific? If for no other reason than these costs, inevitably, will be passed onto all citizens via the public purse?

    I draw your mind back to the counter-intuitive results of the focus groups commissioned by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) to discover just who voted for Rob Ford and why: http://framedincanada.com/2011/10/18/mythology-ford-nation-one-year-later/. In particular, I wish to highlight this particularly troubling finding: “In the focus group discussions, they saw little ideological divide between Jack Layton and Rob Ford. Rather, they felt the two men had in common a sincere drive to take on the struggle of the people despite great odds.”

    When Rob Ford and Jack Layton are viewed (or were viewed – let us hope the last year has caused the scales to fall from the eyes of many of our fellow citizens) by a substantial plurality of the city as two sides of the same coin any rhetoric that descends into crude binaries not only misrepresents the melange of identity, economy, aspiration and fear at play in our body politic but alienates those who should be the natural allies in building a better, fairer city. I have witnessed the “us vs them” arguments of the labour movement about growing economic inequality, our eroding social safety net, and the degradation of our environment fall on increasingly deaf ears over the last 30 years. To the extent that the Occupy movement has lost the specificity of its initial opposition to the practices of Wall Street and turned into a more general call for social justice, the movement seems in sure danger of falling to the same antipathy towards unions that the Levys among us stoke with such cunning fervor.

    Deriding the form of her argument (however justly deserved) while ignoring the substance only lends creedence to her assertion that those who support Occupy Toronto (and by extension, every “leftie” in the city) selectively follow the law and privilege their ideological fellow-travellers over the average humble and law-abiding citizen – a group to which all of Ms. Levy’s readers naturally belong. As the proponents of the argument, the Occupy movement and those who support it must demonstrate that their cause is worth the inconvenience – dismissing the complaints of the Sue Anns of the world without address I fear strengthens them at the Occupiers’ expense.

  2. Sonny says:

    Dear City; you can see a list of media at the St. James Gazebo which includes SAL. The Sun seems to attack Occupy Toronto and Rocks?!

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: