415 replies to this topic

[Caramia]

The only municipality out of all 13 that has tried in any kind of serious way to address the problem of the homeless is Victoria. The others have responded by pushing it downtown. Yet these activists continue to punish Victoria. They have never taken their activism to any of those other 12. Even though if they are paying any attention at all they know that it is those other municipalities that have the resources. This fact alone shows they aren't serious about real change.

I'm becoming more and more disgusted by the unthinking, prejudicial and sometimes outright cruel behaviour of people I used to respect. This is more like a high school popularity club than real activism. If you don't have the clothes and the attitude, you aren't in the club, and you are a target too.

It's bullshit.

[Chris J]

Ok, so I apologize to Rob for making presumptions about his income and place in the order of things here.
I'm frustrated trying to talk to people about this. I get frustrated trying to craft arguments to counter people's presumptions. I guess we all have presumptions and I don't wish to further the conflict over that.
Most people here (who post often as opposed to lurking, who I have no idea how they feel) seem to think that my politics, radical that they are, are naive, and many people here do what it seems I am guilty of doing from time to time as well, which is presuming how a person feels or thinks based on statements that they make.
It's quicker if I don't proofread forum entries or think much better I post. I get more writing done all around that way. I apologize if they way I attempt to explain my worldview offends you.
I fly off the handle and you all are ready to smear the whole 'activist' movement. It doesn't surprise me with some people, because i know they read the things I write waiting to pounce on some inaccuracy or out-of-line comment so that they can write me off as a cruel wacko.
What I see may be happening is that as happened earlier in another thread where I said something and it was taken to reflect on a whole group of 'activists' or group of candidates or what not.
Anyway, in my opinion we do need to go after every municipality in the country who is violating human rights with their bylaws. We need to go after the province and we need to go after the feds. People started in Victoria and can only be in one place at one time. While this gets played as repeated protesting, it is the ongoing police/court drama that has been seeking closure since the Cridge Park arrests. People were arrested, and it wound it's way through court until their defence became a charter challenge that led to the recent events, which are not resolved because the city is continuing to enforce the bylaw even after being told by the Crown that there new bylaw enforcement policy does not stand up to constitutional scrutiny. When the city does the right thing this will be over in Victoria, and the activists will move on. More likely though, we will just be beaten into submission, anyone who continues to stand up to what has legally been declared human rights abuses will go to jail and everyone will forget.
And as to worrying about what my vision might be for the city, all I've offered as far as a vision is that we work together to make up for the shortfalls of a system of government that has failed us on every level. But any attempt to act independantly of the order that the government wants to enforce on us is seen as a gateway to all out chaos.
Which is bullshit in itself, because if we have to put this much effort into wrestling this much control of our fates out of one municipality, you never need worry about anarchists taking over the system. No one has the time.
Priveledge crosses many boundaries. Of course Lowe and anyone else in power is privledged. It doesn't matter where they're from.
I'm not saying anyone here is a target. No more than my own friends and families who I disagree with on things.
Whatever. You like the way things are, then whatever.
Write me off as whatever the **** you like.

[Chris J]

Mine, too.

Jeez, what a bunch of drivel - so democracy and "the system" is a sham and doesn't work because...?, because it took women many years to get the vote (but we got it!) and it took blacks many years to get desegregation (but they did!)??

I hope I never have to live in the world envisioned by Tavis or ChrisJ or any of the other "improvers."

Funny, this refrain keeps popping into my head, from The Smiths, where Morrissey sings, "you just haven't earned it yet, baby."

What I'm seeing is an immature sense of entitlement on the part of "radicals" who want to change the world/ the system. An entitlement to change the world - as if you understood it.

But you know, by railing against "the rich" like this - and including people like us in that mix - you are just proving that you understand not much and are operating from a perspective that's half-baked.

And what Rob said re. "don't support vandalism."

Geez, where are your parents?

Now, I'll just go back to mopping the floor and try to keep the rest of me from exploding.

What I say proves nothing.
Your perspective is half-baked, so is David Johnston's, so is everyone on this planet. That's part of the problem. We're fed a bunch of lies about what happens around us, and we're supposed to make plans and develop opinions and perspectives without the benefit of knowing what the hell isn't going on. If we had to wait until we 'understood' th world we'd get nothing done. Don't tell me that you 'understand the world'.
Yes, I have a sense of entitlement. As part of a social class that repeatedly has our rights violated by police and governments that we are told are here to protect us, I demand of this country that the abuse stop.
I'm sorry if things are so ****ed up in this country that is seems naive or whatever to expect anything but the usual shitkicking.
My arguments here may be half-baked, but that doesn't mean anything. When the time comes to truly defend my actions or advocate stuff I give a lot more thought and it's a whole different story.
Anyway, sorry about how my anger comes across here.

[Sue Woods]

I get frustrated trying to craft arguments to counter people's presumptions. I guess we all have presumptions and I don't wish to further the conflict over that.

Many who overcome adversity know that help exists for those willing to help themselves. I myself was a homeless teenager but managed to carve out a life for myself without blaming the government - without being arrested - and without seeking national news coverage. I note that the homeless advocates have cell phones, which are not cheap, and computers with internet access to quickly to notify the press about, as recently as tonight, David Shebib getting a ticket for urinating in public. This - to prove that Victoria residents and politicians and police step over dead bodies on our streets? There would be no drama about this alleged breech of Shebib's "human rights" if he accepted an available shelter bed and washroom - and as an advocate (for the mentally ill, or drunk/high on the streets who cannot advocate for themselves) encourage them to follow him there. Then, for a change of pace/story he could volunteer at the open door. That would look more like humanity - and less like prime time.

[jklymak]

It's quicker if I don't proofread forum entries or think much better I post. I get more writing done all around that way. I apologize if they way I attempt to explain my worldview offends you.

I fly off the handle and you all are ready to smear the whole 'activist' movement. It doesn't surprise me with some people, because i know they read the things I write waiting to pounce on some inaccuracy or out-of-line comment so that they can write me off as a cruel wacko.

I think the first paragraph explains why people write you off. You type a lot of words on the page, but they don't coalesce into a coherent argument.

When the city does the right thing this will be over in Victoria, and the activists will move on.

What exactly is this "right thing" that the activists want?

[ted - 3 - dots]

( snip snip ) the good stuff you wrote ...! to deal with the reality of what your asking us ...

the divide seems to be between those who see what is coming and those who would rather be in denial and call us alarmists and 'conspiracy theorists.'
The alarm has sounded. Bank on it.

------- Trust your government ...? -------

Back in 2000 , (as a reporter) , I had the chance to talk to the Commander @ esquimalt ,
about the Canadian DEFENCE strategy in terms of Invasion from China ...!

They would see the ship's loading in port , their spy network would obviously learn the target . ( Canada )...!

So , what do you think the strategy would be ...?

--- Wrong ....!!!!!! --------

Due to anti-air-craft defence , we will NOT be able to stop the ships @ sea ...!!!

In fact , Princess-Patty's will be pulled back beyond the Rockey's .

The Canadian Military will re-group in Ontario, before deploying the NUCULAR option ...!


---- simply --------

that's the plan for defending the west-coast from a large-scale invasion
( from a Nation that already has 200, million soldiers in their military )


They will NOT be concurring SCORCH-EARTH ...!

Ps, NO the Military will NOT be giving guns , so we can defend ourselves either ...!
( that's the plan )

---------- Earth-Quake you ask ...? ---- Again , trust your Government ...? ---------

we got to learn to take care of our selves for the first 72 hours ...!

( and as Cris-J points out ) can we trust the Government to help ...?

PEP ( the provincial-Government Emergency-Response plan ) says
resource will be deployed to area's of greatest need ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Last time I checked , Vancouver has a greater population ...

( simply , Victoria will have to wait ) probably longer than 72-hours ...!


--------- As Cris-J points out ---------------

we don't have to wait for a Natural-Disaster , to see that our Government is NOT prepared.

We don't have to wait to see that the Government is ill-prepared to deal with a mass-humanity in need ...! we already see their response ...!

it's nothing ....!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


yet , Canada has Billion's of dollars to bail-out Banks & other big-business ...!

so expect their response to a Natural disaster , to be one of bailing-out the big-guys ,
and hoping something TRICKELS DOWN to your level ...!

-------- Listen to what Canaries are saying in the gold-mine ....! --------------

instead of fixing the gas-leak ,
the plan simply puts more canaries into the mine shaft ...!

( now that's modern thinking ...! )


--- Trust the Government --------- and when they let YOU DOWN ,

you can join the growing courus of thousands of Canadian's , who now know the truth ...!


;{-

.
.
.

( they have no plan , dispite your BLIND-FAITH in such. )

ted...

[Caramia]

I've given a good two decades of my life to being an activist. So I am not criticizing out of ignorance. Like Susan, I've been homeless, and been able to work with people at all levels of society to help end that homelessness, not just for myself but for others. The first step was taking responsibility for providing for the people I cared for who couldn't provide for themselves due to addiction. The second step was being willing to meet with people from other backgrounds from mine while setting aside my prejudice. If we ever meet face to face (I'd be open to doing that) you could see for yourself that we are not so far apart.

I've been part of some intense, militant and effective activist movements, so please don't think that I'm against activism. The most effective activism I've seen was the squatter community in Europe. But here is the radical difference between what those activists are doing, and what the activists who are working the media here are doing: Willingness to take responsibility for their community. In Amsterdam, squatters have fought for and won rights. But they've also shown themselves willing to live up to the responsibility inherent in those rights.

I honestly believe Cridge park tent city would not have been shut down if it had not descended into a magnet for crime, and if the activists involved had been on top of things enough to make sure that it didn't negatively affect its neighbours. Trust me, it is possible. I've been part of groups who have done it.

If these guys were after something productive like squatters rights, or smaller, less institutional shelters, or the right to eat from dumpsters, and if they showed that they were willing to be a compassionate part of society themselves, then I'd be totally 100% behind them. If they were fighting for a tent city by proving that they can run one in a clean and safe way, I'd be down there supporting it (as I did with Spiral Island - an EXCELLENT example of the street community coming together to meet their own needs.)

But I'm not behind anyone who is fighting for the right to treat other people like ****. Chris, you seem like a reasonable person. Do you really want to fight for the right to piss on someone's doorstep, to put up tents in a child's playground, to co-opt a Christmas celebration that is designed for low income families? Because if that's not what this group is fighting for, then boy are they ever sending out the wrong message.

Finally, don't worry about getting pissed off or finding your ideas attacked, it is part of a good debate. And if from time to time you need to post a manifesto style rant, go ahead. People will probably argue with you, but honestly, the most solid ideas are ones that have withstood the test of a lot of differing perspectives. I think there is value in this. If anything, part of our problem in this world is that we live in to many silos, small segments of society continually reinforcing narrow points of view concerning whoever they deem to be "outsiders." So please know that just because some of us might have strong feelings about your points of view, those points of view, and your posts are still extremely welcome here.

[martini]

But I'm not behind anyone who is fighting for the right to treat other people like ****. Chris, you seem like a reasonable person. Do you really want to fight for the right to piss on someone's doorstep, to put up tents in a child's playground, to co-opt a Christmas celebration that is designed for low income families? Because if that's not what this group is fighting for, then boy are they ever sending out the wrong message.

This is my opinion as well. My head is exploding over here too.

[Chris J]

I think the difficult thing with what is happening with this whole tent city thing is that there are a lot more people involved than David and Tavis and Kristen, and I don't mean the other homeless people who camp with them. We are making plans, not just trying to get attention. This is a serious campaign, and people working on this have traveled to Portland and Seattle to visit tent cities and learn from successes and mistakes. You likely won't hear much of the plan until we're sure we have all the bases covered, including security, which is admitedly a challenge. Our progress has been slow, but I think we have started to build something that will happen and will be helpful. I can tell you when the next meeting is if anyone is interested.
I understand completely that it appears that the protesters are just trying to piss people off, or at the very least are having that effect. My impression, from knowing these people is that they do have respect for everyone, and David's plan is not just to win the right for himself to have a tent in the city, but make it legal for those people who need it the most to have it. I challenge the odd tactic as well. We're a group of individuals, and not a cult, so we all think differently.

What I wanted to add is something that the mainstream media I think mentioned briefly, but CHEK news totally ignored, and that is not only did the campers have no idea that the tree lighting ceremony was going to happen, but they made an agreement with Ken Kelly of the DVBA that they would move their stuff by 12pm. The DVBA had the permit for 4pm, and the city's reasoning for enforceing the bylaw was that a permit superceded and other use of the park. Otherwise they knew the crown would not prosecute the charges if they tried to move people.
So Kristen spent a lot of time talking to Ken Kelly, made an agreement, and then bylaw enforcement came by and announced they would have to move by 7am to make way for the tree lighting. BYlaw had no idea that Kristen had made an agreement, despite the fact that Ken Kelly told her he would communicate with Robert Woodland at City Hall.
After receiving the notice, Kristen went to City Hall and informed Woodland that she and Kelly had come to a good neighbour agreement and there was no need for city interference. While at the beginning, the campers, who knew they have a beautiful camp full of beautiful people that the city should get to meet, did not want to move, thinking it was a ploy, they eventually saw that they should, and started to pack stuff up.
Woodland told Kristen that he had not heard of the agreement. Kristen drafted a letter to council informing them of the situation, and later, at the meeting, addressed council and informed them that they had all plans to leave by 12pm, 4 hours before the permit, and if the permit was being extended to 7am, then it should be reissued.
As well she informed them that if they wanted to evict campers for this permit that was reasonable, but the eviction notice stated they were in violation of the same bylaws that they have been fighting for years, which are now of no force and effect for them.
Lowe said he would push the eviction to 9am, and Kristen informed him that this was still not legal, and they would stick with the plan and honour her agreement with the DVBA.
Say what you will of her defiance here, but the point was that they had no plans to ruin anyone's xmas.
So I know that some people here have been down to the beacon hill park camp and know that the media and the police and city hall are trying to twist things here, and I realize that we're not all going to agree with each other's ideas for how to go about this, but I must insist that there are principles and reasoning involved in the camper's actions and no malice intended. Although these are people who, no matter how they got there, are homeless, and not only that, locked in a stressful conflict, and can make emotionally led mistakes.
Nobody wants to put up a tent on children's playground. The people who did that at Beacon Hill were not associated with the tent city, or they would have been warned against this. The tv cameras told a different story, as always.
So we too struggle to refine our message, and the media subverts it.
There is no malice however, and if David and them are back anytime soon at city hall, I urge you to talk to them about this. The way they are being protrayed is not how they are.
And my spewing, I apologize and is just my take on the situation.

[Caramia]

Thanks Chris, that is actually really valuable information. It is great news that the protesters are coming to reasonable agreements with Ken Kelly. He's a great person for them to talk to, and a fantastic peacemaker in this situation.

Of course it works the same way... Ken is probably one of the best respected people in this city, but he can't dictate to the police and council - who are getting pressure from a fed-up public. And Kirsten and David can't dictate to the people who set up the tent in the playground. But Ken can try to work with the city and private benefactors to come up with a sensible way forward. And Kirsten & crew can also try to work with people who do piss on people's doorsteps or take away from the space in our city for children.

One really big step forward would be to give that last message of yours more airtime, both among the activists as well as among the rest of Victoria. If they can communicate that they really do want to be respectful of children's space, and if they can help their own allies understand and practice that respect, it would probably help diffuse a lot of the anger that is building and restore some of the trust that has been lost.

By the way, the non-profits are having a hard time finding people to do housing support jobs. Basically that means going into a hard-to-house person's apartment and helping with basic tenant's responsibility, and mentoring, so that they don't get evicted. Without this help, many more people will lose their homes. If you know people whose passion is helping to end homelessness, this might be the kind of job that leaves them feeling good at the end of the day. The pay is reasonable. And it sure would be a contribution.

[Chris J]

Thanks. And this just in. Several reliable witnesses at the tree yesterday tell me that Shebib pissed nowhere. But because he was trying to get into the public washroom and didn't, it was assumed that he had to of pissed outside somewhere. So he was ticketed based on suspicion. Which may sound absurd, but if you've ever dealt with some of the cops on the street, it isn't. (Not that all the cops are bad, but some take the cake.)
When you think of it, is a reasonable assumption of any homeless person that they publicly urinate. If they can't use the public restrooms, and they can't hold it in, you know damn well that they are urinating in public.
Homeless urination is a different topic altogether, and I've already dragged this thread way off topic.
The city has more of a problem with bar patron urination, but I know you all know that, as it seems we all read the paper here.

[Chris J]

Footage of the events of the past few days at the tree is being edited and should appear on electionsvictoria.ca tomorrow.
Not that the corporate media will care, show it or talk about, nor will more than 80 people ever see it. But what can you do?

[Sue Woods]

Footage of the events of the past few days at the tree is being edited and should appear on electionsvictoria.ca tomorrow.
Not that the corporate media will care, show it or talk about, nor will more than 80 people ever see it. But what can you do?

The thing I respect about the activists is that they are opposed to drugs - but it seems like another type of self-harm to "fight for their freedom" to sleep and spend their hours, and yes, pee, in public view in the centre of a bustling city. Its intolerable stuff on a number of levels.

Why not head to a small town - and make a deal for with a farmer to squat on their land in exchange for work? Or go build a structure and garden in the back county near a small community to purchase basic needs. Thats self-sufficiency, counter culture - and it's free.

As well as the city supporting health services and ample shelter beds - the police appear to be upholding social order with a commendable degree of respect for detainees under the circumstances. For every hour deconstructing tents and carrying limp bodies into patrol vans - you can be sure there is a crime victim waiting somewhere for police assistance.

[Chris J]

I don't think Ken Kelly intended to negotiate in good faith however. He did not contact Woodland and he said this about the campers afterwards:“It's too bad that some people insist on mollycoddling these grandstanding individuals. What they are doing is not constructive.” (As quoted in a National Post opinion piece)
Obviously one can't dictate to council, even if they do represent the money. However, and this is one minute detail out of many minute details in this case. If you choose to agree with Madam Justice Ross and Crown spokesman Stan Lowe, then it seems that the bylaw and bylaw enforcement policy may not withstand constitutional scrutiny. This was what led the city to claim that the issue they had with the campers was in relation to the permit. Which was reasonable, and the campers saw that.
The city claimed it was wanting the campers out at 7 and then 9, to allow ample time for set-up.
I think arguably the city has the authority to determine certain logistics as it applies to their property. However, the permit was from 4pm. The campers were willing to leave at 12pm, after talking to Ken Kelly and agreeing that was ample enough.
Now, if two parties come to an agreement over the use of the area, with more than reasonable results, why bring in the police, using bylaws that may or may not be in contempt of court, spend taxpayer money, strain the police service, when the conflict has already been resolved? Independent of the fact that the campers have city hall on the run, they would not have gotten involved like that, not with anyone else. They wanted to arrest them for violating the permit, which would have had more of a chance of sticking, but the campers were not going to violate a REAL law, so they were packing up. The city then had to save face or some thing, who knows, and once again ticket and arrest people.
The hope now is that the civil courts don't see things the way that the BC Supreme Court and Crown council do, otherwise they'll be in contempt of court and up for harassment charges.
So the city has a right to supercede any good neighbour disputes over use of civic property. (and given the legal precedents so far, the campers use of the park has been shown to be legitimate, regardless of what the city wants us to believe.), but it doesn't have to. The police should not be a first resort.
Anyway, sorry for the long post again.
The point is here, among other points, and likely independent of the point I tried to make starting this post, is that this is a legal stand-off that has been played fairly by the campers, regardless of any accusations and possible infractions and indiscretions, etc, and is not about people seeking attention. It has not been played fairly by the city, who are acting as if they've already won their appeal and are digging themselves further into a hole. It's no wonder the propaganda machine is in full swing.

Thanks for the advice, Caramia. I've done home support off and on and may continue to. I think however if you mean the people like David, I was thinking earlier today that people critisize that they spend too much time protesting and not enough time actually helping the community. When you consider most homeless people are too busy surviving to fight back, I appreciate that there are homeless people willing to take on a battle like this. And when you are trying to make a political point by occupying a space, that too takes up most of your time.
David and others there are like the treesitters, and other such activists. They'll negotiate and be reasonable, but they are the stubbornist people you've ever met, and can not be bought and will not give up until they are beaten or they win. If David is not successful at getting the city to realize it cannot continue to enforce this bylaw on homeless people, he will go to jail, go on hunger strike and die, and he came close enough last time that we take that serious.
Such people are rare, and their role in life is that of the peaceful warrior. They will never be support workers or shop clerks, and the world is a better place because of that.

[Ginger Snap]

Chris, I have no problem, with your thoughts above. You want to unplug from the grid, I have no issue with that whatsoever. Heck, there are days when that doesn't seem like the worst idea to me.

But you (not you specifically, the generalized 'you') can't have it both ways. You can't reject government, then try to tent in front of City Hall, which is maintained, cleaned, and policed by the government. You can't espouse a 'monk-like' lifestye and not wonder why people scoff at you when you have a Starbucks cup in your hand for every media opportunity. You can't claim to despise our monetary system and then take every advantage of the services of all three levels of government and the economic sucesses of the region.

If you want that communal lifestyle, I say go for it. But you can't have it on the backs of all those working Joe's who choose to go to a job they hate every day, in order to live within our society. Even the Manson family didn't set up their commune in the middle of downtown LA.

[Ginger Snap]

Such people are rare, and their role in life is that of the peaceful warrior. They will never be support workers or shop clerks, and the world is a better place because of that.

I agree with you about this role, and that it can be very noble... think Ghandi. But referring to DAJ in this way just made me throw up a little in my mouth.

[martini]

I agree with you about this role, and that it can be very noble... think Ghandi. But referring to DAJ in this way just made me throw up a little in my mouth.

Oh, I thought it was just me.

My eyes have been getting glazed over trying to keep up with this monologue.
The bottom line is I've stopped listening. I stopped when Tavis defaced other candidates signage. I stopped when I got off the bus to see the camp under our tree.
These actions have lost me. My sympathy and compassion has waned to the point I'm concerned it's affecting the very homeless these activists were supposedly advocating for.

If these are the peaceful warriors, I have not heard a word concerning the homeless children and families. Who are the warriors for them?

At the end of the day I simply do not understand continuing to protest the very right they have won in court. It makes no sense. So to me at this point it's accomplished nothing but pissing people off. The vision has been lost.

[Caramia]

If you don't think Ken negotiated in good faith, you don't know Ken. He's a guy who has continued to advocate compassionate response and open dialogue no matter how nasty other people get. If he's frustrated with the mollycoddling of these grandstanding individuals, he's far from the only one. Among the frustrated are other homeless people, other activists, and many families struggling with poverty. If he continues to try to talk to them despite his frustration, good for him!

There is definitely a place for protesters in society. Politicians who are trying to make legislation, non-profits trying to get funding, and all kinds of other people at all levels of society are pushing to try to get harm reduction policies in place. Protesting, when done right, supports these initiatives by keeping media pressure on the issues.

But the way these guys are going about it, they attack and undermine any person who tries to work with them. I guess once you've written everyone off as "fascists" or "nazis" it doesn't matter how you treat them or what you say about them.

[Chris J]

If you don't think Ken negotiated in good faith, you don't know Ken. He's a guy who has continued to advocate compassionate response and open dialogue no matter how nasty other people get. If he's frustrated with the mollycoddling of these grandstanding individuals, he's far from the only one. Among the frustrated are other homeless people, other activists, and many families struggling with poverty. If he continues to try to talk to them despite his frustration, good for him!

There is definitely a place for protesters in society. Politicians who are trying to make legislation, non-profits trying to get funding, and all kinds of other people at all levels of society are pushing to try to get harm reduction policies in place. Protesting, when done right, supports these initiatives by keeping media pressure on the issues.

But the way these guys are going about it, they attack and undermine any person who tries to work with them. I guess once you've written everyone off as "fascists" or "nazis" it doesn't matter how you treat them or what you say about them.

Ok, so I will change that to...it seems that either Kelly had no intention of contacting Woodland, or he forgot, and that is not cool, or he contacted Woodland and Woodland lied, which is not cool either. But I'll reserve any criticism because i don't know what went on between Kelly talking to Kristen and Kristen talking to Woodland.

As for calling people fascists, I will stick with the fact that our governments seem more fascist than democratic a lot of the time, and perhaps it's more a flaw of the system than individual choice, though some people in the government are more fascist than others.

Regardless, as you can tell, I am not the one to be negotiating these things, I am having this conversation here, as I have been elsewhere, simply to reach out to people and try to provide some context to the situation that you haven't got from the media. I am also getting feedback on what people are hearing about this and how they are responding.

In terms of the campers and their diplomacy, Kristen has been trying to meet with the city but addressing council and sending emails has been the only opportunity she has been allowed. They are not wanting to negotiate, and granted, Kristen is asking them to apologize for enforcing an illegal bylaw, and that sounds extreme to a lot of people.

[Chris J]

Oh, I thought it was just me.

My eyes have been getting glazed over trying to keep up with this monologue.
The bottom line is I've stopped listening. I stopped when Tavis defaced other candidates signage. I stopped when I got off the bus to see the camp under our tree.
These actions have lost me. My sympathy and compassion has waned to the point I'm concerned it's affecting the very homeless these activists were supposedly advocating for.

If these are the peaceful warriors, I have not heard a word concerning the homeless children and families. Who are the warriors for them?

At the end of the day I simply do not understand continuing to protest the very right they have won in court. It makes no sense. So to me at this point it's accomplished nothing but pissing people off. The vision has been lost.

It sounds to me that the sign stuff was a mistake, though I don't know how Tavis feels about it.

In regards to not hearing how the campers feel about families and children? Well, I can't imagine at all that if you were to ask them, they'd explain this isn't just about them, but if you just get your info from the media (and me) then I don't blame you for being pissed off. Like I said, the media hasn't told a fraction of the story.

And again. Do people who stand up for something have to stand up for everything?
This all began when David got arrested from sleeping in public and he realized that he wasn't the only person being hurt by this bylaw. So he fought it not because he loves sleeping in Vic city parks, but because they ARE people sleeping in public here, and they don't deserve to have their rights continually violated. Will he benefit from this? Does he realize that? I imagine very much that he does. One can't fight for so long without reaping some benefit to keep them going. But in the end, we realize that many more than David will benefit from this.