If there is one convenient media

put-down for the “Occupy Movement” it is that it has no coherent

set of demands, no apparent leader and no clear organization.

For

Canadian commentators, including government representatives like

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, the additional complacent comment is

(paraphrasing): “the movement may make sense in the United States

where disparities are so apparent, but we are not an unfair society.

The complaints of the 99% against the 1% do not apply to us.”

So much of what is now known under the

general heading of “occupy” -- with its local manifestations

of #occupywallstreet, #occupylondon, #occupybaystreet, #occupyottawa,

and so on -- put me in mind of a powerful speech I heard in the fall

of 2001. It was mere weeks after the attacks on the World Trade

Centre, Pentagon and hijacking of civilian aircraft. I had been

invited to present to a conference in Michigan of the Environmental

Grantmakers. It is an influential group of US Foundations, and the

invitation was unusual in that the grantmakers do not like to have

poor supplicants (such as Sierra Club of Canada) right at the

banquet. Clear rules were set out that I could not ask for support

at the gathering, but, still, I was asked to talk about Canada-US

issues.

Traveling there was all made worthwhile

through the rare privilege of hearing the keynote speaker. Bill

Moyers was seared raw with the emotion of 9-11 and the response of

the Bush administration. His speech began with extolling the fact

that the heroes of 9-11 were all in the public service; that despite

the decades of exultation of the private sector over government

service (the great mantras of the Reagan-Thatcher legacy) in crisis,

it was the public health service, the firefighters and the police who

risked their lives and were now lauded.

He reviewed in meticulous detail how in

response to the attacks on the twin towers George Bush’s government

had expanded perqs for the wealthy. Taxes on the super rich were

reduced to spur on the economy so badly rattled by the attacks (as if

any evidence existed that such an approach helped anyone but the

super rich to become super richer). Americans were urged to go out

and buy cars, that much I had seen on the TV news. But I had not

realized that, as Bill Moyers put it, “the deductions for the three

martini lunches are back.” If Naomi Klein had already written

Shock Doctrine at that point I would have been thinking. “Ah

yes, this is how they do it.”

Moyers’ crescendo of anger (which I

am recalling from memory) cascaded with, “These guys know that

sacrifice is for suckers; the class war was waged over the last

decade and they declared themselves the winners long ago.”

Since then, the gluttony of the one

percent has worsened. The gambling economy, aptly named “casino

capitalism,” has allowed the creation of fictitious economic

activity – making money out of nothing. Buying and selling bad

debt paper with little or no equity to back it up. Inventing more

clever and interesting derivatives, and hedge funds. The worst of the

worst is typified by Goldman Sachs that actually encouraged their

clients to buy investments which GS then bet their own money would

fail. Former New York Time journalist, Christopher Hedges, discussed Goldman Sachs’s ongoing raiding of the public purse in a speech on Thursday in New York City’s Zuccotti Park, just prior to being arrested:

“Goldman

Sachs, which received more subsidies and bailout-related funds than

any other investment bank because the Federal Reserve permitted it to

become a bank holding company under its “emergency situation,”

has used billions in taxpayer money to enrich itself and reward its

top executives. It handed its senior employees a staggering $18

billion in 2009, $16 billion in 2010 and $10 billion in 2011 in

mega-bonuses. This massive transfer of wealth upwards by the Bush and

Obama administrations, now estimated at $13 trillion to $14 trillion,

went into the pockets of those who carried out fraud and criminal

activity rather than the victims who lost their jobs, their savings

and often their homes.”

Yes, the abuse was worse in the U.S.,

but no thanks to our banks -- or to the Harper government. The

banks wanted to merge and go global. But the previous Liberal

government and former Finance minister Paul Martin refused to allow

it, although the Canadian business community and the banks went

ballistic.

Still, in Canada, the gap between the

richest and the poorest has widened. And the rate at which it is

widening is faster than in the U.S. We know from good and solid

research, such as that in Spirit Level: Why greater equality makes

societies stronger (Wilkinson and Pickett, Bloomsbury Press,

2009) that the healthiest, most resilient societies are those with a

strong and secure middle class, and the lowest gap between rich and

poor. And yet the compassionate framework of the social safety net

in Canada is being eroded nearly daily.

That growing gap only scratches the

surface of why the occupy movement is important. As cities tire of

the encampments, the pressure is on to remove the protests.

Ironically, it the presence of the homeless, those with mental health

and drug addiction issues that have posed a huge challenge to those

setting up camps. The Occupy Ottawa protesters have spoken openly of

the challenge they face as street people join the outdoor village,

offering free food and a non-judgemental space. The death of a

homeless woman in the Vancouver camp points to the need to ensure

safety within the protest, not shut them down.

We are all the one percent when it

comes to the wealth of the planet, the triumph of consumption over survival. This conflict has been described by economist David Korten

as the struggle between “life and money.” The climate crisis is

driven by the same blind forces that think the NASDAQ and the Dow are

measures worth valuing. If we are, as most scientists attest, so

disrupting global climate as to threaten our children’s future,

what sense is there in a good investment portfolio? If you have no

religious frame of reference, forgive me and please accept this bit

of scripture as at least thought provoking, “for what does it

benefit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?"

Of course, the occupy movement is

outside politics and leaderless. How could it not be? The so-called

leaders are all co-opted by the giant scam called global economic

growth.

To speak in such terms will no doubt be

denounced as heresy by the economic priesthood -- whether Harper, or

Obama or Cameron. So protesters gather in encampments, in a loose

affiliation of people reaching out in various ways, trying to

articulate that something is rotten at the core of modern society --

that we seem to be unwillingly engaged in a global suicide mission.

No one wants to be the first to say,

“Excuse me, but are the lunatics running the asylum? Can’t we

have a healthy economy, and yes, even capitalism and corporate

profits, that serves the interests of communities and that accepts

its marching orders from democratically elected governments?”

Let Greens be the first. Let our

policies light the way for those who are ready to face the threats to

our future, clear-eyed and unafraid. #Occupyyourfuture. Bring tents.