When my friend V. learned about the anti-capitalism camp in St. Paul and learned about the Church authorities rejection to pursue legal action in order to evict the occupation exclaimed: “Oh! That’s a good idea: to set-up a protest camp next to a church”.
I think that the Dean and Chapter of Saint Paul should evict the camp, on the grounds of a simple principle: the law shall prevail.
I heard that the Church land-owners did not want any violence as a result of the eviction. In the previous days, there had been some threats in this direction. If that is the case, I cannot but remember the infamous passage in the life of Jesus, especially now that people wonder: what would Jesus do? Well, Jesus expelled the salesmen out of the Temple of Jerusalem amidst lashes of a whip. The episode was narrated by the four Evangelists.
“And the Iewes Passeouer was at hand, and Jesus went up to Hierusalem, and found in the Temple those that sold oxen, and sheepe, and doues, and the changers of money, sitting. And when he had made a scourge of small cordes, he droue them all out of the Temple, and the sheepe and the oxen, and powred out the changers money, and ouerthrew the tables, and said unto them that sold doues: Take these things hence, make not my fathers house an house merchandize”. (Saint James edition, John 2, 13-16)
Indeed, in another passage, in Mathew: “Thinke not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword”. (Saint James edition, Matthew 10, 34)
The fact that the land-owners of the spaces in Canary Wharf are actually pursuing legal action made me reflect that the problem with Saint Paul might not be as bigger as if the land did not have “any owner” or, namely, would belong to the City Hall or Council. If the land occupied actually belongs to someone, what’s the problem? What’s the stumbling block avoiding eviction?
Last Saturday night I came around the area and spend about 10 minutes listening to the Assembly there. I must say: it was ridiculous. One man and one woman were directing the conclave. People were allowed to make questions from the spot they sat at, which make impossible to be heard by others. At the end, these two people were elected –by whom?- representatives and leaders of the rest… So where is the novelty? Why are these people better than anybody else?
About 15 years ago, I was deeply involved in activities with teenagers and had a chance to belong to Assemblies, held pieces of responsibility, organized events and such. The frame was the Youth Center of a Salesian community and I can tell you: that was much better, much more serious than this St. Paul camp or any stuff of the sort. Albeit young, we were of different profiles (as time proved later on), different backgrounds and different interests. We had this gay young man who was delightful telling gossips after lunch; we had this pretty girl all crazy for helping out Bolivia and that other nurse-girl who went to Portugal one year to study and came back to break-up with his former boyfriend and tell him she was already pregnant of a Portuguese. We had these posh, high-class kids; we had this other kid living with his grandparents and with no contact with his parents who split up ages back. Once we had this 18-year old guy who committed suicide by jumping from a 7th floor: his brother wanted to become a fire fighter. Of course, we deal with parents a many. I remember sometimes this group of girlfriends playing in a square nearby, from very popular environment and public education. When we visited Madrid and met other groups, the stories multiplied.
“[I] feel a vague sympathy for their cause” –says Simon Jenkins in the Evening Standard on November the 1st- “but none for its attenuated exploitation”. I agree. What would it be of them if no media coverage were playing the game?
(PLEASE, LEAVE YOUR COMMENT).
No comments:
Post a Comment