Who Killed Jesus: How modern religion fuels athiesm

  By Justin Beach | January 14, 2012 - 10:04 pm | History, Human Rights, Philosophy, Politics, religion
2 Comments

This past Christmas, once again, there was a great deal of talk about “Keeping Christ in Christmas”. This line is primarily aimed at people who believe in the separation of church and state and do not want official recognition of religious symbols. It was, however, a predominantly Christian society that allowed Christmas to become a holiday about consumer goods rather than peace and love in the first place. It is also modern Christians who are largely responsible for a rise in atheism, agnosticism and secularism in the 21st century.

Science and religion came into serious conflict for most of the 20th century. Nearly every branch of science was making Biblical and other religious claims less and less plausible. This is obviously true of hard science and theories such as evolution and practices such as carbon dating. It is also true of softer sciences such as archeology. As Tom Harper points out in the Pagan Christ the Christ myth, under other names, has been traced back to about 7,000 B.C. and modern archeology casts serious doubt about there ever being such a person as Jesus Christ, as well as other Biblical stories such as Exodus. History can also document the process of creation of the Catholic Church as a means to consolidate power in Rome. The Bible, as we know it now, was created and edited for political reasons and not handed down by any god.

Modern religion could have responded to these realities by focusing on the themes espoused by their religions and the lessons the stories tried to teach. Christianity could have focused on the actual words of Jesus which were about nothing but peace, love, charity and tolerance. Instead they chose to dig in and in some ways move backward.

Within Christianity, as well as Islam and Judaism movements began which treated ancient religious myths and superstitions as hard fact. They insisted on absolute adherence to specific parts of ancient texts, while ignoring some that were less convenient, and made religion about a old order which most of humanity would rather leave behind. It became about strict rules, about an enforced male dominated society, it became homophobic in the extreme and tried to push out any findings (legal, moral or scientific) which didn’t agree with these views. These religious orders also became heavily involved in politics, insisting on at least equal time for beliefs with no more basis in fact than the beliefs of the ancient Greeks, Romans, Egyptians and Norse.

As a result more and more people who perceive organized religion as deluded, arrogant, angry, hypocritical and intolerant are abandoning religion altogether. More and more congregations are being forced to move to smaller and smaller locations, old churches are being turned into condominiums and, again, many religions are religious groups are reacting by becoming angrier and more entrenched in their positions.

Prominent atheists such as Richard Dawkins make some compelling arguments, but they hardly need to. Pope Benedict has, I’m sure, created far more Atheists than Dawkins has. Fundamentalist religious groups such as the Catholics under Benedict, North American evangelicals, the Taliban and it’s counterparts in the Arab world and ultra-orthodox Jewish groups in Isreal are rapidly coming to be seen as hate groups, the Klu Klux Klan’s of the 21st century and as the source of hate, violence and in many cases war.

So when Christians whine about keeping Christ in Christmas or religious leaders and their advocates generally lament the declining place of religion in modern society they need to look within for answers rather than without. The teachings, attributed to Jesus Christ in the Bible: peace, love, compassion, tolerance, the separation of Church and state, resisting greed and being non-judgemental about other people would actually be welcome and in many cases are much needed in modern society. Those messages though are all being pushed aside in favor of homophobia, sexism, intolerance, greed and ancient religious disputes many of which never had any basis in fact. In other words they are taking a religion that they claim was founded on love and turning it into a hate cult.

In the story, the Jews condemned Jesus to death and the Romans nailed him to a cross, but it is modern leaders who claim to be Christian that are destroying the beliefs that he was condemned and executed for.

“…nearly two thousand years after one man had been nailed to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change…”

Xtra, Trans People and the Media : Why is ‘people are people’ so hard to understand?

  By Justin Beach | January 12, 2012 - 3:25 am | Human Rights, media
Leave a comment

After a series of controversies over how the media deals with trans people, Xtra hosted a panel discussion to ask how the media could improve. I Highly recommend watching it to people inside and outside of the media.

Personally, I was not raised in an ultra-enlightened environment by ex-hippies or anything but my question on all issues of prejudice and equality has always been ‘why does it matter?’.

When I’m talking to another person why should it matter to me what color their skin is? Why should it matter what religious beliefs they hold (unless we’re discussing religion). Why should it matter if they are male or female? During the 1980s, as a teenager, my question regarding gay people and gay rights was always, “why should it matter to me who someone else loves or who someone else sleeps with?” If someone wants to sleep with me, then it becomes a relevant question. As a straight male I don’t want to sleep with another man. In any other situation though why should who someone else loves, who they are sexually attracted to, what activities they engage in in the bedroom or what sexual organs they do or do not possess be of any importance to me at all?

Recently a Globe and Mail review by Brad Wheeler generated considerable controversy in social media because of the way it dealt with Rae Spoon being a trans person. If I were writing a biography of Spoon or even an in depth profile I might be interested in issues of sexual identity, but in reviewing an album why is that important? Does it make a difference to the album’s quality?

In our discussion on Twitter, Now Magazine music editor Benjamin Boles made the argument that mentioning that Spoon was trans was good for the process of normalization. I suppose there is something of a point there. It might be good to show bigoted people that trans people can be good at music. However, Boles suggestion that “if I were a trans kid, it would be nice to see someone cool and out” doesn’t really work anymore. In the age of the internet I imagine trans kids are looking for people who are cool and out in trans publications, trans websites and trans organizations and not the arts section of the Globe and Mail or Now.

For all the discussions of sensitivity training and ways to increase tolerance, and be more inclusive throughout society what seems to be missing is some basic human decency and common sense. When talking to, or about someone, is the color of their skin an important factor? Is who they love or sleep with important? Is their gender important? In some cases such as wealth, political philosophy or religion it may be, but is certainly not always.

In any case, if you think there is a significant difference between you and another person ask yourself what is different about them and why you feel that difference is important. How are the particular differences you’ve noticed important to the particular situation you are in? It is in the answers to those questions that the root of bigotry, intolerance and hate lie.

 

Sleep, Marriage, Rape and the Toronto Star : Silence Does Not Mean Yes

  By Justin Beach | December 29, 2011 - 1:17 am | crime, media, Sexuality, Toronto
Leave a comment

I am not a fan of relationship advice columns. Individuals and relationships are all unique and the advice given by a newspaper column is frequently not much more helpful than a horoscope is for planning your future. Taking the column’s advice could be helpful, it could be harmful, it’s a roll of the dice or the toss of a coin.

Today however my attention was called to Ellie’s Advice in the Toronto Star. The column overall struck me as fairly insensitive and full of sweeping generalizations. However the last bit of advice went beyond unhelpful and into the area of dangerous.

Someone, calling herself ‘Curious’ wrote in seeking advice because her husband had sex with her while she was asleep. She said that she felt it was “almost the same as rape” and “To do that without a person’s consent while they are unaware surely can’t be right.

Ellie’s Advice in this case?

A:If having “sleep sex” with your husband feels so unsafe, you have bigger marital problems going on. This is what you should be dealing with, more than this one incident.

After getting a negative response on the topic, Ellie has since posted a better answer to the question. If Curious or anyone in a similar situation is reading this, Curious was correct. She does, absolutely, have the right to consent or not to any sexual activity and it is exactly the same as rape. No means no, but the lack of an answer does not mean yes.

That it happens within marriage does not make it legal or any less of a crime. It is, in my view at least, even more of a betrayal. Marriage and romantic relationships are supposed to be about love, trust and respect. Non-consensual sex is a betrayal of all of those things.

Even outside of marriage, when you sleep with someone (actually sleep) it is, in a way, more intimate than sex itself. For most of the history of humanity the night was perceived to be fraught with potential dangers, some of those were very real, and sleep is when we are at our most vulnerable. When you sleep in the arms of someone that you love and trust, it is soothing and comforting in a way that little else is. It is the ultimate display of trust in an individual. It signifies that you believe that that individual wouldn’t hurt you and that they will help to guard you against the world while you sleep.

The actions of the husband Curious wrote about indicate that she absolutely can not trust him. In that situation how could you ever close your eyes next to such a person again? It is a clear case of actions speaking louder than words. Curious and anyone else in a similar circumstances should immediately seek help.

In Toronto the Toronto Rape Crisis Centre operates a 24/7, confidential, crisis line at (416) 597-8808. Outside of Toronto RAINN (Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network) has an international listing of Sexual Assault Resources. If nothing on that list is close to you, try doing a Google search. It is very likely that there is some type of crisis center or support network in your area. Whatever you do get help and remove yourself from danger.

In closing please remember that newspaper relationship advice is primarily there for entertainment, like horoscopes, comics and crossword puzzles. The person writing the column does not know you, the other party or parties involved or your situation. Take anything they say with several large grains of salt. They are not a good go-to source for real problems or dangerous situations.

U.S. PhoneDog.com Case Hilights Glaring Misconceptions About Social Media

  By Justin Beach | December 27, 2011 - 11:50 pm | Social Media, United States
Leave a comment

Earlier today Andrea Houston of Xtra tweeted a CTV story that brilliantly illustrates many of the misconceptions companies have about social media.

The story is about Phonedog.com and an employee that departed, taking his Twitter account and 17,000 followers with him. The company is suing the employee claiming that they own the account and the 17,000 followers.

For starters, no one “owns” an accounts followers. Anyone who even thinks that might be the case should get out of social media altogether, immediately and permanently.

The important lesson for anyone who even grasps the basics though is that there are really two kinds of Twitter accounts. There are personal accounts, and brand accounts. Personal accounts may, or may not, include work related information. For example Andrea Houston, who called my attention to the story, has a twitter account. She regularly includes stories she, and others write for Xtra. Xtra_Canada also has an account (they have several in fact). Andrea’s account is Andrea’s, Xtras account is Xtras. If Andrea leaves Xtra, all of her followers go with her.

Xtra is a media company, so their branded Twitter account will do well compared to most branded accounts. People like to get the news but most people, most of the time, won’t opt in to what amounts to a running advertisement for your company.

In general though individual accounts will fare better than brand or corporate accounts because this is “social” media. Your employees have personalities, your corporation really does not (regardless of what the books on corporate culture say.) Individuals have good days and bad days, they have thoughts on things related to work and not related to work, they answer questions and (hopefully) have a sense of humor.

Social media is about individuals interacting with individuals. It is not about selling things, it is not about commerce. Those things may come into play, but it is not the foundation of social media and it is not part of the draw.

It is a good idea to allow individuals who work for a company to use social media. As people follow and become familiar with those individuals, they will become familiar with the company and its products and/or services. If it is not a good company to work for or do business with, people will learn that too. However that is easily avoided by running a company that is good to work for and do business with. The downside to allowing employees to use social media is that when they leave, their followers will know that they left, know why they left, know where they went instead, and know whether their new employer is better than their old employer.

However an individual twitter account is the property of, and part of the value of, that individual. It does not belong to the company any more than the individual belongs to the company. If a company wants to retain that value, they have to retain the individual who owns it. Pretending otherwise is not only unjust, it is contrary to the basic ideas behind social media.

The outcome of the case mentioned in the CTV story will have no impact on anything. All the, former, employee in question would need to do is start a new account and the majority of the users of the old account would switch over.

Any company that allows its employees to use social media should take note, the only thing this lawsuit does is make PhoneDog.com look bad, spiteful and ignorant.

Lowe’s, Religious Intolerance and Free Speech

  By Justin Beach | December 16, 2011 - 7:24 pm | advertising, media, television
4 Comments

There has been a great deal of controversy over Lowe’s decision to pull it’s ads from the U.S. television show “All American Muslim”. Personally, while I do not agree with their decision, I am ok with it. Lowe’s has essentially come right out and said that they do not like Muslims. When I decide which company’s to do business with, this is important information for me to consider.

Under the current economic system corporations are viewed as individuals, with the same rights as individuals. Courts in Canada and the United States have regularly ruled that corporations have a right to free speech. The corporations as people debate is being re-visited to an extent, but for the moment that is the system we have.

However, if corporations are people with the right to free speech then we, as individuals, can and should hold them accountable for that speech. This is one of the themes behind Operation Sunset, a campaign I started to target companies that advertise in the Toronto Sun.

If media is a form of free speech and advertising is a form of free speech then all advertising should be seen as just that. Media companies can be, sometimes are, and should always be held accountable for the ads that they run. Advertisers rarely are, but should be, held accountable for the media they sponsor.

If Lowe’s doesn’t like Muslims, fine. People who aren’t bigots though should remember that position and refuse to shop at Lowe’s. More than that though, other media companies that run ads for Lowe’s should be seen as supporting religious intolerance.

In general any advertising should be seen as a mutual endorsement between the media outlet and the advertiser. If corporations are people with a right to free speech and association, that’s fine but they should be held accountable for what they choose to say and who they choose to associate with. Advertisers and media companies alike should be viewed as individuals speaking freely and should be judged based on the views they express, both directly and indirectly.

Caution: Taking a Taxi is Still Getting Into a Car With a Stranger

  By Justin Beach | December 16, 2011 - 12:07 am | crime, Toronto, Transportation
Leave a comment

People take taxis for a variety of reasons. They hop in a cab to get out of the weather, when they are in a hurry, when they are too intoxicated to drive or when they do not feel safe walking in an area. Most people do not really think of it though as climbing into a car with a stranger and that lack of awareness is potentially dangerous. Most cab drivers, like most strangers, are nice people. Most of the time there is nothing to worry about, but what happens ‘most of the time’ is little consolation when something different happens.

A few evenings ago I talked with a friend who had just had a bad taxi experience. It was not bad driving or directions that worried her though, it was the repeated sexual advances made by the driver who she also believed had been drinking. My friend, an attractive young woman who works in a downtown bar, is no stranger to sexual advances. Despite the fact that she was not physically harmed or threatened the harassment was intense enough that she was extremely shaken by it for some time afterward.

As a guy I had never really thought about the position of cab drivers before. In Toronto they regularly pick up women, including very drunk women and the first thing the woman tells them is where they live. I have frequently seen young women stumble alone from a downtown bar or night club, barely able to stand, and simply fall into the first cab they see.

This new awareness on my part led me to ask other women and nearly every woman I talked to had stories. Fortunately none of these stories involved actual assault, but many women reported being sexually harassed or otherwise made to feel uncomfortable by cab drivers, even while sober in the full light of day. One woman even reported being abducted and taken to a ‘swingers club’ by a cab driver.

For further insight I did a Google search. The terms “Taxi Driver” combined with “sexual assault” returned 1.6 million results. The bulk of these were news stories from around the world, including right here in Toronto, about cab drivers that had been charged with sexual assault and other related offenses. Anyone, who knows anything about sexual assault will add to this that the majority of these crimes are not reported and that when they are reported, roughly half are never prosecuted. This information is important when contemplating the number of cases that wouldn’t turn up in a Google search.

The point of all of this is not to make people paranoid, or to imply that cab drivers are inherently dangerous. Most are nice people who are simply doing their jobs. There are also, in most cities, rules in place to protect passengers. In Toronto the list should be posted on the back of the driver’s seat. Cabs are also required to keep logs of who they picked up and when and many taxis now have cameras to record what happens in the cab. It is still important though to remember that you are, ultimately, getting into a car with a stranger and to take a few basic precautions.

  • When possible call a cab instead of just climbing into one. The dispatcher will have a log that shows your call and which cab was sent.
  • When possible it is a good idea to take a cab with someone rather than riding alone.
  • Make sure you have some way of identifying the cab later. Take down the car number and, when possible, the drivers name when you get into the cab.
  • Always ask for a receipt, even if you do not need it for tax purposes.
  • Keep an eye on your friends. If you are putting an intoxicated person into a cab, get the number of the cab you put them into.

Every day millions of people take taxis and serious incidents are rare. Beyond actual violent incidents though there is no reason why anyone should feel unsafe or harassed when taking a cab. After recording the cabs information use it. Report any problems, especially problems related to sexual harassment, to the taxi company and to your city’s taxi licensing agency. If the situation warrants it, report the behavior to police as well. Most cab drivers are not dangerous or threatening. Closer scrutiny of drivers and reporting issues will quickly result in safer and more comfortable cab rides for everyone.

Anti-Bullying Campaigns Will Have Limited Sucess While Bullying is Encouraged Everywhere Else

  By Justin Beach | December 11, 2011 - 11:57 pm | Education, Politics, Poverty, Sexuality, Social Justice
Leave a comment

Conversations about bullying, what constitutes bullying, who bullies and who gets bullied are everywhere at the moment. The central problem is though that bullying is central to western culture. By saying this I am not praising the behavior, simply pointing out an obvious problem.

Aside from charity, nearly every aspect of our culture encourages bullying: From sports to business people are encouraged to outperform the person next to them, to be better, smarter, more ruthless and aggressive and to win by any means necessary (with only a few inconsistently enforced rules standing in the way.) It is not only business and sport though. Nearly everything is framed as a competition. There are beauty competitions, spelling competitions, consumers are encouraged to ‘keep up with the Jonses’ or to out do their neighbors in terms of what they own and what they spend. Our politics are built not around cooperation and consensus but around winners and losers. The person or party that gets the most votes gets to do things their own way regardless of the needs and desires of the ‘losers’. Even sex is commonly associated with conquest and the problem with conquest is that it implies that there is a loser.

It should come as no surprise that, in a culture where everything is a competition, where winning is everything and competitors are encouraged to be ruthless, merciless and exploit every weakness that bullying occurs.

It is true that in school children are, to an extent, taught tolerance and cooperation but these lessons are not widely reinforced. If children become involved in athletics they must compete against other children to ‘make the team’ and then are taught teamwork and cooperation only as it applies to their own team. In history class they learn that western civilization expanded and that the west gained power and wealth not through cooperation, teamwork and tolerance but by the ruthless exploitation of others, through bloody wars and laissez-faire capitalism. They learn about racism, sexism, the exploitation of workers and the poor and while the victories of women’s rights, civil rights and the labor movement are celebrated as victories for western civilization, they are also taught as part of history – largely unrelated to current events and completely unrelated to the current gay rights struggle.

Outside of school they are back in the world of ‘everything is a competition’ and ‘win at all costs’. These messages saturate modern society through sports, media, the business world and are frequently reinforced by parents and peers. They also see bullying continue well beyond school. In some cases this means domestic violence, sexual abuse and social bullying among adults. It occurs in workplaces, in professional sports, in domestic and international politics, in religion and in personal relationships. They may hear people in the media, in politics, sports and religious organizations condemn bullying in schools but they frequently see those same people turn around and promote and encourage bullying behavior in nearly every other facet of society.

Getting rid of bullying is going to take more than anti-bullying campaigns and new rules for schools. We, as adults, are going to have to reevaluate how we deal with one another, the types of behavior we reward and praise in society and how we conduct our affairs in just about every part of our lives. In other words, if we truly want to eliminate bullying, we have to stop being hypocritical about it. We have to work toward eliminating it from the rest of the culture as well. Telling children not to do something and then turning around and demonstrating to them, in a thousand different ways, that that is the very behavior that our culture expects and rewards will never be terribly effective.

Will Taking Out Traffic Signals Speed Up Traffic? : How Faulty Logic Will Cost Toronto Millions

  By Justin Beach | December 9, 2011 - 5:06 am | Poverty, Toronto
1 Comment

The most basic problem with the policies of Rob Ford and his supporters in city council is that they use narrowly focused, short term logic without regard to the broader, long term consequences. If there is a downed tree blocking the road the Ford solution is to rip the tree out, without taking the time to notice that it’s also tangled in power lines, or that it’s roots are wrapped around a water main. With the tree out of the road traffic can move again, and Ford will declare victory while promising to look into the power outage and flooding he’s recently been briefed on.

As the title suggests, it’s the sort of administration that might take out traffic signals in order to speed up traffic. The light in front of you is red, so obviously if that weren’t there your car could move faster. No real thought is given to the almost immediate gridlock which would occur from the resulting traffic accidents.

When the Jarvis bike lane was taken out, Ford and his supporters saw it as a victory, despite the fact that reports at the time said it would have almost no impact on the speed of car traffic on Jarvis. Worse still the move ignored the fact that in a city that is growing in population but not in size the Jarvis bike lanes will, one day soon, need to be put back or the traffic problem will become much worse.

The budget that Ford & Co are currently preparing to pass is rife with fallen trees and removed power signals. Most of the areas that Ford is looking to cut have their roots tangled in other issues and/or will have short and long term consequences for the people of Toronto. Cuts in arts programs will reduce tourism, cuts in HIV/AIDS prevention and child nutrition programs will result in increased health care costs, cuts to child nutrition, libraries and recreation programs will also result in decreased school performance. The list goes on and on.

All of this, at some point, will wind up costing the citizens of Toronto many millions of dollars more than if no cuts had been made at all and all of this was done in an effort to avoid a $60 annual vehicle registration tax (while a 15 cent TTC fare hike will cost the average rider an extra $78 per year.)

In other words, tighten your belts and squirrel away any money that Rob Ford saves you in taxes because as soon as the next election comes and someone takes office who is prepared to deal with the ‘flooding and power outage’ the city is going to need a lot more money.

Hearing in Toronto to Decide if Feeding the Poor Constitutes Unethical Behaviour

  By Justin Beach | December 7, 2011 - 5:59 am | Poverty, Toronto
3 Comments

When does a doctor’s treatment of his patients cross into the political realm? That is the question before CPSO (the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario) this week. Dr. Roland Wong is accused of unethical behaviour for filling out over 15,000 forms that allow people to receive extra money for food.

The request for an investigation originally came from Toronto Mayor Rob Ford, a city councillor at the time, who stated, “A doctor is there to be a doctor, not to advocate for the poor, or to be the official opposition in government through taxpayer’s money…”

Wong freely admits that he provided “special diet forms” to patients which allowed them to receive up to an extra $250 per month in food assistance. That he earned money for doing so is also not at issue. According to the Toronto Star:

The government pays doctors $20 to fill out each special diet allowance form, and up to $40 for an additional assessment. So while he ticked the boxes marked soya allergies (worth $83 a month to the patient), diabetes ($42) and chronic constipation ($10), Dr. Wong was charging the government around $60 a form, the five-member panel heard. In 2008, he billed $718,000 for the work required to do the special diet allowances — $540,000 more than an average Ontario family health doctor bills overall for a year.

According to Dr. Wong, that money went to a combination of taxes, food banks and lawyers to defend him in this case and a police investigation into his practice found no fraud.

What is at issue is whether or not the doctor deserved the money he received and whether or not he was practicing politics instead of medicine. More specifically, according to the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario whether his conduct “would reasonably be regarded by members as disgraceful, dishonourable or unprofessional.”

Wong claims that he did nothing wrong and has done nothing illegal. It is also true that the modern Hippocratic Oath includes the line “I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.” It would be difficult to find anyone who would argue that a healthy diet does not prevent disease. It could even be argued that by preventing diseases caused by poor diet and malnutrition Dr. Wong may have saved Ontario’s Health Care system in the long run.

All of this is playing out at CPSO in Toronto. Hearings began Tuesday morning and are expected to last until Friday. A Facebook Event page has been created urging Wong’s supporters to attend the hearing. Wong’s own web site can be found at SpecialDiet.ca.

The Police and the Occupy Toronto Eviction

  By Justin Beach | November 25, 2011 - 7:34 am | G20, Police, Toronto
4 Comments

I was very vocal in the days before Occupy Toronto began about police tactics, so it seems only appropriate that I say something in the wake of of Occupy’s eviction. Wednesday’s break-up of the Occupy Toronto camp by police has, largely, been hailed by the main stream media (MSM) as a triumph for police. Critics, rightly, point out that police do not deserve a medal or parade for breaking up a non-violent protest without the use of violence. That is, after all, what we should expect from police. It is, however a huge improvement over the G20 with it’s thousand false arrests, random beatings and unprovoked, indiscriminate use of chemical agents and rubber bullets. The G20 was nothing less than a police riot, so the Occupy Toronto eviction was, again, a dramatic improvement.

I would like to thank the police and the protesters for keeping Occupy Toronto non-violent, for communicating with one another effectively and for showing restraint at times of tension.

I know that some of the protesters were very upset with being evicted in the first place, but that is not really the fault of police. The police are a part of the 99% but they have jobs to do and expecting them to emulate the Albany Police and go above and beyond the call, defying the orders of city hall was never realistic.

The fault for yesterday’s eviction lies with Rob Ford , Judge Davis Brown and Rev. Douglas Stoute of St. James Cathedral all of whom united to say that city by law trumps the charter of rights and freedoms as well as the needs of the homeless. Their attack on democratic expression was made all the more obvious when the City made it clear that indefinite use of public space for the purposes of speech and expression is fine, so long as you have the money to pay for it. If you need to blame someone for artificially limiting those charter rights, blame those three men and not the Toronto Police.

The police, as Edward Keenan points out in the Grid did their jobs, to the letter, patiently, and professionally and that is all. No one asked them their opinion on the protests, or the protesters or whether or not the eviction should take place. Granted individual officers are always responsible for their own actions. ‘Just following orders’ isn’t a valid excuse anymore. However, I don’t think that even the protesters wanted or expected hundreds of Toronto police officers to give up their jobs to avoid enforcing an eviction. Ultimately, if the police refused, Ford would have pulled a Mel Lastman and called in the Army or found someone else who would remove the camp.

If it had to end, it ended the best way it could have for all concerned.

Also, feel free to use those new kiosks to share news about upcoming Occupy events.