Downsizing the revolution

On Wednesday, a group of activists stormed the Queen Elizabeth Hotel restaurant and demanded food for free. According to one veteran Montreal activist, this protest is part of a growing trend: from large, but gentle demonstrations to smaller, lightning actions that pack real punch

by BERNARD COOPER

We are witnessing a resurgence of activism in Quebec. But unlike traditional slogan-chanting, placard-waving Leftist demos, the new activism is pushing the issues--and the authorities--much further than before.

At precisely 12:20 p.m., during Wednesday's busy lunch hour at Le Montréalais Bistro Bar in the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, a commando group of 30 hungry, poor and militant Montrealers entered the restaurant and "reappropriated" platters of hot buffet food. "On a faim! On veut manger!", they announced to the customers, who displayed a gamut of emotional reactions: confusion, surprise, amusement, horror. Once outside with the steaming food, they gave it out to the 70-odd demonstrators who had accompanied them in support. Fifteen minutes later, four police tactical squad vans arrived and brought what they termed a "riot" to a firm, definitive end--but not before demonstrators had their meal.

There have been other similar actions recently. Last June, an Action-épicerie symbolically "stole" a loaf of bread from an East-end supermarket; fearing a hot summer of activism, editorials denounced the action, and the grocers' association convened an emergency meeting. A month ago, 300 young activists risked arrest during Quebec City's G Plan, shutting down government bureaucracy for a day.

Meanwhile, cutbacks to social services continue. Governments, from the 1930s to the end of the Cold War, always sought to soften the effects of wealth creation and concentration. But now, as the state falls increasingly in line with neo-liberal economics, people are being put back into a position of abject poverty. They are told to use their initiative, and be less reliant on government. When the state can no longer redistribute wealth, should the poor take it themselves? No surprise, then, that we are witnessing the return of actions redolent of 19th-century bread riots.

This most recent Action-resto is an example of the increasing popularity of a radical approach to the fight against marginalization. Activists will no longer limit themselves to reacting to situations, but will actually produce them.

Of course, the action undertaken by a clutch of poor people doesn't put an end to some people having access to an abundance of healthy, tasty food while others go hungry. However, it goes to the root of the issue by declaring that what is considered theft in law is actually justice in the face of gross inequality. It's radical in the sense that it makes no demands on the existing system, it doesn't ask the government to fix the problem: the action itself is a claim to redress. Rather than demonstrate, it confronts, and allows poor people to make "theft" political. It also goes to the root of the problem in that it is the poor who act, rather that passively wait for help.

And it all takes place just as "charity" becomes the buzzword of the season. All the charity, even if it came all year round, wouldn't deal with the issues of power and need. The ability to part with token amounts of wealth strengthens the privileged/needy hierarchy. What if poor people decide not to wait for handouts, but instead to take them?

While most of the organizers choose not to call Wednesday's Action-resto "civil disobedience," some will say there are similarities: it is a public, open violation of a situation deemed unjust. There is an acceptance of the risks involved, namely arrest and prosecution. There is also a willingness to raise basic political issues during the trials.

As direct action, June's Action-épicerie, the G Plan, and this week's Action-resto are examples of "doing more with less:" fewer demonstrators, but more bite. The '90s are decidedly not the '60s. Governments, media and much of the public have grown blasé toward large demonstrations. Beyond asking for reforms or showing disgruntled opinion and solidarity, they aren't pro-active, they're often tame, and they call for little from the participants. They also tend to fall on deaf ears. The government can always say it's "staying the course" supposedly set for them by their electors.

Direct action instead pushes the limits by targeting injustices or stopping business as usual. It speaks to the original sources of power, the opinion of the governed. It confronts the government, forcing it to resort to riot police and the unsavoury aspects of enforcement. It is also done by a small group of people, if they are willing to take a risk. If they can't take the risk, because they have family to look after or the penalties might be too heavy for them, they can be part of a parallel support demo. In this week's action, these were the ones who ate food taken from the restaurant. It is likely the best, most memorable and most quickly eaten meal they'll have this season.

Bernard Cooper is a coordinator with Ecology Montreal and a member of Citizens Opposed to Police Brutality.