On Resisting: Choosing the Right Words to Explain our Circumstances

Community Contribution by: S.G.

A protest being organized for February 16th by the Cowichan Facebook group Canadian Citizens Against Public Drug Use (CCAPDU) is in the works. The leader of CCAPDU and organizer of the protest, TR, has been inspired by North Cowichan councillors Bruce Findlay and Tek Manhas’ protest against the York Street area safe injection site held in April, 2023. In CCAPDU’s Facebook, the protest is described as a “lawn chair resistance”, and said it was “brilliant”. This act of resistance was carried out by Manhas and Findlay as a crowd of two, who sat in lawn chairs and drank beer on publicly visible private property near the safe injection site. Read more about this here: (https://www.timescolonist.com/local-news/north-cowichan-councillors-protest-open-drug-use-with-beer-drinking-sit-in-6921019) In this spirit, CCAPDU intends to hold a large gathering in front of the Duncan court house. with hopes for at least 100 attendees with invited local press. The intent is to consume Lucky beer and other spirits in a public space where alcohol is prohibited, presumably in an act of resistance against public drug use. 

I was surprised to read TR’s description of our NC councillor’s beer and lawn chair event as a brilliant act of resistance, but I can understand the appeal of these words. “Resist” is a simple word that imbues the speaker with a sense of political and social agency. To “resist” sounds powerful and edgy, denoting poli-glam ideals of an underdog rising to the occasion and passively overthrowing something that’s probably institutional and definitely shitty. So, while I was surprised, I can understand. Bruce and Tek tinkered with rebellion, and that’s edgy. They got unconventional by mixing beer with protesting, and that’s innovative. They brought press to their cause without breaking the law, and that’s admirable. They echoed the angry and scared voices against the safe injection site, and that’s voter representation. Maybe it was even brave of Tek and Bruce to sit in that area for a length of time, considering all of the scary “homeless people things” being reported on the CCAPDU FB page. So, I get it - Tek and Bruce know how to resist, and CCAPDU wants to mimic some of their brilliance. 

But was this really a brilliant act of resistance?

When we resist socially or politically, it’s usually not just because we feel angry that something seems unfair or scary. Resistance is also a response to something that is unjust. An act of resistance is to protest a policy, law, or circumstance that is being imposed by an oppressive authority. To resist is to survive. Resistance is progressive. It is a developed, nuanced, contextually sensible and meaningful act that is deeply rooted in queer, black, Indigenous, classist, immigrant, refugee and feminist history. Public acts of resistance can be cute and endearing, resulting in the hugs our councillors received, but more often than not it makes people angry. Not because it is illegal, risky, inconvenient, or ugly, but because acts of resistance force onlookers to face their discomforts with their own bigotry, privileges, and hesitations around sociopolitical progress. 

Resistance is risky work, and requires courage because it often involves breaking those unjust policies, laws, and social expectations, thus making one both visible and vulnerable. Resisting also means accepting the consequences - legal or social - of your actions, because the consequences are what often expose the embedded absurdities and dangers of the circumstance being resisted. Our councillors drank beer on private property, and if the members of CCAPDU are ticketed for drinking beer in a public space, they might receive a fine. Is this really an act of courage? 

The intents behind public acts of resistance and protest should be immediately clear, or easily connected to the problem. If I drove by Tek and Bruce back in April, I think I would have missed the message. How do middle class folks legally consuming alcohol in lawn chairs speak to a safe injection site? This would make sense if advocating for a safe beer consumption site (like a pub or a restaurant?). Perhaps they are facing prohibition? Certainly they are demonstrating that substances can be safely consumed in publicly visible spaces. 

Most importantly, acts of resistance are meant to make a community better only at the expense and discomfort of the individuals who uphold oppressive or harmful systems and circumstances. Acts of resistance are in no way meant to target those who are victims of those systems and circumstances. When I think of resistance that’s been visible in our provincial communities, I see tent cities on government lawns, living openly as a trans person, a spray painted, orange metal cross on a mountain, humans blocking roads to old growth forests, statues being pulled off their podiums, mob cyclists in downtown cores, speaking traditional languages in public spaces, wearing rainbows, using children’s preferred names and pronouns, and disrupting the hate-fuelled marches being carried out against those same children. All of these acts do not further disparage human beings, but instead resist the dominant oppressive forces: capitalism, gender conformity, climate change, and the lasting effects of colonialism. 

Is it possible that instead of protecting the victims of our failed systems, Findlay and Manhas brought further risk to them by inspiring a large group to gather and protest against what those victims are legally doing? With respect to resistance, in what way are unhoused people who are dealing with mental illness, brain damage, complex trauma, addiction, extreme poverty, and other difficulties oppressing Tek and Bruce’s voter base? How does the unhoused community hold authority and power over Cowichan’s middle class in a way that calls for a resistance? Is theft and property damage truly oppressive? 

Being the victim of a crime can be traumatizing, financially harmful, and maddening, but it does not mean you are oppressed. Wanting relief from having to face the hardship of others is not a cause for resistance. TR of CCAPDU appropriating “resistance” to describe drinking beer in a lawn chair on private property, as though this honours the resistance strategies crafted by those who needed them to survive, is disparaging and appalling. It strips the dignity of those who have committed crimes only against their own bodies during attempts to survive, and contorts the historical and current value of real and meaningful resistance.

Opening up your stocked liquor cabinet, choosing your favourite alcoholic beverage, giggling about it maliciously on social media, and driving yourself to an angry gathering to imbibe in lawn chairs as though you are attending a community barbq - all after contacting the police in preparation to see if you will be safe from consequence (seen on Facebook, said by TR) - is not an act of resistance in any circumstance. It’s not even a protest. This is a public showcase of the privileges held by those in attendance, a strengthening of their vigilantism, and a show of support of the police’s power and authority over unhoused people who are struggling with addiction. 

Findley, Manhas, and now CCAPDU have only “resisted” supportive services like the warming centre, government agencies such as VIHA, and data-supported harm reduction strategies. If CCAPDU wants to participate in a truly meaningful resistance, they should look to the real underpinnings of this problem (gaps in our health care system, the housing crises, stigma around addiction and mental health, poverty, etc.) and resist those.