The esthetics of the Trinity Bellwoods evictions

Please chip in to support more articles like this. Support for as little as $5 per month!

City workers dismantle the encampment at Trinity Bellwoods Park. Image: Paul Salvatori/Used with Permission

There is an esthetic dimension to the clear out of the small encampment at Trinity Bellwoods Park this week -- versus medical and other rationales we heard for that massive, military-style exercise. I mean esthetic in the sense of having to do with the sensual and sensory. With the senses.

You won't hear that from Mayor John Tory or other officials. You have to turn to some of those getting tossed. One said, "I would rather go live under a bridge, or wherever it is that they're not going to see me much. I understand, people pay millions of dollars for nice lavish condos that look over the park here and I'm doing it for want me to leave? Fine, I'll leave, I get it."

He's speculating about sensory reactions of those looking on: specifically to what they saw. In fact, I wish there'd been more interviews with people living nearby or watching onscreen about how they felt, rather than with "campers."

There's a splotchy, unsettling literature on ways that the better-off feel about outsiders and have-nots in terms of their visceral responses. George Orwell wrote in his 1937 book The Road To Wigan Pier that the "real secret" of class divisions lay in "four frightful words...The lower classes smell." He called it an "impassable barrier" because many deep differences can be bridged, "but physical repulsion cannot." Orwell was fascinated by smells; there's even a recent book about it called Orwell's Nose.

Mao Zedong (to shift gears) said in an aside to the 1942 Yenan Forum on Literature and Art that as a student, he abhorred physical work and felt workers and peasants were "dirty." He would never consider putting on their clothes. But he gradually learned they were "cleaner" than intellectuals, "though their hands were soiled and their feet smeared with cow-dung." It's not his analysis I'm emphasizing; it's how rare it is to explicitly reference sensory reactions.

Now take the Oscar-winning film Parasite. The young rich guy sniffs at his driver, the dad of the crafty deprived family who work for him. It's his class sense, literally. In the final, over-the-top scene, when he sniffs again in disgust at the crazed killer, the dad stabs him in a wild reaction to his reaction.

It's not that "they" don't want "them" living that way. It's that they don't want to see, hear or smell them living that way. So back to the bridges it is.

They're perfectly willing to pay the costs of hotel rooms, but that's the point, at least in part: get them out of sight, of earshot, of sensory range.

I don't mean to equate Orwell's working class or Mao's peasantry with two dozen homeless at Trinity Bellwoods. In fact, the park serves a special purpose in Toronto. Those few homeless deflect attention from the massive affordable housing issue here, affecting vast numbers, especially the young. So you spend relentlessly on a small group of people camped in a park to show you're dealing with housing, dammit, and willing to pay what it takes. They become proxies, and the discussion veers off into minutiae about their safety, their needles, etc.

It becomes a version of the truism that the real test of a society is how it treats its most vulnerable. Sure it does. But the real real test of a society is far more how it treats its underserved demographics, while continuing to privilege the privileged. If you can sidetrack and avoid that debate with a sideshow, it hardly matters if you come out as the hero or the villain.

On vaccine hesitancy. The federal government has a video that boldly takes this on. It begins skeptically, "How were COVID-19 vaccines developed so quickly?" But it gives a bad answer to that good question: they "were developed quickly without skipping any safety steps thanks to advances in science, international collaboration and increased funding."

How's that for bureaucratic downtalking? What about instead: Because in the past most diseases requiring vaccines were in the poor world and didn't have high profit potential. COVID, however, offered a profit bonanza -- plus public subsidies. Thus incentivized, Big Pharma solved the problems fast. That's credible, direct and takes the skepticism seriously. Outta my way, say the skeptics, gimme one.

Rick Salutin writes about current affairs and politics. This column was first published in the Toronto Star.

Image credit: Paul Salvatori/Used with Permission

Related Items

Thank you for reading this story…

More people are reading than ever and unlike many news organizations, we have never put up a paywall – at rabble we’ve always believed in making our reporting and analysis free to all, while striving to make it sustainable as well. Media isn’t free to produce. rabble’s total budget is likely less than what big corporate media spend on photocopying (we kid you not!) and we do not have any major foundation, sponsor or angel investor. Our main supporters are people and organizations -- like you. This is why we need your help. You are what keep us sustainable. has staked its existence on you. We live or die on community support -- your support! We get hundreds of thousands of visitors and we believe in them. We believe in you. We believe people will put in what they can for the greater good. We call that sustainable.

So what is the easy answer for us? Depend on a community of visitors who care passionately about media that amplifies the voices of people struggling for change and justice. It really is that simple. When the people who visit rabble care enough to contribute a bit then it works for everyone.

And so we’re asking you if you could make a donation, right now, to help us carry forward on our mission. Make a donation today.


We welcome your comments! embraces a pro-human rights, pro-feminist, anti-racist, queer-positive, anti-imperialist and pro-labour stance, and encourages discussions which develop progressive thought. Our full comment policy can be found here. Learn more about Disqus on and your privacy here. Please keep in mind:


  • Tell the truth and avoid rumours.
  • Add context and background.
  • Report typos and logical fallacies.
  • Be respectful.
  • Respect copyright - link to articles.
  • Stay focused. Bring in-depth commentary to our discussion forum, babble.


  • Use oppressive/offensive language.
  • Libel or defame.
  • Bully or troll.
  • Post spam.
  • Engage trolls. Flag suspect activity instead.