Homeless in Abbotsford, BC
I DO NOT, HAVE NOT, WOULD NOT ever suggest throwing money at a problem. I am a REALIST, believing in examining a problem to understand what the situation IS. I am not an Ideologue who, wearing the blinders of ideology, looks at a situation and sees what they want to see, not what really is. There is NO perfect solution. A system dealing with people demands flexibility and denies neat, easy answers. Rigidly applying Ideology guarantees failure. How I came to homelessness: click Backstory below.
A Tale of Two Addicts
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
The opening lines of Dickens “A tale of two cities” came to mind the other day, following encounters I had with two members of the homeless community I have known for several years. After years of addiction both men had found the desire and strength to go into treatment.
The first gentleman was fresh out of treatment, looking fat and sassy, full of life, humour and joy. Bright-eyed and full of plans he spoke of going to UCFV.
The second gentleman had also been full of life and plans when he was fresh out of treatment several months ago. This day found him looking thin and tired, slipping back into addiction.
The true tragedy here is not the second gentleman losing his way and his life to addiction once again, the true tragedy is this is “business as usual”.
People struggle to find the will and strength to get into treatment to get clean and sober. In treatment they are provided shelter and plenty of food, programs and support in dealing with their need, their addiction.
One to three months later they are released to homelessness. Just reaching the point where they are capable of getting solidly on the road to recovery they are abandoned. We forsake them, failing to provide the programs and support to continue on the journey of recovery.
Three months later and they are again losing their lives to addiction again. This is the cycle for all but a miniscule percentage of those dumped back onto the streets from treatment. A painful, wasteful cycle that we choose to allow to happen; I say choose because we know what needs to be done to be far more successful.
Personal experience has taught me how much time, hard work, and sheer strength it takes to get and stay on the path to recovery and mental health. I have experienced how important having the appropriate, the needed resources and support is to recovery
With the advantage of hindsight I can see how lucky I was, not only to find the programs (VOICE, WRAP etc.) and support I needed, but once having found what was needed there were resources available so that I could receive support essential to my continued recovery.
I see, unacceptably often, what happens to people who do not find what they need or worse - find what they need but there is no space, no resources, to meet their needs.
Those who find the programs, the resources, the support, prosper. Those who don’t find a way to fill these needs end up in the misery of homelessness and often addiction.
This is also the reality for those struggling with addiction. Not really surprising given that at least 50% are estimated to suffer from the concurrent disorders of mental illness and addiction.
One or even three months does not “treat” or “cure” addiction, even if we label facilities and programs as “treatment”.
Recovery is a continual journey of learning, self knowledge, personal growth and change. During the first year(s) of this journey one needs programs and resources to guide and promote this learning and growth, with support not only through the rough patches, but from day to day.
We can keep doing what we have been doing, hoping for a different outcome. Which as anyone familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous can tell you is the definition of insanity.
Or we can change our behaviour, put in place the programs, resources and support that research, current knowledge and experience tell us is needed to reclaim lives from the scourge of addiction.
We can continue to waste millions, hundreds of millions, of dollars to achieve little success. Or we can choose to spend our money wisely, saving hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, and starting to reclaim lives by intelligently addressing the affliction and torment that is addiction.
Lao Tsa in his “ART OF War” writes: “Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don't resist them - that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.”
Reality is that recovery from addiction is, like recovery from mental illness, a demanding and arduous years long journey, not a quick easy fix.
To deny this reality, to resist the changes needed only creates more sorrow. Let reality be reality and provide the resources we know are needed for people to flow forward into recovery.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
The opening lines of Dickens “A tale of two cities” came to mind the other day, following encounters I had with two members of the homeless community I have known for several years. After years of addiction both men had found the desire and strength to go into treatment.
The first gentleman was fresh out of treatment, looking fat and sassy, full of life, humour and joy. Bright-eyed and full of plans he spoke of going to UCFV.
The second gentleman had also been full of life and plans when he was fresh out of treatment several months ago. This day found him looking thin and tired, slipping back into addiction.
The true tragedy here is not the second gentleman losing his way and his life to addiction once again, the true tragedy is this is “business as usual”.
People struggle to find the will and strength to get into treatment to get clean and sober. In treatment they are provided shelter and plenty of food, programs and support in dealing with their need, their addiction.
One to three months later they are released to homelessness. Just reaching the point where they are capable of getting solidly on the road to recovery they are abandoned. We forsake them, failing to provide the programs and support to continue on the journey of recovery.
Three months later and they are again losing their lives to addiction again. This is the cycle for all but a miniscule percentage of those dumped back onto the streets from treatment. A painful, wasteful cycle that we choose to allow to happen; I say choose because we know what needs to be done to be far more successful.
Personal experience has taught me how much time, hard work, and sheer strength it takes to get and stay on the path to recovery and mental health. I have experienced how important having the appropriate, the needed resources and support is to recovery
With the advantage of hindsight I can see how lucky I was, not only to find the programs (VOICE, WRAP etc.) and support I needed, but once having found what was needed there were resources available so that I could receive support essential to my continued recovery.
I see, unacceptably often, what happens to people who do not find what they need or worse - find what they need but there is no space, no resources, to meet their needs.
Those who find the programs, the resources, the support, prosper. Those who don’t find a way to fill these needs end up in the misery of homelessness and often addiction.
This is also the reality for those struggling with addiction. Not really surprising given that at least 50% are estimated to suffer from the concurrent disorders of mental illness and addiction.
One or even three months does not “treat” or “cure” addiction, even if we label facilities and programs as “treatment”.
Recovery is a continual journey of learning, self knowledge, personal growth and change. During the first year(s) of this journey one needs programs and resources to guide and promote this learning and growth, with support not only through the rough patches, but from day to day.
We can keep doing what we have been doing, hoping for a different outcome. Which as anyone familiar with Alcoholics Anonymous can tell you is the definition of insanity.
Or we can change our behaviour, put in place the programs, resources and support that research, current knowledge and experience tell us is needed to reclaim lives from the scourge of addiction.
We can continue to waste millions, hundreds of millions, of dollars to achieve little success. Or we can choose to spend our money wisely, saving hundreds of millions, even billions of dollars, and starting to reclaim lives by intelligently addressing the affliction and torment that is addiction.
Lao Tsa in his “ART OF War” writes: “Life is a series of natural and spontaneous changes. Don't resist them - that only creates sorrow. Let reality be reality. Let things flow naturally forward in whatever way they like.”
Reality is that recovery from addiction is, like recovery from mental illness, a demanding and arduous years long journey, not a quick easy fix.
To deny this reality, to resist the changes needed only creates more sorrow. Let reality be reality and provide the resources we know are needed for people to flow forward into recovery.
The Blanding
Mr. Bateman’s column of April 18, 2008 on the notoriety of the Post gave me a chuckle, but also stirred a few thoughts on the state of newspapers in Abbotsford.
It is interesting that the behaviour of the Post in covering local issues has resulted in it covering both ends of the notorious definition spectrum. Notorious: adj. known widely and usually unfavourably.
It is hardly surprising that local politicians view the Post unfavourably, having become use to the friendly treatment of the chain owned local papers, Can-west Global’s The Times and the Black Press’s Pravda.
Should the staff of the Post need to seek solace concerning the politicians unfavourable view, they can take heart from being widely known among the public as the only local source one can count on for news, commentary, letters and opinion that questions the actions of local politicians and calls them to account for the outcomes and consequences of their actions.
This brings up an important, and perhaps somewhat misleading, point that Mr. Bateman raised.
“The press holds politicians accountable on behalf of the public.”
This is a nice theory and would be in keeping with the stated journalistic principle: “The public's right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests” (from the Associated Press Managing Editors: Ethics code) - if it was the state of affairs vis-à-vis our local papers.
I grew up reading my home town local newspaper and was fortunate to have an opportunity from time to time ask questions of the owner/publisher/editor, a friend of my father. The paper was a part of the community, involved in what was happening in town and acting as the citizen’s eyes and ears.
Over the years since that time the nature of the press has changed; with local papers being bought up by chains and so answering to corporate headquarters in another city. The landscape for newspapers today is a minefield of challenges from the internet and other technological changes.
On the cost side local papers deliver the news via the most expensive option - delivery to every home in the area.
On the revenue side, technological change has seen competition from the internet and other new media tearing large chunks out of traditional print media’s classified advertising revenue. This has left local papers with a revenue stream that is not simply declining, but is falling at an incredible rate.
Papers have tried to protect what revenue they can by being innocuous and thereby not offending any advertisers. In light of this revenue crunch the boosterism, acceptance of statements made as though they were fact and not asking any obvious but uncomfortable questions, is hardly surprising since the only advertising contracts of any consequence in Abbotsford are those of the City and the School District.
That readership is also in serious decline should surprise nobody, since these type of editorial choices lead to blandness.
Editorial policy and story choices lie in the hands of the owners and what they print is entirely their right to choose. Just as readers have the right to choose not to read the dreary, dull result of these editorial choices.
It is just unfortunate for the local communities that, at a time they are faced with serious challenges to their very survival, local papers are in the hands of management that has never had to actually “sell” a newspaper.
Newspapers are a product and if you want to sell a product in an increasingly competitive market it has to be a product people want.
Blandness or trying to be inoffensive, the paper everyone loves, may be fine for the bottom line were the contents of the paper need only serve as filler around the ads; where the paper itself serves mainly as a wrap for flyers to be delivered in.
Blandness will not cut it in the long haul, perhaps not even in the short haul, in a competitive, changing and challenging marketplace where the need is not to be “loved” but to be read, to be the paper everyone chooses and wants to read.
Newspapers need to be an important and integral part of the community, a must read, in order to reverse the loss of readership, regain advertising revenue and make viable the possibility of subscription revenue.
People subscribed and paid for the hometown newspaper of my youth reading every issue front to back because it was full of interesting news, commentary and opinion. It contained all the juicy tidbits and nitty-gritty because that was the editorial policy the old Georgetown Herald pursued. And while it occasionally lost advertising over something it printed, it gained and held the bulk of its advertising because it was a must read.
Even without factoring in the consequences of management that seems intent on continuing current practices into oblivion, I would argue that the community is poorer, in fact ill served, by this Blanding. Particularly true in an election year such as this is. Democracy is based on the public making informed choices; being served up boosterism and bland pabulum does not help in making informed decisions.
Questioning Plan A thoroughly, having the head of the ratepayers association, the thoughts of a retired councillor and Mr. Bateman on its pages is the path to becoming the paper of choice, the must read – the paper people actually look for, going out of their way to find a copy to read.
I would call that a solid business plan, lacking perhaps only the writings of a columnist with a … shall we say somewhat unique world view.
I would advance the argument that it is not only debate that is better for having The Post on the scene. Democracy and the ability of the citizens to participate and make informed decisions is better served with the Post and its independent counterpoint on the scene.
Mr. Bateman’s column of April 18, 2008 on the notoriety of the Post gave me a chuckle, but also stirred a few thoughts on the state of newspapers in Abbotsford.
It is interesting that the behaviour of the Post in covering local issues has resulted in it covering both ends of the notorious definition spectrum. Notorious: adj. known widely and usually unfavourably.
It is hardly surprising that local politicians view the Post unfavourably, having become use to the friendly treatment of the chain owned local papers, Can-west Global’s The Times and the Black Press’s Pravda.
Should the staff of the Post need to seek solace concerning the politicians unfavourable view, they can take heart from being widely known among the public as the only local source one can count on for news, commentary, letters and opinion that questions the actions of local politicians and calls them to account for the outcomes and consequences of their actions.
This brings up an important, and perhaps somewhat misleading, point that Mr. Bateman raised.
“The press holds politicians accountable on behalf of the public.”
This is a nice theory and would be in keeping with the stated journalistic principle: “The public's right to know about matters of importance is paramount. The newspaper has a special responsibility as surrogate of its readers to be a vigilant watchdog of their legitimate public interests” (from the Associated Press Managing Editors: Ethics code) - if it was the state of affairs vis-à-vis our local papers.
I grew up reading my home town local newspaper and was fortunate to have an opportunity from time to time ask questions of the owner/publisher/editor, a friend of my father. The paper was a part of the community, involved in what was happening in town and acting as the citizen’s eyes and ears.
Over the years since that time the nature of the press has changed; with local papers being bought up by chains and so answering to corporate headquarters in another city. The landscape for newspapers today is a minefield of challenges from the internet and other technological changes.
On the cost side local papers deliver the news via the most expensive option - delivery to every home in the area.
On the revenue side, technological change has seen competition from the internet and other new media tearing large chunks out of traditional print media’s classified advertising revenue. This has left local papers with a revenue stream that is not simply declining, but is falling at an incredible rate.
Papers have tried to protect what revenue they can by being innocuous and thereby not offending any advertisers. In light of this revenue crunch the boosterism, acceptance of statements made as though they were fact and not asking any obvious but uncomfortable questions, is hardly surprising since the only advertising contracts of any consequence in Abbotsford are those of the City and the School District.
That readership is also in serious decline should surprise nobody, since these type of editorial choices lead to blandness.
Editorial policy and story choices lie in the hands of the owners and what they print is entirely their right to choose. Just as readers have the right to choose not to read the dreary, dull result of these editorial choices.
It is just unfortunate for the local communities that, at a time they are faced with serious challenges to their very survival, local papers are in the hands of management that has never had to actually “sell” a newspaper.
Newspapers are a product and if you want to sell a product in an increasingly competitive market it has to be a product people want.
Blandness or trying to be inoffensive, the paper everyone loves, may be fine for the bottom line were the contents of the paper need only serve as filler around the ads; where the paper itself serves mainly as a wrap for flyers to be delivered in.
Blandness will not cut it in the long haul, perhaps not even in the short haul, in a competitive, changing and challenging marketplace where the need is not to be “loved” but to be read, to be the paper everyone chooses and wants to read.
Newspapers need to be an important and integral part of the community, a must read, in order to reverse the loss of readership, regain advertising revenue and make viable the possibility of subscription revenue.
People subscribed and paid for the hometown newspaper of my youth reading every issue front to back because it was full of interesting news, commentary and opinion. It contained all the juicy tidbits and nitty-gritty because that was the editorial policy the old Georgetown Herald pursued. And while it occasionally lost advertising over something it printed, it gained and held the bulk of its advertising because it was a must read.
Even without factoring in the consequences of management that seems intent on continuing current practices into oblivion, I would argue that the community is poorer, in fact ill served, by this Blanding. Particularly true in an election year such as this is. Democracy is based on the public making informed choices; being served up boosterism and bland pabulum does not help in making informed decisions.
Questioning Plan A thoroughly, having the head of the ratepayers association, the thoughts of a retired councillor and Mr. Bateman on its pages is the path to becoming the paper of choice, the must read – the paper people actually look for, going out of their way to find a copy to read.
I would call that a solid business plan, lacking perhaps only the writings of a columnist with a … shall we say somewhat unique world view.
I would advance the argument that it is not only debate that is better for having The Post on the scene. Democracy and the ability of the citizens to participate and make informed decisions is better served with the Post and its independent counterpoint on the scene.
The Gate - an elaboration
I was asked for an elaboration on what I found disturbing about the gate installed to keep the homeless from sleeping in the sheltered door alcove at the Abbotsford District Teachers Building (see A Dark disturbance in the force below).
Why do I believe this is only for anti-homeless purposes? There is another door at the opposite end of the building; one door is flush with the wall of the building, the other door recessed in a well sheltered alcove. The sheltered, alcove doorway was gated, while the unsheltered doorway was left unsecured.
Exclusion. Undesirable. Unworthy. Hopelessness.
Theses are some of the major messages that this gate sends to the Homeless. How would I know that? Partially experience at being on the outside of that type of gate; mainly that I took the time to ask them how they felt about the appearance of the gate.
They know that the gate is there to keep them out, as if they are undesirable vermin or life forms, in continuation of the deliberate efforts undertaken to drive them out of the downtown area over the past several years– as if there was someplace else for them to go.
Fence them out as they are not worthy of shelter, aid or caring. Negativity, cascading negative thinking that leads down into hopelessness. This is very destructive thinking - leading to a bleakness of outlook, self image and thought that is escaped through mind altering substances.
Wonderful - more barriers to reclaiming lives.
Paying to install the gate is more of the same old irrational behaviour that government and society engages in on so many issues, not just homelessness.
We will spend money to build structures to keep the homeless out of shelter, but not structures to give them shelter. It is easier to raise money, to get a superstar singer to help raise money, to shelter cute puppies and kittens than it is to raise funds to shelter the homeless.
We will take the easy way out, build a fence, rather than undertake the harder task of helping the homeless into recovery and reclaiming their lives. We would apparently rather continue spending an average of $55,000 per homeless person in fencing them out and leaving them on the streets; rather than undertaking the complex changes and efforts that would deliver the needed services in a targeted manner at a cost of $37,000 per person.
People seemingly prefer to pay the extra $18,000 per person in order to avoid facing the reality of addiction and what needs to be done; of having to change attitudes and see what is as opposed to what they want to believe; to suspend judgement and simply do what experience has demonstrated works.
The gate is about excluding, denial of reality, avoiding and hiding out of sight; about continuing wasteful, costly and irrational behaviours.
The rational, the smart response is not to build a gate but to get the homeless into recovery, reducing the numbers of homeless and removing the need for gates.
I was asked for an elaboration on what I found disturbing about the gate installed to keep the homeless from sleeping in the sheltered door alcove at the Abbotsford District Teachers Building (see A Dark disturbance in the force below).
Why do I believe this is only for anti-homeless purposes? There is another door at the opposite end of the building; one door is flush with the wall of the building, the other door recessed in a well sheltered alcove. The sheltered, alcove doorway was gated, while the unsheltered doorway was left unsecured.
Exclusion. Undesirable. Unworthy. Hopelessness.
Theses are some of the major messages that this gate sends to the Homeless. How would I know that? Partially experience at being on the outside of that type of gate; mainly that I took the time to ask them how they felt about the appearance of the gate.
They know that the gate is there to keep them out, as if they are undesirable vermin or life forms, in continuation of the deliberate efforts undertaken to drive them out of the downtown area over the past several years– as if there was someplace else for them to go.
Fence them out as they are not worthy of shelter, aid or caring. Negativity, cascading negative thinking that leads down into hopelessness. This is very destructive thinking - leading to a bleakness of outlook, self image and thought that is escaped through mind altering substances.
Wonderful - more barriers to reclaiming lives.
Paying to install the gate is more of the same old irrational behaviour that government and society engages in on so many issues, not just homelessness.
We will spend money to build structures to keep the homeless out of shelter, but not structures to give them shelter. It is easier to raise money, to get a superstar singer to help raise money, to shelter cute puppies and kittens than it is to raise funds to shelter the homeless.
We will take the easy way out, build a fence, rather than undertake the harder task of helping the homeless into recovery and reclaiming their lives. We would apparently rather continue spending an average of $55,000 per homeless person in fencing them out and leaving them on the streets; rather than undertaking the complex changes and efforts that would deliver the needed services in a targeted manner at a cost of $37,000 per person.
People seemingly prefer to pay the extra $18,000 per person in order to avoid facing the reality of addiction and what needs to be done; of having to change attitudes and see what is as opposed to what they want to believe; to suspend judgement and simply do what experience has demonstrated works.
The gate is about excluding, denial of reality, avoiding and hiding out of sight; about continuing wasteful, costly and irrational behaviours.
The rational, the smart response is not to build a gate but to get the homeless into recovery, reducing the numbers of homeless and removing the need for gates.
Dark disturbance in the Force
A dark disturbance in the Force; that may be as close as I can come to putting my feelings upon
seeing the addition of the locked gate to the doorway alcove at the Abbotsford District Teachers Association building.
The way the building was built had resulted in a sheltered alcove protecting the door that leads into the teamster’s area of the building. Over the years it has served as home to several of the homeless I know, being handed on from occupant to occupant because it was a prime location if you are homeless.
With the Paliotti’s just across the road the evenings often brought the generous gift of a good meal from patrons of the restaurant, sometimes even cigarettes or cash.
The alcove provided superior shelter from wind and the elements. Still the best point of this location was that, because the police had not received a complaint from the owners, homeless tenants could sleep through the night without being disturbed – removing themselves when the building opened.
Knowing the history and the people who had used this alcove over the course of several years, the appearance of a locked gate whose only purpose was to deny access to any homeless seeking shelter from the elements was very disturbing; a dark disturbance in the Force.
Yes the owners have the legal right to put up the gate, as the East German government claimed a legal right to build the Berlin Wall. Yet in that action, and in the context of the history of the alcove and homelessness, there lies a deep symbolism whose message is of a bleak exclusion and uncaring.
Provincial politicians speak of their plans and of “knowing” what is happening, while on the streets more people find themselves seeking food and shelter. Our local politicians form committees and say all the right things – but have not provided a single shelter space for any homeless person, nor a single meal for the hungry. The community pats itself on the back for being so generous and boasts of the number of places of worship, while hunger and need grow.
The letter pages of the local are full of letters from local Christians complaining about magazines at checkout stands, about Darwin, about the lack of moral behaviour, about…, about…, about… … but about the need to follow the example of Christ and love thy neighbour, minister to and help the homeless or the hungry?
I look at that gate and wonder if, as happens at other places of loss and accident, I should leave flowers to mark this diminishing.
The dark forbidding clang of that gate as it closes resounds through our community, province and across Canada.
Is it the sound of the alarm calling us to arms and action against poverty; or is it a Bell tolling out a lament for our souls?
Stop, look at the gate, light a candle and meditate on what kind of world you want to create.
A dark disturbance in the Force; that may be as close as I can come to putting my feelings upon
seeing the addition of the locked gate to the doorway alcove at the Abbotsford District Teachers Association building. The way the building was built had resulted in a sheltered alcove protecting the door that leads into the teamster’s area of the building. Over the years it has served as home to several of the homeless I know, being handed on from occupant to occupant because it was a prime location if you are homeless.
With the Paliotti’s just across the road the evenings often brought the generous gift of a good meal from patrons of the restaurant, sometimes even cigarettes or cash.
The alcove provided superior shelter from wind and the elements. Still the best point of this location was that, because the police had not received a complaint from the owners, homeless tenants could sleep through the night without being disturbed – removing themselves when the building opened.
Knowing the history and the people who had used this alcove over the course of several years, the appearance of a locked gate whose only purpose was to deny access to any homeless seeking shelter from the elements was very disturbing; a dark disturbance in the Force.
Yes the owners have the legal right to put up the gate, as the East German government claimed a legal right to build the Berlin Wall. Yet in that action, and in the context of the history of the alcove and homelessness, there lies a deep symbolism whose message is of a bleak exclusion and uncaring.
Provincial politicians speak of their plans and of “knowing” what is happening, while on the streets more people find themselves seeking food and shelter. Our local politicians form committees and say all the right things – but have not provided a single shelter space for any homeless person, nor a single meal for the hungry. The community pats itself on the back for being so generous and boasts of the number of places of worship, while hunger and need grow.
The letter pages of the local are full of letters from local Christians complaining about magazines at checkout stands, about Darwin, about the lack of moral behaviour, about…, about…, about… … but about the need to follow the example of Christ and love thy neighbour, minister to and help the homeless or the hungry?
I look at that gate and wonder if, as happens at other places of loss and accident, I should leave flowers to mark this diminishing.
The dark forbidding clang of that gate as it closes resounds through our community, province and across Canada.
Is it the sound of the alarm calling us to arms and action against poverty; or is it a Bell tolling out a lament for our souls?
Stop, look at the gate, light a candle and meditate on what kind of world you want to create.
Callousness, irrationality or amorality?
I was pondering the fact both the provincial and federal governments are pursuing policies that de-house people, forcing them into homelessness; and the fact that both levels of governments continue to choose not to engage in policies to re-house people. Leaving me to mull over why both levels of governments seemingly aspire to increase the numbers of homeless, as opposed to decrease the number of homeless on the streets.
The only rational explanation would appear to be that these are anti-terrorism driven policy choices. Drive enough Canadian citizens into life on the streets; make it difficult, if not impossible, to get back onto their feet and into housing; force them to live under bridges, in, around and under other pieces of infrastructure; you have in place a solid first line of defence against any terrorists targeting our nations infrastructure. While perhaps effective, this entails a callous disregard for, and devaluing of, the people being (ab)used.
Alternatively, we are dealing with government behaviour, thus there is a high probability that these are simply your average run of the mill, day-to-day irrational government behaviours.
Of course, given their ideology, there is the distinct possibility that the BC Liberal Party and the Canadian Conservative Party just lack the ethical and spiritual values that would make the levels of homelessness and poverty unacceptable; values that would necessitate pursuing policies to reduce homelessness and poverty.
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Harper: is it cold -blooded anti-terrorism, irrational behaviour or a lack of ethical and spiritual values?
I was pondering the fact both the provincial and federal governments are pursuing policies that de-house people, forcing them into homelessness; and the fact that both levels of governments continue to choose not to engage in policies to re-house people. Leaving me to mull over why both levels of governments seemingly aspire to increase the numbers of homeless, as opposed to decrease the number of homeless on the streets.
The only rational explanation would appear to be that these are anti-terrorism driven policy choices. Drive enough Canadian citizens into life on the streets; make it difficult, if not impossible, to get back onto their feet and into housing; force them to live under bridges, in, around and under other pieces of infrastructure; you have in place a solid first line of defence against any terrorists targeting our nations infrastructure. While perhaps effective, this entails a callous disregard for, and devaluing of, the people being (ab)used.
Alternatively, we are dealing with government behaviour, thus there is a high probability that these are simply your average run of the mill, day-to-day irrational government behaviours.
Of course, given their ideology, there is the distinct possibility that the BC Liberal Party and the Canadian Conservative Party just lack the ethical and spiritual values that would make the levels of homelessness and poverty unacceptable; values that would necessitate pursuing policies to reduce homelessness and poverty.
Mr. Campbell, Mr. Harper: is it cold -blooded anti-terrorism, irrational behaviour or a lack of ethical and spiritual values?
My Linked Homeless Pages
Alternative Perspectives Views & News
Information & Reference
Lastest Posts
- Think. Think. Think. There are good reasons that ...
- Rules? What Rules? I was at a meeting focusing on...
- Budget Realities Establish Shelter Realities. I wa...
- Canadian Society Metaphorically Speaking
- From the 'We're Doomed File' Given that the defini...
- The Bare Facts December 15, 2011
- P3 - What's really going on? Participating in th...
- P3 - What's really going on?
- I draw your attention to how careful George Pear...
- Concerned about Council's P3 NOT Citizen's Pocketb...
Archives
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- June 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
- September 2008
- October 2008
- November 2008
- December 2008
- January 2009
- February 2009
- March 2009
- April 2009
- May 2009
- June 2009
- July 2009
- August 2009
- September 2009
- October 2009
- November 2009
- December 2009
- January 2010
- February 2010
- March 2010
- April 2010
- May 2010
- June 2010
- July 2010
- August 2010
- September 2010
- October 2010
- November 2010
- December 2010
- January 2011
- February 2011
- March 2011
- April 2011
- May 2011
- June 2011
- July 2011
- August 2011
- September 2011
- October 2011
- November 2011
- December 2011
- January 2012
- February 2012
ATOM 0.3