Quote:
Originally Posted by optimusREIM
I think it stems from misplaced or misunderstood empathy or compassion. We’ve been inculcated to believe that it is compassionate to not want to disturb people who are doing all of the above mentioned things, but alas it is not. It is not compassionate to allow people to rot on the streets, spending their days tormented by addiction and often serious mental illnesses. It is also not compassionate to not enforce criminal law. Our empathy would have us not do stuff like involuntarily commit people into psychiatric hospitals or arrest people for crimes, but this empathy is a road directly to hell for both us and the people who continue to live in those unacceptable conditions. But that’s only one half of the equation, we also need social standards and cultural norms that deter and motivate people who end up in those situations who are not by nature addicts and mentally ill.
People say it’s not simple. I would counter and say that the solutions are simple concepts, however they are infinitely complex in implementation and rely heavily on people adopting ethics and morality that permit for the cultural and political changes to be made that will allow this problem to be resolved.
Would love to see waterfront extended though, and the architecture on main is criminally under used and appreciated.
|
This is a good point. As much as people like to oversimplify solving homelessness to suit their political agenda (they just need housing/they just need money/they just need to go to jail) there are working models that have basically ended homelessness and they aren't that complicated. Yes, they need housing, yes they need money, and yes they may need to go to jail (or into mental healthcare).
Somehow, depending who you ask, at least one of the above unleashes an unspeakable evil. Handouts! Nanny state! Arbitrary arrest! Other handouts! You'd think Amsterdam and Helsinki were populated strictly by layabouts and jackboot thugs.
Canada has a problem with involuntary mental health holds. If you've ever tried to get one for someone you care about who is in crisis, you'll know this.
Yet there's a general squeamishness about them. This is good; we shouldn't like taking peoples' freedom. But we should admit that they're a tool we need, even as we defend ourselves against potential abuse with that tool.
I bring this up because it's probably the biggest hurdle to clear in actually doing something about homelessness.
I don't think conservatives will ever do anything; they're too cheap and moralistic and only bothered by homelessness when it directly affects them. Moving the homeless somewhere else is enough to satisfy them.
Which leaves it to the left. And if they ever get it together enough to launch a housing first initiative, they'll still need to get over their aversion to force. This includes involuntary mental health holds, but extends to policing people who abuse public spaces and even banning rough sleeping entirely.
I wonder if part of the problem is how Canadians relate to public spaces. The people in the Waterfront Drive encampment could go out to crown land and do whatever they want. And if there, the reasoning goes, why not here? Homeless people are members of the public. Are they not also entitled to use public parks?
Canada may be unique in how public and private land relate. Public land is almost limitless. Private land has hard limits; there's no right to roam as such. And most people don't miss it; they can live their entire lives on their own land alone. Public land is abundant, far away, and utterly unnecessary. To the Dutch, where public spaces are valuable parts of day-to-day life, the idea that anyone should have the right to exclude others from using these space is absurd, whether they do so in a tent or a mcmansion.
Prev
Linear Mode
