Over the past four years I have developed my own definition of “our most vulnerable”. As people were accosted on the streets walking a block to their local grocer, their experiences were often discounted as “concerns”. As I read letters from people who had been accosted or hurt at Council meetings, I did not feel empathy at the table. What has happened to so many people has been rationalised as a side issue of the “vulnerable” being homeless or addicted.
My personal definition of our most vulnerable has been “Our most vulnerable are our very young and frail elderly, and those who due to mental or physical limitations – whether housed or unhoused – are not able to defend themselves from physical assault.”
On the weekend as I worked on this theme for a March newsletter, I came across an article written by Steve Orcherton, in the March edition of the James Bay Beacon. His thoughts on our collective responsibility and how it has gone adrift parallel mine, and perhaps yours. I sought Steve’s permission to distribute it and post it on my website. He graciously consented.
“Thoughts on Current Affairs”. By Steve Orcherton
James Bay Beacon Opinion Piece March 2024
What on earth has become of our collective responsibility when it comes to decision making and caring for those less fortunate.
Locally, Victoria’s misplaced priorities, a council in lock step with the province dreaming of a utopian society of bike lanes, parks, fountains and “no car” plazas in James Bay, blinded to the fact that their policies serve minority opinions and individual rights at the expense of the broader community have delivered societal dystopia to our streets.
It’s time for us to challenge this utopian notion that we live in a kinder, more caring society and question what exactly “individual rights” mean within the context of a civil society.
As society we have collectively agreed that individuals who are less fortunate, the poor, the ill, the disabled, children, the elderly and the disenfranchised require and deserve our compassion, care, and support.
Every individual in our society has rights, however, when an individual is not able or capable to exercise those rights within the bounds of agreed to societal responsibilities, norms, rules, and laws, placing themselves or others at risk, then Government has a responsibility on behalf of society to act on behalf of that individual.
There are glaring inequities and disparities in the application of the support/laws provided by government, resulting in the abrogation of Government’s role in maintenance of our civil society and an undermining of the rule of law.
Children, after individual assessment, which our society finds at risk mentally or physically are taken into care/custody upon recommendation by social workers, health professionals and law enforcement. Often, removed from their families, and communities, placed in care and provided with Government support and oversite and all without individual consent.
Seniors, at risk with diminished mental and or physical capacity, after individual assessment, are regularly taken into care/custody and placed in long term care facilities after consultation with family members, health care professionals and social workers. Again, without individual consent.
With Children and Seniors, after individual assessment, the government takes these steps in an effort to ensure compassion, care, and support for individuals without individual consent from the child, or the senior. We/society have agreed collectively that Government has a responsibility to act on behalf of an individual who is not capable or able to exercise their rights and act for themselves.
Seniors and children are taken into care/custody. Why do we refuse to take persons who are a danger and are at risk to themselves and society, who are mentally ill, drug addicted, or engaged in criminal activity into care/custody? Why are we not affording the same care and compassion to these citizens as our seniors and children receive?
Governments, influenced by human rights activists and civil libertarians, say we can’t, it would infringe on individual rights to act without their consent. Rubbish!
What a contradiction-Somehow, we can take seniors and children into care/custody, but not those mentally ill, drug addicted, cognitively impaired and those involved in criminal behaviors. Where on earth is compassion, care, and support for these individuals?
Instead, the government succumbs to vocal minorities and chooses to push more funding to nonprofits, fund unsupported ghetto housing, increase drug permissiveness and safe injection programs to “support?” these individuals who are not capable or able to adhere to the agreed values and norms of society. And – we continue to allow these citizens to struggle day to day in dystopia.
This is not support, this is enabling and an abrogation of responsibility – this is Shameful.
We have drug addiction and drug overdose deaths increasing, criminal behaviors increasing, homelessness increasing, and the rule of law being undermined, our neighborhoods are breaking down and anarchy is raising its ugly head. And no solutions- just more funding for more programs that don’t achieve positive results.
Where is the kinder, more caring society that we aspire to, where is the compassion for these disenfranchised people? Have our leaders have failed to understand that in a democratic society, we all have rights, but when those rights threaten the collective rights of society the overall wellbeing of society must prevail?
It’s time that our at-risk members of society are taken into care/custody, individually assessed and provided with necessary individual support.
Individuals may require mental health services, drug addiction counseling and rehab, housing, and employment training. They may require long term care, or they may need to be incarcerated. But there is one certainty– they do need our help.
The SHAME here is ours not theirs.