 |
| |
|
|
Asher
|
 |
Calgary, Alberta
Nov 1999
time: 22:35
|
|
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/dec2001/can-d22.shtml
quote:
Canada: Alberta Premier berates homeless in visit to shelter
By Lee Parsons
22 December 2001
Ralph Klein, the premier of Alberta and darling of Canada’s right, made a disgusting display of his contempt for the poor in a drunken, midnight visit to a homeless shelter in Edmonton last week.
At around 1am December 12, a visibly intoxicated Klein had his chauffeur drive him to the Herb Jamieson Centre, a government-supported shelter for homeless men. Witnesses say that soon after entering the 249-bed Centre, Klein began shouting and swearing at a number of the homeless. Slurring his words, the Tory premier yelled repeatedly at them to get jobs, then threw money on the lobby floor and stormed out.
Tammy Tuttle, a woman who happened to be at the shelter at the time with her boyfriend reported that Klein “put them down like they’re worthless. They do what they can to help themselves and maybe if he’d help them a little instead of cutting back on everything, they wouldn’t be here.”
Mark Shea, who recently moved to Alberta from Nova Scotia, told the Edmonton Journal, that he walked into the confrontation after finishing a work-shift at a gas station. “Lo and behold, there he [Klein] was in the middle of six or seven guys, yelling at them at the top of his lungs.”
“I don’t drink or do drugs and he’s telling me to get a job when I already have one. If I wouldn’t have gotten arrested, I would have slugged him.”
Initially, the premier’s office made a feeble attempt to gloss over the incident, offering its own implausible version of events. Klein’s chief of staff, Peter Elzinga, said the Premier was not drunk and “out of the goodness of his heart” had stopped at the shelter on his way home from a private dinner. Elzinga added that Klein had merely asked the men if they had jobs, then handed out some $70 to them.
Later Klein made a public apology for the “commotion” he caused at the shelter, but denied he had been drunk. He said his interest had been piqued by recent reports of a rise in the number of homeless in Edmonton. (Alberta’s capital has a vacancy rate of less than 1 percent and many of the homeless are people who have jobs, but cannot find accommodation.)
“The purpose of my visit,” claimed Klein, “was to chat with residents and find out what their situations are like. During my time in politics, I have periodically made such unscheduled visits because they give me the opportunity to chat privately and honestly with people from different walks of life.”
Klein’s bizarre and callous behaviour was at first treated by the media as little more than an embarrassment, and one that might even enhance the premier’s reputation as a straight shooter. This attitude is itself politically significant, for it reveals the extent to which the establishment now accepts homelessness as inevitable and views the abuse of the poor with indifference. “It’s hard not to have at least a sneaking admiration for Alberta Premier Ralph Klein,” began a Globe and Mail piece on Klein’s escapade. Opined another journalist in the country’s largest national daily, “When the dust settles... the now-infamous trip seems destined to become the stuff of political legend in the province rather than scorn.”
And what would have happened had the roles been reversed? Had a drunken homeless man invaded the premier’s home late at night and verbally abused Klein, he would in all likelihood have been set upon by police and at the very least now face home invasion charges.
With Klein making a public confession that he does indeed have a drinking problem at a press conference this past Tuesday, the media focus has again shifted. Any discussion of what happened at the shelter and what it says about Klein and the politics of his government has been dropped. Klein is now being praised for having the “courage to confront his demons.” Canada’s Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien and several provincial premiers have reportedly phoned Klein to voice their support. According to the Alberta Premier, Chretien told him to “keep your chin up, hang in there, and gave” him “words of encouragement.”
The truth is Klein’s verbal tirade against the clients of the Jamieson Centre was only a cruder rendition of the anti-working class politics his government delivers on a daily basis. Oil-rich Alberta is Canada’s wealthiest province, but the Klein Tory government has spearheaded the downsizing of public and social services across Canada, winning praise from the likes of the Wall Street Journal. Under Klein, Alberta became the first province to drastically cut welfare rates and embark on a systematic campaign to drive people off welfare. In a 16-month period in 1993-94, the province’s welfare rolls were cut almost in half. One tactic used was to offer recipients a one-way bus ticket to leave Alberta. During the course of the 1990s, the province’s housing budget was reduced by some two-thirds. Having made Alberta the first jurisdiction in North America to replace a progressive income tax with a flat tax, Klein is now pushing for the dismantling of Medicare, the universal public health insurance scheme.
Klein’s actions at the Jamieson shelter are a measure of the man. What the big business media has passed off as Klein’s popular touch is demagogy, anti-intellectualism, and an appeal to people’s baser instincts. What the media has characterized as his strong leadership is his craven adherence to the reactionary agenda of big business and penchant for bullying the poor and the vulnerable. |
Alberta has the right idea -- now to propagate this strategy outside of our borders. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MosesPresley
|
|
If I am not mistaken, the reason there are a great many mentally ill roaming the streets is because of the "deinstitutionalization" Ronald Reagan started in California durint the 70's. I seem to remember him doing something similarly nationally as president, but I have been unsuccessful in finding a link thus far.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
 |
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
I'm sympathetic to Oerdin's view as the only way to get rid of this kind of homelessness, but for me it comes down to the fact that the homeless have just as much right to the street as I do. Obviously, if somebody's doing the equivalent of pitching a tent, then that's another kettle of fish. Further, if there are legitimate public health issues, then that can override the right of the homeless. Also, aggressive panhandling is not OK.
But I've taken a nap in a park from time to time and to me there's no difference between me doing that and a homeless person sleeping in the park.
Please note that I am impacted by this every day, so it's not a hypothetical situation to me. DC is filled with parks. Every park near my apartment is filled with homeless people. It makes the neighborhood less pleasant, the city overrun with litter, the streets less safe, and my real estate much less valuable. Lastly, it takes a toll on the conscience. All of those one way bus tickets that Asher talks about are destination Washington, D.C.
The parks near the national mall that are run by the Park Service do not have homeless people there. They feel and are safe 24-7-365 despite poor lighting and despite being right in the middle of the city. I assume that homeless people are heavily discouraged from vagrancy there by the Park Police, but I don't know for sure.
Last edited by DanS on 08-06-2005 at 09:51
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DanS
|
|
Kickball Capital of the World
Jan 1970
time: 00:35
|
|
As I recall (hazily), che is right that the cuts happened at roughly the same time as the court decision. Obviously, if people are leaving your asylum, then your asylum will be shut down.
Last edited by DanS on 08-06-2005 at 09:55
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
Some of you are neglecting the fact that SANE people have the right to be homeless, if they wish to be.
How do you distinguish between people who are homeless and not mentally deficient?
On the BRIGHT SIDE the first person locked up who is fine, will no longer be homless after they get a few mil from the goverment in a wrongfull arest lawsuit(and media rights to their story!)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
I am unsure of that, our society tends to take care of the insane.... it is however unquestionable that sane people have the right to be homeless-we would undoutably end up throwing some of them away too.
NOT a good idea-this is one hell of a slippery social engineering slope.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vesayen
|
|
Ah, I was unsure how we treat them, actually.
The libretarian in me likes that but the concerned social activist wishes we could take care of the disenfranchised....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
Not all homeless people, long-term or short-term, are addicts.
|
Then I'll say it ..
Please keep up-- I specifically asked kid not to make the claim that oerdin is saying that " ALL homeless are anything" because as I said before there are many many types of homeless and oerdin ahs likewise said this
But addicts and people with marginal mental abilities do make a large portion of the homeless-- I don't think that can be disputed
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
I'm sympathetic to Oerdin's view as the only way to get rid of this kind of homelessness, but for me it comes down to the fact that the homeless have just as much right to the street as I do. Obviously, if somebody's doing the equivalent of pitching a tent, then that's another kettle of fish. Further, if there are legitimate public health issues, then that can override the right of the homeless. Also, aggressive panhandling is not OK.
|
I agree completely. same rights to the parks as everyone else.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Vesayen
Some of you are neglecting the fact that SANE people have the right to be homeless, if they wish to be.
How do you distinguish between people who are homeless and not mentally deficient?
|
very true. There are some very mentally competent people that are homeless due to addiction, illness or simply economic circumstances.
Thats why combatting homelessness has to look at all the causes. the economic ones are easiest in a sense since money ALONE can fix their problems if they are competent and employable.
The addicts and mentally ill are tougher since in neither case can anyone outside the person fix their problems for them. Considerig the mentally ill there are ranges from perople with severe delusions to those that are simply developmentally delayed. Some form of assisted living might be most appropriate for them, ranging from mentall hospitals to those who can get by pretty well with just a bit of mentoring. Addicts are tough sicne nothing works for as long as they are in the grips of a severe addiction
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by General Ludd
And you didn't answer why poorer addicts should be given a hard time where other's are not. It's alright for somone with a house to spend all his money on booze, but not for a street person to - why? |
I don't care where either spend their money if I'm not being asked to take care of them and they are law abiding. I treat them totally equally.
I don't care if the person taking a dump on the childrens playpark is a millionare or penniless, its not acceptable. I wouldn't hassle one more than another.
I only care that the homeless spends their money on booze if we are being asked to pony up more money for their care.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
shawnmmcc
|
|
Che largely has the history correct, the current situation with the homeless mentally ill was a hideous convergence of conservative, libetarian, and liberal thought. The libetarian ideal was the fact that is they dd not constitute a direct risk to others, they should have a right not to be institutionalized. The conservatives realized that mental institutions were hideously expensively, and happily took the tax savings. Liberals largely agreed with the libetarian ideal, except it had to do with the rights of the mentally ill (versus generic rights, same result, different rationale) and then said they would put the saved money into community support services.
What happened was that the money that had gone into the mental institutions got diverted into more convenient pet projects of the politiicans, and substantially less money was being spent. In addition, the criteria was rights versus competency, and many of the released individuals were never, and will never, be competent to manage their own lives. As I say about my little girl's godmother's moderately autistic brother - he is just competent enough to be homeless.
The cost of assisted living for the mentally ill and handicapped who are unable to manage their own lives is expensive. Many voters who don't want "those people" cluttering their sidewalks, urinating and defecating in public areas, walking around being strange, weird, or belligerant, are not willing to pay increased taxes to deal with these individuals.
There are code words to deal with the mentally ill, and make excuses to avoid the cost of comprehensive treatment. Some of the mentally ill are drug addicts, as they attempt to self-medicate (even though they could not explain it in those words), or are addicts because, for a variety of reasons, it is both much easier for them to fall into that trap, and much harder for them to get out of it. Then it's not "helping the mentally ill" but it becomes "handouts for addicts" ignoring the overlap in the populations.
Elimating waste and fraud will not free up sufficient funds to deal with these issues. A comprehensive plan akin to Oerdin's is what works, though my personal choice is that you use laws on public defecation and squatting versus homelessness and vagrancy (it takes longer but there is a more legitimate public interest IMHO). Giving them money, as both Oerdin and Flubber rightfully pont out, does not work. As I've mentioned, they are not competent to manage their own affairs, and routinely get victimized and the money pissed away, even when no substance abuse occurs.
Properly maintaining the mentally ill outside of institutions takes money and that means somebody has to pay. As in taxpayers. As in who was the last politician to get elected pushing for higher taxes to solve the homelessness problem in the US? For the most part, US voters are spoiled brats - they want to "deal with the problem" on the cheap, as long it is not "their" problem. As long as that ethos rules in the US, then this problem will remain (I cannot speak on the Canadian side of things, I don't know your personal right/budgetary history/political system well enough to discuss how those interact up there).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
Good post Shawnmmcc.
I don't know the history for the mentally ill but we do have a similar "rights" based approach where we seem to go out of our way to protect a person's right to be miserable and impoverished in situations where their competency is so marginal that any other result is improbable without significant supports.
Add to that the generally stronger social safety net and free healthcare means that our homeless should be better off than your homeless ( wow thats a weird statement to express). Unfortunately, many of the worst off do not avail themselves of healthcare nor collect their social assistence money
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by shawnmmcc
The cost of assisted living for the mentally ill and handicapped who are unable to manage their own lives is expensive. Many voters who don't want "those people" cluttering their sidewalks, urinating and defecating in public areas, walking around being strange, weird, or belligerant, are not willing to pay increased taxes to deal with these individuals.
|
There's the rub-- I'm living in a rich province with a large budget surplus and debt free in a country with an even larger surplus (although large debt) so taxes wouldn't have to increase to deal better with this issue. But I just don't think that anyone is pushing this as an agenda item and in a world where squeaky wheels get the grease, there doesn't seem to be anyone with major clout really concerned.
I do know that I would oppose more shelters here. Our recent experience here has shown that more and better shelters here just increases the number of homeless in the area. Plus it is just a stop-gap anyway.
But money for more assisted living situations can be money well spent IMHO. Personally I think government should see itself as having a duty to provide this option to the mentally ill. I believe that with some mentoring and support, there are a number of the developmentally delayed or mentally ill that could in time transition into more independent lifestyles.
Addictions I have a tougher time with. I know that many of those folks struggle with mental illness so i wrestle with how much is personal responsibility versus how much is a problem needing treatment. Definitely have available treatment and counselling. ... and perhaps giving addicts a ahrd time when they exhibit unacceptable behaviors is a good idea. If thhere are negative consequences for certain behaviors, even the most drug-addled person will start to catch on and try to find different behaviors
|
|
| |
|
|
|
chegitz guevara
|
 |
Ft. Lauderdale, FL Communist Party of Apolyton
Jun 2000
time: 00:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by DanS
As I recall (hazily), che is right that the cuts happened at roughly the same time as the court decision. Obviously, if people are leaving your asylum, then your asylum will be shut down. |
It went a bit beyond that. Before the cuts, it was possible for non-violent to have voluntary long term stays until (if) they were capable of taking care of themselves. After the cuts, at least in Illinois, 21 days became the max. That, of course, is not nearly enough time to deal with mental illness. This means that you have people rotating in and out of mental institutions and the street.
It would have been nice if the funding had stayed the same, so that a higher quality of care could have been offered to those who wanted to get help. Better funding and oversight would have reduced a lot of the abuse of the mentally ill, I think. Even today, these places are chronically understaffed, and generally some of the worst sorts of people work with the mentally ill (along with some of the most saintly people I've ever met).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:35
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
But it decreases the amount of homeless in other areas. |
Exactly-- how exactly does moving the problem from one place to another help anybody ??
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:35.
Apolyton Time is 00:35. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-06-2005 09:13
|