LET'S TRY TO GIVE THE BEST HELP POSSIBLE

Over the past few weeks the director of the Downtown BIZ and the
justice minister have taken some shots for their separate strategies
for dealing with panhandling, graffiti, anti-social behaviour and
public intoxication.

Some people are upset that there will be special constables dealing
with public intoxication and a special prosecutor to focus on all the
above issues.

From what I've heard to this point, however, I think Stefano and Gord
are on the right track. And I'm ticked off that some of the usual
suspects are already attacking the best intentions of the BIZ, the
Downtown Watch, the police and the minister of justice.

There are socialist ideologues who automatically oppose anything which
may benefit the private sector or for-profit business. Others are
philosophically predisposed against any enforcement or intervention on
issues relating to personal addictions or individual freedoms.

So it's not surprising when some of the usual suspects rail against
any initiative of the business community.

But in this case, it's not the business community that is heartless
and cold in pursuit of their profits.

The heartless folk in this scenario are those who -- on ideological
grounds -- argue against providing real assistance to street people,
panhandlers and the publicly intoxicated.

They are obsessed with the panhandlers' right of free speech. "They
have the right to request assistance and even cash from others."

This is not the first time those who obsess about rights have
neglected the balancing notion of responsibility.

I've got a few comments for some of these "activists."

It's nice to feel that you've helped someone by defending their
"right" to beg. It's nice to pat yourself on the back for being so
non-judgmental and charitable that you'll give someone spare change no
matter what they're doing with it.

But before you indulge in too much self-congratulation, it may be wise
to consider a few relevant questions.

Is it better to indulge someone's despair than to press for their
healing?

Is it good to frustrate your tax dollars with your spare
change?

Countless tax dollars are spent dealing with the impact of personal
addictions and the damage caused by public intoxication. It's not wise
to take money from one pocket to pay for treatment while taking money
from another pocket to facilitate the problem.

Isn't it good to ensure that government and agencies actually do
what's needed with our tax dollars?

Or do you simply assume that since they're taking your taxes, the
needy must be receiving assistance?

Are you content to call it "welfare" when government blindly cuts a
monthly cheque to hardcore sniffers, drunks and addicts?

If welfare workers don't address the abuse of tax dollars to assist
the slow suicide or suffering of addicts, they should stop calling it
"social assistance." In that situation, their cheque is more like
"anti-social assistance."

Are you willing to substitute spare change for real care for the
mentally ill on the streets of our city?

Why not demand that government deliver real help instead of just
shuffling people out of care and onto the streets?

Appeasing middle-class guilt by throwing change at a "problem" does
not alleviate us of our responsibility to seek the best for people
living on our streets. It's not about tossing a quarter at a beggar
and thinking you've done some great service to humanity.

Many who are quick to attack laisse-faire economic policies seem quite
comfortable with laisse-faire policies regarding social ills.

For too many, "tolerance" is little more than apathy artificially
sweetened with self-satisfaction. It's easier to toss coins than to
get personally involved.

I've talked to cops, BIZ folk and business owners who tackle the
harder job. They actually take time to talk with panhandlers and other
people suffering in plain view. They've tried to make sure some of the
chronic panhandlers or otherwise vulnerable street people are aware of
the best resources for assistance.

Panhandling is not exactly a safe profession. The recent attack on a
"nice panhandler" by a "nasty panhandler" is not the first time that's
happened.

The receipt of money on a crowded street makes panhandlers vulnerable.
There are those who stoop so low as to mug panhandlers for quarters.

Some who panhandle to feed an addiction are even more vulnerable in
their intoxicated state than they were before they received your spare
change.

I'm not advocating a calloused disdain for the helpless. I'm
advocating a conscious decision to give the best help possible.

We're not really helping until we're willing to ask uncomfortable --
but obvious -- questions and actually dealing with difficult situations.

It's sad when some portray intervention as intrusive, but defend the
enabling of personal addiction or government negligence.

It's not simply an issue of whether someone is begrudging or bestowing
loonies.

It's not simply an issue of free speech.

It's ultimately an issue of how we treat those in obvious pain and
addiction.