Category Archives: behaviour

Addiction, behaviour, Hmmm, Issues, Municipal, Provincial

Excuses, Excuses, Excuses

Leave a comment

Do we need more detox beds in Fraser Health?  Yes.

Is the (un)effectiveness of Fraser Health’s mobile detox programs, succinctly summed up in the words of those seeking  detox: “they [Fraser Health] are not looking for people needing detox, they [Fraser Health] are looking for people already detoxed”? Yes.

Are Fraser Health. our Provincial and Federal governments doing a poorer and poorer job of providing the support needed for people to find recovery and wellness even as our understanding of what supports are needed grows? Yes.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s childish ‘I am going to hold my breath until I turn blue if I do not get my own way’ attitude? No.

Does this excuse Abbotsford City Council’s ‘I am taking my toys and going home’ threats? No.

Does this provide an excuse for Abbotsford City Council to continue to ignore the facts about substance use and Harm Reduction? No.

For those who are seeking any excuse to justify their dogmatic opposition to harm reduction? I refer you to the words of Councillor John Smith: “If they aren’t going to give us detox . . . then quite frankly, [the harm reduction issue] is going nowhere with me.”

Then we have the sophistry of “…suggested that if Fraser Health was truly committed to providing harm reduction services in Abbotsford the first thing it should do is step up and fund the Warm Zone.”

I do not recall Council providing leadership, beating the bushes or pressuring senior levels of government to raise funds to keep the Warm, Zone open and operating. Now suddenly they are publically supportive of keeping the warm zone open, concerned about the consequences for those who depend on the Warm Zones services?

But then when the facts, experience and evidence are all against you and you are left clutching at straws, any excuse will do.

City Council’s finger pointing at Fraser Health on this matter brings to mind the quintessential Mom question, ‘if Fraser Health was jumping off the Lion’s Gate Bridge would you jump as well?’

Although……that does bring to mind the question: “what do you call the river bottom under the Lion’s Gate Bridge being littered with the bodies of municipal politicians, provincial and federal politicians and want-to-be ‘same old’ politicians and executives from BC Health? ”

A solid step towards good governance and healthy priorities by municipal, provincial and federal governments.

Detox, the Warm Zone – what healthcare is council advocating Fraser Health cut from services provided to the citizens of Abbotsford? Because when you call on Fraser Health (or any Health Region) to spend money on services, capital projects etc not included in their budgets, you are calling on the Health Regions to cut existing (budgeted) items to free up the funds to pay for the new (non budgeted) spending.

So what healthcare does council want to cut to pay for Detox and the Warm Zone?

Mayor and Council need to remember that Fraser Health can only spend the money the provincial government gives them. Remember that, unlike Abbotsford City Council,  Fraser Health cannot simply create a water crisis and scare/panic taxpayers into borrowing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to cover past, present and future misspending.

As to council’s sudden concern about detox……on my list of programs and services (including appropriate, affordable housing)  required in Abbotsford to help people achieve recovery and wellness, detox is well down my list of priorities. It is a waste of money to push people through detox and treatment without providing the support programs, services and housing that would aid them to remain in recovery more than a few days, weeks or months as is currently the case (less than 5% are substance free one year after ‘graduation’ from treatment)..

The reality of addiction and substance use is reflected in Councillor MacGregor’s statement that the issue of drug abuse needed a “layered” approach and Councillor Barkman stressing there is no “silver bullet” to substance abuse and that building relationships is critical to helping people escape addiction.

Harm: (noun) physical [of or pertaining to the body] injury or mental damage; hurt. (verb used with object) to do or cause harm to; injure; damage; hurt.

Reduction: (noun) the act of reducing [bringing down to a smaller extent, size, amount, number etc.] or the state of being reduced [to become lessened] .

I will be dropping a dictionary off at the mayor’s office to facilitate and encourage council to seek facts and understanding about what Harm Reduction is and is not – and to express my support for Harm Reduction and making Abbotsford a healthier place for ALL who live in the City.

Should you have a dictionary you would like to spare for council………

behaviour, Caveat emptor

Ignored to Death

Leave a comment

During a conversation several members of the homeless community posed a question of ethics, an ethical challenge about the behaviours and actions of the people, institutions and organizations in dealing with an individual – and the fact that these types of behaviours and actions were not unique to this individual.

The ethical challenge applies not just to those directly involved but included the governments whose actions have created the conditions in which these behaviours can or will occur. It also included all of us who have created the ethos [the fundamental character or spirit of a culture] of British Columbia and Canada.

The ethos of a community, a province and a country are not created by words or piously beating our breasts and declaring to the world how wonderfully pure we are and impure others are. No, the ethos of our society results from our actions AND our inactions. The ethos of Canada is the sum total of the behaviours of ALL of us, not some mysterious them.

Mr Dix, before you begin blaming the Liberals and declaring how innocent you and the NDP are – you are at least as culpable, as blameworthy, as the Liberals. It was you Mr Dix who ran around the province taking the politically popular position of extinguishing the HST and ignoring the devastating negative consequences extinguishing the HST who have on the most vulnerable, those most in need of help in BC. An ethical opposition would be focused on speaking for the most vulnerable for they have no voice that will be heard to speak for themselves. An opposition focussed on scoring political points so it can gain power and form the next government is an ethically challenged Political Party.

I originally met George shortly after becoming homeless. At least at one point I was the homeless one and George the housed person. I cannot say who the real George was because I did not met George until after he suffered a traumatic brain injury. Yes at the time I met him George could be a little crusty. And yes, George did use illegal substances.

Flash forward to the first half of 2011 where George and I had a conversation, with George speaking about his feeling that after more than a decade he was starting to get to where he was before his brain injury.

The next time I ran into George, he was fresh from the hospital where he had just lost some toes to circulation problems. Regular meals at the Salvation Army, nagging by the Salvation Army’s parish nurse and others who knew George, led to him turning up at the Salvation Army almost dancing. He was so happy he was nearly dancing because he had just come from a check-up where he was told that his physical health had improved so much they would not have to remove more toes as expected.

When I saw George again recently it was quite a shock because he looked terrible – death warmed over terrible – looking like a walking corpse. He was fresh out of the hospital where he had an operation on his stomach. The operation has left George feeling unwell, in a lot of pain and thinking (as do most who see him) that he will, sooner rather than later, be dead.

Hardly surprising then that he is not a fount of sweetness and light. George shares his discomfort, pain and fear through angry, loud, abusive verbal outbursts that include a lot of swearing and are unpleasant and offensive to be on the receiving end of. Which makes George a royal pain in the ass to deal with.

Been there, experienced that, wanted to throttle George.

And while I can understand and sympathize with “I don’t have to put up with being sworn at like that”……..being an obnoxious, loud, verbally abusive, swearing pain in the ass does not deserve the death penalty.

Dumping George onto the streets is imposing the death penalty because in his current state of health he will not survive being homeless on the streets.

Nobody wants to deal with George so they try to dump him on someone else. A situation the Abbotsford Police found themselves caught in when the hospital, which George had been more or less dumped on, phoned the police to remove him for his swearing and angry verbal attacks. Normally, if there is no place to take someone in Abbotsford that someone ends up on the street.

The Abbotsford police ended up taking George to Chilliwack to find a place for him to stay for the night and avoid having George die as a result of being dumped onto the streets by police.

Since them George has been in the hospitals in Chilliwack, in Hope and back in Abbotsford because no one wants to deal with George and get rid of him as soon as they can dump him on someone else.

The homeless community, noting George’s absence and concerned about whether George was alive, enquired about what was going on and what George’s current fate was. They raised the question of ethics when another member of the homeless community supplied information that George had gone from the Chilliwack hospital to the Hope hospital to the Abbotsford hospital where George currently was.

Last year Dallas, who had struggled with drugs and recovery, found himself in the shelter and depressed as he again struggled with addiction. Not the ‘I am so depressed’ that most people have experienced and think of when they hear someone is depressed, but the life sucking black hole that is true DRESSION. Dallas sought help as he spiralled down into DRESSION, at Emergency at the Abbotsford hospital.

Only to be turned away as he hadn’t tried and was not threatening to kill himself or someone else. So he left the hospital and tried to kill himself. Unfortunately he was successful.

Ted’s feet had been frostbitten and not treated. When using Ted is loud, verbally nasty, tries to physically intimidate people and is a bully. When circumstances resulted in me applying antibiotic and bandages to Ted’s foot one evening, the, the black damage of frostbite on his toes together with the bare, open flesh where the frostbite damage had resulted in the loss of skin and flesh was such a concern I managed to get his foot looked at by a nurse the following day.

During the course of the examination Ted stated that his foot was not as painful as it had been. I enquired if that might be because of the high level of drugs he had ingested and he conceded it might be. He knew he could lose toes, foot or leg to the frostbite damage, vowing he would rather die.

Because Ted is a royal pain in the ass and very unpleasant to deal with, Ted is another who the system and society strives not to deal with. Ted did find a rather unique way to get help, robbing a bank in Abbotsford, walking down to the bus stop and having a seat until police arrived to arrest him.

The countdown has already begun for the next person slated to be ignored to death in Abbotsford.

 

“A society is ultimately judged by how it treats its weakest and most vulnerable members”

Hubert Humphrey

“The moral test of a government is how it treats those who are at the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the aged; and those who are in the shadow of life, the sick and the needy, and the handicapped.”

Hubert Humphrey

Addiction, behaviour, Issues

Rules? There are Rules?

Leave a comment

I was at a meeting focusing on shelter needs in Abbotsford, what the shelter needs of Abbotsford are, whether the shelter needs are being met (are there gaps in shelter services) and what can be done to cover any gaps.

Some members of the homeless community became aware of this meeting and felt their interests needed to represented and protected from any negative consequences resulting from this meeting.

So I found myself attending the meetings to represent one subset of the homeless/addiction/mental illness/poverty community who have concerns about their needs, wants and priorities being misrepresented by another subset of the homeless/addiction/mental illness/poverty community who present their concerns as those of the entire community; when in fact the concerns being discussed at the meeting represent only the point of view of one group whose voice is loud because they have organized and named themselves

At these and other meetings around Abbotsford, claims have been made as to what happens in the shelter. As someone who works at the shelter, who has been a client and who discusses the shelter with clients regularly there are a few comments I would like to share as to the veracity of those claims.

Despite repeated claims to the contrary, during extreme weather nobody is turned away for any reason.

However if someone’s behaviour is threatening to other clients in the shelter or staff; if someone’s behaviour is extremely, extremely disruptive and interfering with other clients in the shelter they will be asked to leave.

Being removed from the shelter occurs only after clients have been warned (repeatedly) that they need to modify their behaviour and then only after having been given the choice of going to bed or leaving.

It is also repeatedly claimed that nobody knows what the shelter rules are, yet these same clients demonstrate a grasp of any rules they want to take advantage of.

Everyone staying at the shelter fills out a registration form on the back of which the rules are listed. Clients are instructed to fill out the registration, read the rules, if they have any questions about the rules to ask staff and the rules will be explained; if they understand the rules or once they do understand the rules they sign the registration form to acknowledge they provided the information on the registration form and have read and understand the rules.

During my visits to the shelter as a client I had no trouble knowing the rules – I simply turned the registration form over and read the rules.

I suppose we could ensure the clients have read and studied the rules by giving a quiz about the rules and turning people away if they failed the quiz. But then everyone would be complaining about being forced to study the rules.

In order to address the reality that many clients do not read the rules (thus permitting clients to claim they didn’t know and/or were never told the rules when they violate rules) the rules are read aloud before the shelter opens for intake.

I do not want to give the impression that all, or even most, clients are rule challenged. Other clients demonstrate an ability to either read the rules on the back of the registration form; listen, hear and comprehend the rules read aloud every night to clients before the shelter is opened; ask for clarification of the rules “can I ….” Or “what happens if……or “how would I……”

I have long lost count of the number of clients who repeatedly claim not to know a rule (or rules) you have specifically discussed with them before or repeatedly before – sometimes mere minutes before. Or clients who are overheard laughingly telling other clients about ‘almost getting caught’ smoking pot, crack, drinking or disobeying some rule. Who acknowledge knowing their behaviour violates the rules, but then explain why the rule does not or should not apply to them; or who argue the rule is a stupid rule, should not be a rule and thus they do not have to abide by the rule(s). Or had incorrectly assumed they would not get caught and would get away with ignoring the rule(s). Or – the #1 favourite excuse – claim not to have known the rule(s).

When the latest Cold Wet Weather status ended someone who was over their nights and needed to wait 30 days before getting their next 5 nights in the shelter was standing there protesting they did not know about only having 5 nights, even though they had been on a plan (he was no longer on a plan because he had not kept the terms agreed to in order to remain on his plan).

On Sunday nights staff make sure to remind those who are on night 4 or 5 that if they need more than the 5 nights they need to sign up and see Case Management Monday. For those whose fifth night was Saturday night, we grant a grace night and remind them that they must talk to Case Management to get more nights or wait 30 days for their next 5 nights. The shelter at large is reminded several times throughout the evening that those needing more than 5 days need to see Case Management to get more than 5 days.

Case managers always remind clients that they need to do what they agreed to do as their plan and be at the shelter gate when the shelter opens at 6 pm. To provide motivation case management reminds clients that they need to carry through on these points because they have used up their five nights and if they are not at the shelter at the 6 pm opening time or they do not carry through with the actions they promised to perform, they are off their plan and will need to wait the 30 days until they get a new 5 nights.

And claiming you do not know about the 5 night rule is not going to work very well when you are making that claim to a staff member who had made sure to warn you that you had been given a grace night so that you could talk to Case Management on Monday morning if you needed more nights because you had used your 5 nights up on Saturday night.

Most ignorance is evincible ignorance. We don’t know because we don’t want to.  Aldous Huxley

While on the subject of rules, just how detailed do the rules need to be? Does every little detail need to be spelled out? What about a little common sense (which is admittedly not so very common)?

Is it really necessary to spell out that standing in the middle of the shelter screaming at the top of your lungs is unacceptable behaviour? Or that you need to take a shower and have your clothes washed when the odour you emit renders the air of any room you are in non-breathable? (The shelter provides sweats for those with only the clothes they are wearing – at least as long as loaner clothing can be replaced faster than it is being stolen). Or that Smoking pot or crack or consuming alcohol is not permitted?  Or that if you need to urinate you use the washroom, not the corner of the room or another client and their bedding or a garbage pail or a cup? Is it really that hard to understand what a sign marked ‘Staff Only’ means?

And whatever happened to Personal Responsibility?

Homelessness/addiction/mental illness/poverty does present people with barriers, problems and issues. It does not absolve them of personal responsibility for their behaviour.

On a bad head day, the fact mental illness has me wanting to scream, act out or strike out at others is not an excuse or permission to do so.

I and many others who accept personal responsibility for our actions have (or had) no difficulty with the shelter rules or staff. Of course we also acknowledge that we are not ‘special’, that the rules apply to us as well as to others.

Some claim others get treated better than they do. But why would anyone be surprised that being polite, saying please and thank you, gets a friendly response while screaming, cursing and verbal abuse gets a less positive response?

Then there are the clients who complain they are ‘picked on’ when they keep repeating the same self-defeating behaviour and end up under review for repeating their behaviour time after time after time.

Should you mention AA’s “if you are happy getting what you are getting, keep doing what you are doing; if you are not happy getting what you are getting, stop doing what you are doing” daring to suggest they need to change their behaviour to get different outcomes – you are cursed at and heaped with verbal abuse for suggesting they accept any responsibility for their behaviour.

Listening to what is said (is claimed) in these meetings about what occurs at Abbotsford’s shelter, gives one the impression that running a shelter is easy. It is not.

Abbotsford’s shelter is in space adapted for, not built for, use as a shelter. Langley’s shelter space was built for the purpose of being a shelter so when clients come in their belongings and clothing are put in a locker and they wear clothing provided by the shelter – ensuring nothing comes into the shelter, that the clients have nothing with them that is not provided by the shelter.

Ensuring staff in Langley do not run the risk, that Abbotsford staff face, of getting stuck by needles carelessly discarded or thoughtlessly left in clothing put into their laundry bags; laundry that is done by staff as a service so clients have clean clothing.

The risk, the close calls that occur, of getting stuck with a client’s used needle from a population infected with Hep C, AIDS, hepatitis A & B et al. As if  it is not enough staff gets lied to, verbally abused and screamed at; has to deal with people who are drunk or have used another substance to achieve an altered state of reality; deal with clients who, based on demands and actions, are under the impression they are more important than all the other clients in the shelter or that they are in a 5 star hotel, not an emergency shelter; get to clean up puke, urine, shit, blood; have to exercise patience, understanding, tolerance and judgement – or the shelter would slowly empty of clients in the hours following intake.

When a shelter opened in a neighbouring community several years ago the new shelter was going to show the staff at Abbotsford’s shelter how a proper shelter was run. This shelter now has more rules and people under review than Abbotsford.

The reality is that it is far, far easier to run or work at a shelter in theory than it is in a shelter in the real world, a wolrd populated with real people.

behaviour, Consider, Federal, Issues, Media, Municipal, Provincial

Canada’s Trade in Death

Leave a comment

Concordat:

I hereby attest and aver that as a Canadian of honour, integrity and ethics it is depraved, and therefore categorically unacceptable, for Canada to be exporting death (slow, painful death) and industrial disease – in any form and for reasons as perverted as jobs, profits and electoral advantage. I demand that the federal government make this trading in death illegal – immediately.

I call upon all Canadians of integrity and ethics to join in condemning this depraved export of death and industrial disease and demand the federal government make this trading in death illegal – immediately.

I call upon all Provincial, Territorial and Municipal politicians and governments of integrity and ethics to pass motions condemning this depraved export of death and industrial disease and demand the federal government make this trading in death illegal – immediately.

I call upon all Members of Parliament of integrity and ethics to come together, regardless of political affiliation, and make it a priority to immediately introduce and adopt legislation making the export of death and industrial disease illegal – immediately.

In stating that he won’t allow cancer causing asbestos to be reintroduced in Canadian homes or schools but he’s firmly behind allowing Quebec’s asbestos industry to export the death and disease that its product causes to willing buyers abroad, hoping that it will enable the Tories to win a seat in the area; in ignoring the fact Conservative MP Chuck Strahl did not seek re-election because he has been diagnosed with incurable lung cancer – mesothelioma – believed to be triggered by breathing asbestos when he was younger; Mr Harper has demonstrated a level of ethical and spiritual corruption and turpitude such that he is unfit to be involved in any manner with the governing of Canada and such that his presence in Ottawa defiles Parliament, the Government of Canada and the Citizens of Canada.

Mr Harper and any members of his caucus, indeed any Members of Parliament, Provincial, Territorial or Municipal politicians supporting this trade in death on the grounds of profit, jobs and/or political advantage are unfit to be associated in any manner with the Government of Canada, any Province, Territory or Municipality and must resign.

Should Mr Harper refuse to resign, a high probability outcome given the level of depravity his statements, actions and non-actions on the prostitution of Canada by trading in death, it is the moral duty of the Conservative caucus to remove Mr Harper from the caucus and any association with the Conservative Party.

Should the Conservative caucus choose to join Mr Harper and descend to his level of ethical and spiritual corruption and turpitude, any members of the Conservative caucus with integrity and ethics must resign the caucus and serve Canadian citizens by sitting as independents and working with other Members of Parliament possessing integrity and ethics to stop Canada and Canadian business from exporting death.

All Members of Parliament with integrity and ethics must not only wrest control of Parliament from those so depraved as to see nothing wrong with trading in death and put an end to this trading in death, but must also do all within their power to end any connection between Parliament and any members of parliament with a level of ethical and spiritual corruption and turpitude as to refuse to ban the export of a cancer causing death material.

Failure to act on ending this trade in cancer death and disease by Parliament and Provincial, Territorial or Municipal governments demonstrates they are unfit to govern and any government or level of government that demonstrates its’ unfitness to govern should be treated as non-existent.

Unfit governments should be shunned until they demonstrate they are at least minimally fit to be a government.

Whatever government Canadians deserve or are, for the most part willing to accept, no Canadian of any integrity or ethics can accept a government or governments so depraved as to be willing to export asbestos materials that cause cancer and death.

The only course for Canadians of integrity and ethics is to call for the resignation of all those who support or refuse to end the Death Trade and to focus on civil disobedience until at least minimal ethical behaviour is restored to governments in Canada.

We can starve the monstrous beast by refusing to feed it what it must have to exist – citizens financial support.

Forcing the federal or other levels of government to cease to sully all Canadians with their corruption and turpitude will not be easy, but it can be done.

The question every Canadian must ask themselves is what value they place upon their own integrity, ethics, spirit and souls?