The Art of Deniability

English is such a wonderfully nuanced language you can create false impressions and mislead with perfectly true statements – just ask any snake, flimflam artist or politician.

“We haven’t taken any camps down.” Mayor Braun told the CBC.

The City of Abbotsford hunts down the homeless; gives the homeless a deadline by which they must be gone forcing the homeless to take down their own camps if they want to keep their belongings. allowing the Mayor and City to truthfully, if disingenuously, state they haven’t ‘taken down’ any camps.

Close camps by forcing the homeless to take down their camps and move YES; actually take down a camp NO.

Putting the threat into the orders to move is the fact that stragglers who failed to move fast enough for the City have returned to the camp site to find any remaining belongings gone.

The homeless do not return to their camps and find a notice from the City that they must move. The City now delivers the order to vacate verbally.

The homeless also no longer receive any documentation from the City setting out the move by [or lose your belongings] deadline.

I suppose that in the separate reality that Abbotsford exists in, at least as far as City Hall, mayor and council are concerned: No Paper Trail = Never Happened.

“We have asked people to comply with the judge’s orders” Mayor Braun told the CBC.

The judge’s orders as the City and Mayor Braun choose to interpret them and ignoring the context and intent of the judge’s decision [more nuance: so politically useful].

The judge’s decision was made in broad strokes leaving maximum flexibility on the how to comply with the decision. No doubt the judge assumed the city would get together with representatives of the homeless and [if necessary] the Pivot legal team to reach an accommodation that would protect the rights and interests of both the homeless and Abbotsford’s housed citizens.

If the judge had any experience dealing with the City of Abbotsford, he would not have assumed the City would react to the decision maturely, rather than like a petulant two year old and seek to do an end run around his decision..

The homeless can camp in city parks overnight because there is no other alternative for them? Not a problem for the City to get around – just slap four trailers together and call them a shelter.

No beds? No need to delay opening the excuse, err shelter, the homeless are use to sleeping outside – mats on the floor are fine.

Why is it the mayor and city council are concerned about the safety of the homeless when it is convenient for them – oh, we have to close the Gladys camp because of safety concerns – but when it would be inconvenient – the safety [and health] issues posed by a shelter environment or the behavior of the Abbotsford Police Department or the City of Abbotsford dumping chicken shit on the homeless – safety is no longer a concern.

Of course safety became the raison d’etre to close the Gladys camp when whoever was responsible for deciding on the capacity for the Riverside shelter forgot to take their shoes off and the Riverside shelter filled up before the City closed the Gladys camp.

And just where does the city expect the homeless to go?

“We have 157 parks in Abbotsford” Mayor Braun told the CBC.

Of course not all of those parks are open to the homeless to camp in according to City’s interpretation of what the judge meant in his decision.

At a recent meeting of the homeless addressing concerns with the new Riverside shelter and the City’s new homeless harassment campaign, bylaw officials explained that the homeless could not camp in parks with playgrounds or that other citizens used.

Although the city bylaw officials failed to specify where in his decision the judge had limited the public spaces available to the homeless for camping.

I rather expect that when the City’s behaviour results in a reappearance in the BC Supreme Court the judge will be less than thrilled that his requiring the homeless to take down their tents at 9 AM has been turned into a weapon by Abbotsford officials who are warning the homeless that all belongings must be taken with them every day if they don’t want to lose them.

Braun told the CBC “so far nine people have been moved from the temporary shelter to permanent housing”.

Ah, nuance! The word permanent refers to the housing [an apartment remains and apartment] not to the length of time the person will remain housed.

As has been pointed out to the mayor and city council on numerous occasions, if those placed in housing remained housed and those sent to treatment remained sober Abbotsford wouldn’t have any problem with homelessness but in fact would have a large negative homeless population.

The fact a negative homeless population is a ridiculous concept underscores the reality that citing the number of people who are permanently housed or sent to treatment as though those numbers have any meaning or significance is ridiculous.

If Mayor Braun and Abbotsford city council wish to dispute this reality I suggest we ask the province to have the auditor general access shelter, treatment and BC Housing records for the past decade and evaluate the outcomes.

Until we stop basing policy on fallacy we will keep opening shelters, recycling the homeless and increasing the homeless population.

Braun told the CBC “Abbotsford city council will begin the process of officially bringing its bylaws in line with the Supreme Court decision on Monday”.

While it is nice the city is going to finally – after 8 years – bring city bylaws into compliance with the law in BC, given Abbotsford City Hall’s demonstrated willingness to ignore or circumvent the law for their convenience it is far more important that Abbotsford bring its behaviour into compliance with the law ……. and at least minimal ethical standards.