Towards Others

I was reading an article this week in the July/August edition of Fast Company magazine, the topic of which was Matt Damon’s foundation Water.org, and the subsequent conversations that reveal much of the good that Damon does. Within the text Gary White, his partner in the foundation and expert on water delivery for developing nations, was also interviewed.  

Both men were shown as being passionate for their cause, as well as having character that at once both shames and offers hope for the reader; the former for a lack of personal action, the latter for realizing there is much that can be contributed, whatever the cause. What really struck me was the level of involved compassion these men had for the very cause they were championing. That they could engage people that others might see as statistics with a smile and a rational way forward is magnanimous, fostering a greater sense of community for those they were helping along the way. But they also sympathized with those who they were helping on a level that should act as an example for humanity.  

They aimed to help people who were racially, culturally and socially different from them with an understanding that, in the end, there was more common between them than there was alien. I think that’s lacking in society and is evident for one simplistic reason: tragedies continue with nothing done. It’s not a difficult thing to see once you remove yourself from whatever has distracted you; be it the playoffs (pick a sport), Big Brother, partying, the gravitational pull of your own life, family obligations, relationships or whatever else. There’s a whole world of people who need help. Hell, that can be reduced even further to say there’s a whole country, province, city, area within a city or family that needs help.

That segments of our society in Canada, or our neighbours in the global community, might be left out is one of the greatest tragedies of humanity. That disease, poverty, starvation and death by thirst is looked at but not touched is a shame. That rape, military attacks and shelling of civilians, murder and human-trafficking is denounced in the media with little more than a firm wag of the finger and lip-service from world leaders is embarrassing. To be sure not everything is perfect, and some of the issues just mentioned possess a great deal of complex obstacles that need to be negotiated.

In the end, what I took from the article was a fresh perspective on the human condition, the possibilities for helping others as well as the essential need to do so. The concept that resonated within me the most was a quote that was mentioned:

“Your life should be about finding the intersection of the world’s greatest need and your greatest passion.” Beautiful.   

It’s not that a lack of such perspective indicates an individual carries any less compassion for others, but I think with the distractions life can throw at us, we tend to forget and ignore the plight of others. We’ve misplaced our sense of humanity, and it seems that it’s only those who are truly engulfed in tragedy and forced humility that are able to identify anything beyond the vanilla-life. Doubt this? Find some images of any one of the millions affected by drought and famine in East Africa, the wear on their souls is visible in their face.

While I’m a big believer in the virtues of altruism, I also understand the reality that not everyone shares that ideology. But we should find a greater balance in our lives for others, whether their need is at the local, national or global level. We must.



Thank You...How Can We Help?

When it comes to honouring our military, the standard lines which seem to reverberate within our national psyche are “Lest we Forget” and “They’re fighting for our freedom.” As important and genuine as they are, both phrases fail when it comes to our current bunch of combat veterans.

“Lest we Forget” generally refers to the fallen, to those who made the supreme sacrifice in laying themselves down for their nation and, more importantly, for their comrades. It’s also a phrase that is very much married with the First and Second World Wars, though it is still a deserving pledge for those who gave their lives in Afghanistan.

As for “They’re fighting for our freedom,” frankly Canadian soldiers have never truly fought for our freedom. The wars we’ve been involved in as a nation have leaned towards the freedom of other nation’s citizens. The Boer War, World Wars I and II, the Korean War and now Afghanistan, as well as the peacekeeping deployments Canada has volunteered into have all been on foreign soil, essentially for foreign citizens. Unless the 200^th anniversary of the War of 1812 leads to altered re-enactments by some rogue American militia, then it will have been quite some time since the North of the Americas was ever truly threatened.

With the Canadian military withdrawing combat forces from Afghanistan, we need to find ourselves a new expression to honour the courage and sacrifice of those who are coming home. While “Lest we Forget” is a sincere token for the fallen, it does little for the living because we DO forget, as well as ignore. The other line isn’t applicable, so let’s scrub that in general please. What we need as a nation is a way to bring these men and women back into the flock, a means of telling them we’re proud, offering heart-felt thanks for bearing the burden of fighting, killing and losing friends, and then reaching out a hand for each and every combat solider and military staff.





Having said that, “thank you...how can we help?” is a great start for our country to take. In the study On Killing, it is stated that “Societies have always recognized that war changes men, that they are not the same after they return. That is why primitive societies often require soldiers to perform purification rites before allowing them to rejoin their communities.” It is further stated that such rituals allow soldiers to rid themselves of the stress and guilt associated with combat (especially related to the act of killing), and that “...above all, his community of sane and normal men welcomed him back.”

This is why thanking our soldiers and offering our support as a nation, as communities, and as individuals is so essential. We need to reassure them that what they did WAS right, regardless of our moral stances on war, killing, the counterinsurgency programs, Afghan politics, the Taliban or anything else. I would like to see parades for our veterans of Afghanistan, nationally as well as at the local level. It’s all well and good that we honour the fallen with the Highway of Heroes, but what of the living who must re-enter a society that knows little of what they were exposed to, or what they struggle with mentally, emotionally and physically. If we fail to honour our soldiers, to reach out a hand of support and help to our warriors who have guarded Canada’s values, then we will have shamed ourselves; the brave who have stood on guard for thee deserve a nation willing to do the same for them.  

The Undividual

There are too few people that I’ve come into contact with throughout my life who best characterize what might be called a selfless individual. Each person, while seeking their path in life and negotiating their way through, across and around the nifty little gems of unexpectedness that happen along, often act out of self-gain. While different models in Game Theory might be used to explain seeking an advantageous outcome, surely it’s neither a crime nor a sin to try and benefit from the labours of life.

Yet we have crossed a point in society where the individual has become greater than the whole. Though this is a concept that needs to be reaffirmed and protected in relation to human rights, where it is essential that each person is treated with dignity and respect through a humanist approach.

What society needs is an undividual, who is willing to sacrifice, give of themselves to others, and always seek stability through cooperation. The undividual would hold the door open for a stranger, or have the decency to say “thank you” when one does so for them; he would let another car ahead of him with ease, and she would show her appreciation for the deed with a kind wave. All of the acts are characterized as being folksy, which is a fantastic approach to people, but it goes beyond a simple term when becomes a constant habit.  

The undividual looks beyond the self, recognizing the value and importance of the whole in every action. Marcus Aurelius, the great Roman emperor and giant of philosophy, once stated that “Every individual dispensation is one of the causes of the prosperity, success, and even survival of That which administers the universe. To break off any particle, no matter how small, from the continuous concatenation – whether of causes or of any other elements – is to injure the whole.” Phew, a tad on the wordy side, but what he was trying to argue is that each individual contributes to the whole; in his view, injuring an individual takes away from the whole. Though his specific reference of the importance of one towards the whole derives from his philosophical views on the gripping warfare he was engaged in throughout his reign, it also applies to the more peaceable forms of humanity. The idea of “injuring the whole” also exists in actions that degrade, insult, offend, slight or take from others.   

So the individual has a great deal of responsibility towards the whole as an undividual. Yet seldom do we see this in society, as the individual rarely recognizes himself in others, or herself in relation to the whole of society. Understanding that our actions influence someone’s mood, how they view strangers, and even relates to economic output and labour markets, marks a true awareness to the significance of one towards the whole. Ultimately we are all connected in humanity, and the ignorance which allows for the discarding of that common bond has allowed some of history’s greatest sorrows to manifest themselves repeatedly.

Think of others the next time you’re out-and-about, especially when you’re having a rough day. Pick-up the cost for the person behind you in the Tim Horton’s drive-thru, offer to help someone with their groceries, think of your neighbour’s lawn that needs cutting when you know they’re away for a few days, or of the little shop down the street rather than the big store without a face. The simplest deed of goodwill and care for a stranger could make someone’s day, giving you reason to smile, and ensuring that our community and society moves closer to engaging each other as equals and undividuals.

On bin Laden

First let me apologize for not having covered the Canadian Federal Election as much as I indicated I might. The reason for this was very simple, in that I was working on a campaign at the time and did not want my personal views to in any way become biased towards one party/candidate. So, now more Mark’s Spark...

Osama bin Laden was killed in the early hours of a Pakistani morning on May 2, with US Navy SEALS assaulting the compound in which he had lived for a number of years. There has in recent days been much controversy over the nature of the mission, given that there are now reports suggesting he – as well as several others within the walled mansion – was unarmed when shot.

Say what you will about bin Laden or his tactics that included the targeting of civilians, and the nature of his resentment for the West, his assassination should have instead been his capture. While Western nations as well as some Islamic ones cheered the death of the scourge who had caused havoc, destruction and an immense loss of life, there is a profound loss of principle in the bloodlust for bin Laden.

With reports stating that Osama was unarmed – and as accounts have it the last one alive in the compound – as commandos confronted him on the third floor, surely there were options to be had. But this military operation was as much an emotional release for the United States as it was an expression of justice.

That bin Laden was killed by US Navy SEALS within the confines of a small room gives us much indication of the sentiment the Obama Administration – and indeed the United States itself – wanted to extend. The two options on the table for Obama were that of an air-strike from a Predator drone, or a direct assault on the compound. While both options give you the same result (unless the latter part of “kill or capture” ever really applied), one was incredibly more personal, not to mention popular in the American public and psyche. Surely most Americans have pictured in their own minds what it would have felt like to be there, watching this man who had sown terror and fear, come to a lifeless mass right before their eyes.

The US needed this release, and Obama needed to demonstrate that he had the ruthless edge necessary to provide it in the face of staunch criticism over his handling of Afghanistan and the war on terror. In both cases, the public and the president are breathing easier having vindicated themselves of burdens they have carried for too long. But what of principles?

The United States should have done their utmost to capture rather than kill in my opinion, simply because doing so would send a clear message: that stopping isn’t an option, and neither is compromising on principles. True it can be said that at some point every society finds itself negotiating with its moral constitution, but that should not be at the instigation of thugs, rebels, freedom fighters or terrorists; it is those who would provoke an erosion of the moral compass that should be shown the true valour of it. Maintaining such a national and societal position is difficult for any country, but for a nation of people so willing to engage in violence towards themselves and others, one could hardly expect any other outcome for Mr bin Laden.

Poetic Politics

By now you should know,

We’re in the midst of an election,

But if somehow you don’t,

Use some sense of detection.

On city street corners,

Signs are starting to blossom,

You might think it an eye-sore,

But I think it’s pretty awesome.

Then there’s the negativity,

In the way of the attack ad,

Finger pointing and slandering,

It is both childish and sad.

So please noble politician,

Nod if you’re listening,

Run an issue-based campaign,

And your image will be glistening.

Between Mr.’s Harper

Ignatieff and yes even Layton,

A Prime Minister will be crowned,

It’s just a matter of waitin’.

Stay tuned for more election coverage; every 2 or 3 days there should be a new post. And let me know what you think of the “Poetic Politics” segment, it might make a regular appearance. Also, check out what CBC’s Rex Murphy had to say about campaigns, politicians and what standards they should hold in elections, really great piece from a thoughtful man. Enjoy!  

Goodwill Hunting?

Earlier this week, I awoke to my customary tradition of a bowl of oatmeal, a pint of water, and the daily paper spread over the kitchen table for a nice little read. It’s a ritual that I’ve faithfully followed for years, starting the day with healthy dose of nutrition and information. It was a little different on Wednesday though, as the headline of the Waterloo Region Record read “Johnston heading to Mideast.” While reading the article, I found myself increasingly frustrated with the ignorance that seems to be a major qualification for public office.

It was announced on Tuesday that Governor General David Johnston will be sent at the behest of PM Harper to the Middle East for the purpose of a “goodwill mission,” stopping in Kuwait and Qatar. The purpose of the mission is to strengthen relationships, with the PMO stressing it will “reiterate Canada’s long-standing commitment to protecting peace and security in the region.” Hardly intelligent dialogue considering that the nations we are visiting will be using the Canada trip as an endorsement of their brand of governance and policy.   

Both Kuwait and Qatar in recent days have cracked-down on demonstrations, refusing public assembly. No political parties exist in either country, as they are both emirates (not the airline or the stadium you Arsenal fans, but the type of monarchy), who have widespread power controlled by a very small few. In the wake of recent developments across the Middle East that has witnessed a genuine desire for change, Canada would appear to be throwing their hat in with the status quo.

In a region where we have snubbed common decency and human rights concerns, as well as having supported Israel with a carte blanche over their actions in Palestine and elsewhere, Canada continues to ignore logic. The momentum of history will not yield to ideas that are past their time, and this is especially true of people who desire a change of governance. So we must ask ourselves, are we strategizing for Canada’s future interests, or our current ones? Surely it is the latter, while the long-term approach to the region is neglected. And there is no shame is using the word strategizing, since we need to approach global events with Canada’s best interests in mind. However our strategy and policy should be as intimate as possible with our values and ideals, not in the sense that we project a superiority on others, but that we project an alternative example or vision.

In reality, the people of the Middle East would likely look with far more favour and optimism on a nation that presented itself with such vision. A Western nation that was bold, decisive and emphatic about their support for democratic, economic and educational change, rather than one that was timid, failed to grasp the issues at hand or the genuine will of the people and, had little in the way of forward thinking.

This is the exact moment where Canada needs to demonstrate our commitment to ideals in actions, not words upon which little is done. I feel that at the end of the trip a scruffy and sentimental Robin Williams should be waiting for Gov-Gen. Johnston at the airport. Amidst a sea of people and without notice of them, he would embrace the GG with his burly arms wrapped in the scratchy wool of his windowpane-patterned  cardigan, holding him close in an almost paternal embrace and say “it’s not your fault David, it’s not your fault" (please picture that with a smile as you watch the video, and yes Good Will Hunting is high on my favourites list).

Think of it in this way: the Middle East movement is for Canada like going to see the movies; we’ve already missed the previews, we’re definitely not going to get the best seat, but do we want to miss the first bit of the movie – or worse miss it entirely? I should think it time to step up to the  counter get out ticket and walk in with real purpose. Alas, I feel as though we’re about to miss the movie friends, save your money and don’t bother to buy the popcorn.  

Feel like a change of pace from the heavy topics? Try some easy lifting with www.thehealthyteacher.com .

Arab Democracy

The same phenomenon that first struck-down the dictatorship of Tunisia is poised to engulf the Arab world in the same way that 1798 gave rise to a shake-up of the status quo for European monarchs. It seems fitting that, in a place where the French once brought their empire while leaving their ideals at home, the roots of a sprouted revolution have taken hold. But here we are as Arab democracy is finally calling after years of wishful flirtation that she might. She looks lovely wrapped in the jasmine of Tunisia, holding you against her bosom and whispering throatily into your ear that she will make you feel like no monarch or dictator ever could: I’m in love already.  

Several other nations trying to make a push for democratic change in recent weeks have also resorted to protests. Four people in Morocco resorted to self-immolation (setting themselves on fire), while tens of thousands have rallied in Yemen, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan and Lebanon. The general sentiment of all protests has been one of frustration with regards to poverty and unemployment, along with a call for governments representative of the people and sympathetic to their interests. Fair due to those points, especially considering that the demographics of the mentioned countries tilt towards youth quite heavily (read: change). Make no mistake, democracy born from these events would be different from that of Iraq: the former would be organic, while the latter was synthetic and a make-shift imposed product.     

It is a mixed blessing that these demonstrations are without a face. No individual or organization is behind them. At best, the Muslim Brotherhood – once derided as a terrorist organization for its assassination of Egyptian President in 1948 as well as its attempted coup and other assassination plots   - has been relatively rooted in their approach to moderate governance. Think of them as Hamas and Hezbollah without the violence; all provide crucial social services like education, health care and sanitation. The Brotherhood has done well to field moderate candidates in recent elections, though they remain technically illegal and struggle to have their names placed on ballots. Yet the Muslim Brotherhood is not yet known to be orchestrating the events in Egypt, where the ruling National Democratic Party recently won 95% of the vote in first-round voting. Though they are riding the chariot that is the protests, they’ve yet to take the reins.

So what is the end goal of these movements? Hard to say really. I’m sure their ideal is to further democracy, the likes of which they can readily see on the internet as well as television thanks in large part to al-Jazeera (the Arab equivalent of CNN). But maybe they would settle for small concessions now with the hope of moving the ball down the field in due time (think Magna Carta). The events in Tunisia will have been a welcome inspiration in homes across the region, but as is the case with any opportunity, there are always obstacles to negotiate. And while there is no clear objective other than chants for change and democracy, what remains interesting is how little ideology has penetrated these events.     

Now the danger of a faceless protest is that it could allow for a growing Islamist movement to fill the void. This surely would have consequences, the more pressing of which is that it would ruin any sympathy amongst the Arab elite and moderates, not to mention Western governments who are already fearful of rising fundamentalism. One of the main reasons US administrations have for decades supported Mubarak in Egypt is due to his tough love towards extremists and support for the US in terror policing.

Sure Tunisia was able to avoid this issue, with their army saying they would support the revolution and ensure its longevity; but there isn't a deeply rooted fundamentalist movement present, and really who wants to invite the possibility of another military coup? As you move further across the region you see this is more of an issue. The most pointed case is Yemen, a failed state with massive poverty, unemployment and a volatile government who needs constant hand-holding and military aid from the US; not to mention the growing presence of insurgent elements who are flocking to Yemen like kids to Disney Land (Somalia being Disney World).   

As domestic visionaries come there is one that could have some real impact on the events in Egypt and the broader Middle East. Mohamed ElBaradei, the 2005 Nobel Peace Prize winner, former head of the IAEA and native of Cairo, has called for progress amidst the chaos. He has recently said “I continue to call on the regime to understand that they better listen and listen quickly, not use violence and understand that change has to come. There's no other option." It is a good starting point from a man with international credibility and sympathy for democratic values. He would be my bet for true leadership in the transition to, and possible governance of a democracy.  

To help this along the international community should act as midwives, providing strong international pressure and support for strong domestic visionaries. When I say that, I don’t mean go the way of the French and British and make a hash of the entire Middle East like they did at Versailles. Nor do I think the UN should impose a mandate on the region, much like they did by creating Israel and nurturing the chaos that exists there today (though supporting a mandate to guarantee land and statehood to Palestine I would support). What should be done is a delegation of respected world leaders and activists – with no agenda other than peace and democracy – should be sitting on the sidelines. When necessary, they should encourage, call for restraint, promote values and above all do so with vision rather than political motives.  

Sadly there seems to be a lack of Arabists (those who are sympathetic to the Arab peoples) in the West, as well as the East I would think, with a major profile. If the international community alienates democratic movements any longer, blowback that goes beyond that which occurred following the previous 90 years of policy in the Middle East will threaten many. Ideally, we resurrect T.E. Lawrence and put him in the mix as a true leader and statesman in the Middle East. He championed the Arab cause, disagreed with many imperialist views of his own government, and fought alongside those whom he wanted to help. Lawrence commanded respect from Europe and the Middle East and, more importantly, had earned the trust of the Arab people through his sacrifice and his vision. If ElBaradei can manage to do the same, regardless of what the actions and sentiments are of Western or Eastern governments, the Arab world has a real chance this time at attaining something they have longed for.  

Hopefully those with a vested interest in change have the drive and wisdom to match the heights this movement must strive for in order to encourage meaningful progress. It’s only a matter of time before change does sweep the Middle East in the same way it did in Europe following the French Revolution. The only questions remaining is which way will the scimitar fall? And is a true Arab democracy finally on its way? Let's just hope we don't find ourselves staring down a neo-Napoleon along the Suez.  

Roots of Political Extremism

On January 4^th Pakistan was thrown into a further sense of unravelling as a Salman Taseer, a prominent liberal politician and governor of Punjab, was assassinated. He was shot and killed by his own bodyguard for his defence of an illiterate farmer who was sentenced to death for blasphemy against the prophet. Interesting how a country founded on the principles of freedom of religion and thought (as Pakistan actually was) can so easily have become ideologically juvenile, such are the roots of political extremism.  

Days later, on the 8^th of January, US Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was the target of a similar attack in an attempted assassination. She was shot – at point blank range with a handgun – in the head. Amazingly under any circumstances, she is still alive following the massive brain trauma (the bullet travelled the length of the left side of her brain), and is breathing own her own as well as responding to various physical commands. The story takes a less miraculous twist when one considers that six people were killed in the incident, including a 9 year-old girl, while 14 others were wounded from the gunfire. 





These politicians were attacked for one reason: their views conflicted with those of their attackers. As the US moves towards increased political polarization and radicalism – which has been the case with politically volatile debates regarding gun laws and the second amendment, as well as immigration, health care and the role of government itself – it will increasingly experience the ideological schisms and destabilizing influences present in  Pakistan. Surely it won’t you say?

Well consider this: federal and state agencies in the US currently monitor some 300+ well-armed militias who train on scenarios to overthrow the government (a constitutional and patriotic obligation they would say), gun control is practically non-existent while there is a proliferation of conventional weapons, and there is the continued inertia (see: ignorance) from large groups of people who refuse to enter the fold of moderate debate and perspective. Similarly in Pakistan there are a variety of well armed groups who aim to overthrow the government (those of Pakistan, Afghanistan and to a degree India), gun control isn’t very controlling and there exists a proliferation of conventional weapons – especially through illegal weapons manufacturing – and they’re having a bit of a hard time bringing large groups of people from various territories into a more moderate dialogue.

So the US increasingly resembles the political realities of developing nations with its fractured discourse. What’s perhaps most troubling since the Tuscon shooting is the amount of rhetoric that has continued to agitate politics rather than tear down the walls of partisanship and bigotry. Right-wing media outlets and commentators have been nothing but critical of Sheriff Dupnik for his comments chastising the practice of harmful and ignorant commentary in politics when he made statements such as, “the anger, the hatred the...bigotry that goes on in this country is outrageous.” People in the US are so hypersensitive about anything political that they take everything to the extreme, and when moderate thinking on the state of political discourse comes along it too is targeted with the same hyperbole that is at the very root of the issue.   

The likes of Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh would have you believe that the Sheriff was out of line for labelling such commentary as irresponsible, calling him immature and trying to argue that he is inciting a blood libel. Mr. Limbaugh in his cozy, ego-loving studio argued that “...what this is all about is shutting down any and all political opposition and eventually criminalizing it.” He continued by saying “the Sheriff of Pima County has made a fool of himself I don’t know if he knows it or not.” Charming as he might be, Rush is plain wrong. That he made an outrageous comment about the government eventually criminalizing political opposition is daft enough, the more troubling thought will occur when you consider his audience is in the ballpark of 15-25 million listeners.    

Politics is seldom pretty, more often resembling a nosedive from the ugly tree than any darling you might want to take home, no matter how polished it may seem. But without fair and honest public debate or opinion, as well as moderate and informed thinking, it will continue to breed hatred, discontent and unhinge trust in nations like Pakistan and the US. Tens of thousands took to the street to praise the Pakistani assassin and as a show supporting the death penalty for blasphemy, while in the States there is further political posturing and opportunism by those who would make a meal of a man looking for cooler heads and calm waters. These obstacles are the real roots of political extremism and it’s at such moments when there is a real need for détente, with the hope that individuals and groups might work towards common principles rather than dividing words. 

New Year's Resolution

I want you to really have a think about this article, because it’s something that I’m very sentimental about. Picture in your mind a man, or woman, lying on a sidewalk somewhere, wrapped in a sleeping bag that’s been delicately rolled out on some well-worn cardboard. They look tired, as though life itself has worn and weathered them down in such a way that they now fit your image of homelessness. 

Notice for a moment how the dirt and sweat and grime has managed to settle in the creases of their skin, so that their face looks almost like a sketched drawing. You see their ears, and notice that they’re maybe a little too small or too big for the size of their head, and it reminds you of someone that you know from work in that sense. As you continue to look at them, you see their entire worldly possessions within arm’s reach. Maybe a bag or two packed with little niceties like a change of clothes, some deodorant – you can’t guess beyond that because all that you’re thinking of is that you can’t imagine having so little.

Now at some point (if you haven’t already) you’re going to go one of three ways from looking at this person: apathy and simply not caring to even bother yourself with it; labelling this person a bum and producing judgements that manage to blame them for their current station in life; or feeling a sense of sadness or pity for the image it conjures up. Whatever the reality is –and please don’t let it be options one or two – we as a society should have higher expectations for what is and is not tolerable.

Do you remember when you were a kid thinking about what and who you wanted to be when you were older? Because I’m fairly certain that no child goes through life wanting to be homeless when they’re older, or living in a state of poverty, or suffering from addictions or diseases that cause them to be judged as social pariahs that are worthless or merely looking for a handout. No five year-old would want that, but the reality is very much the opposite for too many as life should have it. You can say what you want about the subject, but if you can justify the idea of a child living on the street or struggling through poverty, then you’ve lost yourself my friend. 

Frankly, we as a society have lost ourselves. While I admit to being an idealist I make no apologies for it, which is why I ask how it is that a nation like Canada, a member of the elite club of industrial and economic powerhouses in the G7, allow its own citizens to live on streets with a passive acceptance for it as simply being the way it is? I can’t for the life of me understand that. I can’t understand how there isn’t enough food for many in our country, or how the poverty line is so low and we seem to be more concerned with hoarding wealth than making sure those in the hardest and most challenging positions have the basics. And when I say basic standards, I don’t mean the basic standards for living because that’s rubbish and an easy cop-out and certainly if many of us were in such a position we would be shouting for more. Instead I mean the basic standards that WE would accept for our own lives; certainly if many of us were in such a position of poverty and degradation as living on the street our hope and expectation for help might be at least as loud.

We need to do better folks. We need a stronger position when it comes to issues like homelessness and poverty, hunger and education (though there are more issues than that...). Five year-olds don’t dream of living on the street, and teenagers or adults shouldn’t have to go through life with that as their reality. We need to rediscover our own humanity, because we’ve lost it and people are suffering because of it. It’s often said of teams that they’re only as good as their weakest member; if that’s the measure of our society and country, then surely on paper we’re not a very good team. We need to resolve how we can overcome this to be the great team we’re capable of, regardless of what justification might be necessary to get to that point.  

These are tough issues that we need to take on, with obstacles (some imagined) and different views towards what are the appropriate policies needed to combat them. But it needs to be done and the measure of our effort should not be a minimum standard, rather it must be our maximum humanity. If we can’t get to that point on policy then we don’t deserve to call ourselves a great society, nor a decent country. Hopefully we can fix this (and other blatant issues) and allow for a strong and eternally compassionate Canada to emerge, so that we care for others as though they were five years-old, with nothing more than thoughts of Mickey Mouse in their minds and care for others in their hearts.