Comment 53179

By Meredith (registered) - website | Posted December 15, 2010 at 19:31:47

If I can add one, they claimed to speak for those who were in poverty and also proposed to replace businesses - people's livelihoods - with things like brothels and needle exchange centres. And yes, while I do understand the idea of adding safety and minimizing risk at strategic locations:

Many families with kids in poverty would not want that in their neighbourhood and are actively trying to raise kids who don't perpetuate or participate in those things. Fewer are actually involved in them as addicts, clients or workers. And to paint poor people with the "oh, they all want this kind of stuff in their neighbourhood" brush is offensive, especially given the values of so many new immigrants who are so often incredibly hardworking and family-oriented people.

A lot of people want jobs for themselves and their kids, not safe places to do "last resort" coping strategies or income strategies. And with jobs, there's less of a push to be involved in a lot of these "last resort" things in the first place.

And to say "Oh yeah,we're doing so awesome helping all the poor people by keeping these things around and legitimizing them and making them safe" is to make a blanket statement about the values of all poor people that is completely untrue, with no concern for James as a family neighbourhood vs. say... a red-light district.

Comment edited by Meredith on 2010-12-15 18:59:04

Permalink | Context

Events Calendar

Recent Articles

Article Archives

Blog Archives

Site Tools

Feeds