Shelters - rights and responsibilities

The president of Union Gospel Mission, Bill Mollard, raises some interesting points in his op-ed piece in the Vancouver Sun on Nov. 11, about the provincial government's new emergency shelter law.

The law gives police the authority to force a homeless person to go to a shelter when the weather is particularly nasty. On the surface, it looks like a good way to keep people from freezing to death. Bill's main point is that forcing people to go to a shelter -- even ostensibly for their own good -- takes away their dignity by taking away their freedom of choice; police officers are not social or outreach workers; the government would do better to support outreach programs. Bill's right on this count: I know a lot of street people who prefer not to go to a shelter. They don't want to be caught up with the fights, the thefts, the attitude problems -- often conflicting with their own -- and the fact that, especially in flu season, airborne sickness in an enclosed space is a concern (whether real or imagined).

I'm not sure I agree, though, with his opinion of the ability of police officers to assess a situation. That's part of their training, and frankly, there are few people I've met on the Downtown East Side who are more compassionate than the cops. For all the paranoia-mongering of the "activists" in the area, the cops are there and they care about the people. The son of some friends of mine at church recently became a full-fledged constable, and while he's been working other parts of the city to start with, he's said his ideal is to work the Downtown East Side and make a difference with the people there.

Then there's that "freedom of choice" issue. A lot of people on the Downtown East Side don't have freedom of choice. People who are mentally ill or so strung out on drugs that their sole aim in life is to find the next hit don't know what's good for them. They don't realize they could die from exposure ... or set themselves on fire by trying to stay warm. What are we, as a society, supposed to do? Are they to die because, at that one particular moment, they're incapacitated? Does our concept of "freedom of choice" and "dignity" take precedence over their right to live?

We leave them to die on the streets in the cold, and they're gone. We do something to help them live another day, and they have another chance to straighten their lives out.

And that leads to the problem I have with the legislation. One of the incidents that gave it added impetus was the horrifying death of a woman last winter. She had made a makeshift shelter with a shopping cart and a tarp, then started a fire to keep warm. Something went wrong and she burned to death. If I recall correctly, she had been advised by police to find a shelter, but since they couldn't force her, they let her be.

What's noteworthy about this is that this incident happened not on the Downtown East Side but on Davie Street, an area noted for self-absorbed self-indulgence. In the summer preceding the incident, I came across Clive, a man I used to know at Rainbow Mission. I hadn't seen him for several months, but this one afternoon, I saw him wandering, zombie-like, past a crowd of partyers waiting to get into one of the bars, the partyers apparently oblivious to Clive's very existence.

I saw the same thing with another woman, sitting in a wheelchair with a ventilator in her nostrils, begging. We chatted for a time and prayed together, and she said no one had even stopped to talk to her.

Did anyone who wasn't paid to be there stop to check on the woman who died in the fire? Funny: I think it's more likely that the people on the DTES would have noticed and tried to convince her to find a place -- and might have been more successful than someone in uniform -- a representative of The Man.

That -- along with the distinct possibility that the aforementioned paranoia merchants will use it to claim that the government wants an excuse to run homeless people off the streets and hide them until after the Olympics -- is what concerns me about this legislation. Is this legislation truly a caring move by government, or a way to wash our hands of a situation by giving the appearance of doing something? It's the flip-side of the "homeless censuses" that come out every so often, laying a guilt trip on society about how many more shelter beds we need. Will more shelter beds solve the homelessness situation? Is a shelter a home? Or is it just a number of beds on a ledger, which someone thinks will indicate that the problem is solved if it equals the number of people who would otherwise be on the street. "Well, we tried," the government can say, and people can go on partying to their hearts' content, since someone else is taking care of things.

Doesn't Jesus call us to be that "someone else"?

Having a "right" is one thing, but we as human beings, children of God, joint-heirs with Jesus Christ, have a responsibility that we are all too willing to shirk. (Note what I've said in the past, that the DTES is "Samaria", and Jesus specifically includes Samaria in His final instructions to us in Acts 1:8.) If we are walking in love towards one another, we take care of one another. Maybe that means seeing if they want to go to a shelter; maybe it means sharing the Gospel and the hope of the knowledge that God has not forgotten them -- and neither have people in the "other half". It's amazing how much warmer you can feel when you know that. I believe that's one of the reasons why Gospel Mission and The Lord's Rain have been successful in achieving transformational revival: we're not a big organization, and our support comes from countless people coming forward in countless ways, with donations big and small, of money, time, labour and supplies, as the Lord lays it on their hearts. That sends an important subliminal message: that "someone else" from "the other half" does care.