How to help
the homeless

[Re: “Night on the streets,” News, Oct. 16] While I appreciate that Mr. Gaudreau has the best intentions when he organizes events like Nuits des sans-abri, I feel hard-pressed to play the devil’s advocate. And I, in turn, do not intend to diminish or deride the works of the many community organizations in Montreal that support the impoverished.

Over the years, I have come in contact with a great many caring and compassionate individuals who are committed to the good works they do and deserve infinite respect for the contributions they have made to making the world a better and safer place.

However, one chilly night on the streets does not come anywhere near to demonstrating the experience of homelessness. The isolation, vulnerability, victimization—physical and psychological abuses, hopelessness and despair, apathy, hunger and fatigue, the physical pain due to malnutrition, inadequate hygiene, exposure to the elements, the horror of realizing that there’s no available means of overcoming poverty this extreme by yourself, not to mention the burden of whatever life circumstances or event it was that brought you to this, are an ever-present and overwhelming reality to homeless people. One chilly night is the least of the problems for the homeless.

Gaudreau says that it’s the responsibility of the government to provide more generous funding to those on the frontlines of the fight against homelessness. Well guess what? Homeless people need personal funding to get off the street. Why is Gaudreau competing with the homeless for whatever government funding there is available? There is a reason why welfare incomes are absurdly low.

The homeless do not, in the long-term, need fish. They need a fishing rod and a home to store it in when it’s not in use and the appropriate gear and clothing to go fishing with. They need an education to learn how to use it, and the appropriate licences and permits to be able to profit from their skills.

They need transportation to get to the water and resources to establish their physical homes. They need to learn the skills needed to run a home that meets their needs of shelter, security, rest, hygienic care and meal preparation. They need long-term psychological support to facilitate re-entry into mainstream social function. They need to not only hope, but the long-term manifestation of support. They need to know that there is someone who cares enough to support them as they endeavour to learn to care for themselves.

Giving money to the community groups while you leave the homeless dependent upon inadequate welfare support provides the homeless with fish—sometimes. It does not even begin to address their problems. As Mr. Gaudreau suggests, the decriminalization of homelessness might be a good start.

I think Canada, and each of its provinces, needs to seriously reconsider the realities of poverty and they need to rethink their policies on human and civil rights for the impoverished citizens of a country that is among the largest and most affluent of the industrialized nations. There is no excuse for homelessness in Canada.

In a democratic nation, it is the responsibility of the government to respond to the needs of the citizens and to hold themselves accountable to the citizenry. Surely, Canadian citizens do not want the “issues” of poverty and homelessness to define their national identity or their day-to-day lives.

I spent seven years of my youth homeless and living in the streets of Canada and Quebec.

>>Farin

Meat and milk
no damn good

[Re: “Go vegan, save the planet,” Letters, Dec. 18] In last week’s issue, Manish Patwari manages to bring awareness to the plight of animal agriculture, factory farming, weight issues and type two diabetes. But he emphasizes pragmatism in ingesting meat products, viz, “less often.”

North America does not suffer a protein deficit, and eating meat excessively has become a habit, not an addiction. 

I recall my last meat dish—a good ol’ McDonald quarter-pounder, some 15 years ago. The meat was so tender that it slid down my gullet with nary a chew. In silent alarm, I shouted “this ain’t right!” 

Years ago, production meat was occasionally somewhat tough—chickens and steer were raised free-running and so muscle flesh was more firm.  Thus, meat-eating engaged the jaws. Its cost, too, was commensurate with higher production costs. 

Thus we were relegated to less portions, with a single serving per day—don’t gripe, WWII was being fought! But today, meat is tender, cheap but less of a delight to chew. To hell with it—it’s no damn good for you anyway!

Going vegan is the next step—milk is for calves, not for us. Besides, keeping the cow artificially pregnant for milk production is inhumane. Milk is not the perfect food we were once led to believe, and if one is lactose-intolerant, then listen to your body—you don’t need it!

>>Edward Abramic

WE WELCOME LETTERS TO THE EDITOR!