In today's Examiner Andrew Mitchell has every reason to be deeply troubled by the acting mayor's prejudices in regard to "homelessness". The troubling dismissive attitude sadly reflects Launceston Town Hall's bureaucratic disconnect and the underlying status quoism to be found there.
Talking authoritatively about a cohort of people deemed to be choosing to be "homeless" is both silly and misinformed.
Firstly this 'homelessness' apparently offends those in authority, who for the most part it is troubling that some choose to live 'outside the system' – that social order that they assume empowers them and that feeds them.
It is the system that gives 'authoritative bureaucrats and politicians' their power and status, their generous incomes and by extension it becomes their 'reason for being' – on the gravy train as it all too often turns out to be.
Yes there are people living without 'houses', people for whom 'home' is at no fixed address, people who find living on 'the street and other obscure places' for however long, as an agreeable way of being in the world. They are not charity cases unless 'the system' abuses them for their 'differentness', albeit that they are very small cohort of people.
Firstly, we need to stop talking about 'homelessness' when what we need to be doing is acknowledging the inequities in 'the system' that places people in 'housing stress'.
Characterizing people who are 'at home' outside the system as homeless is misinformed, discriminatory and quite likely it is blind to the realities. Here, thinking about all this metaphorically as a kind of 'colour blindness' may help. No matter how well you describe RED to a colour blind person they will never ever be able to see it.
Moreover, to start to punish these people for failing to meet the political and bureaucratic expectations of 'the authorities' is nothing less than abusive, discriminatory 'rankism' – and by extension it becomes bureaucratic bullying.
Without the shadow of a doubt the issues to hand are complex and they requires the full attention of elected representatives and those they employ as public servants,
The City of Launceston's responsibility for addressing 'housing stress' is palpable and the implementation of effective strategies and the provision of effective support isn't anything that Councillors can walk away from. Yet, generally speaking, they are clearly walking away and as it seems, as decently as is possible so to do. However, there is no escaping into the dark.
Local governance is not alone and if we look hard enough the Tasmanian government, apparently it cannot see what issues are causing what outcomes. They are falling into the 'Einstein insanity trap', doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome.
Housing stress is influenced by a myriad factors such as economic distress, mental and physical health issues, family breakdowns, and the lack of houses available for 'home making'.
Thinking that people who deliberately choose to be without 'real estate' – houseless not homeless – it represents a serious social cum cultural disconnect that might be on one hand just be a very naive 'misunderstanding' . Nevertheless, on the other hand there is no escaping the fact that it does stigmatise a small group of people for whom 'home' is not a house, not a viable investment, not anything to do with their way of being in the world. They are not wrong or delinquent, they are who they are exercising their political freedom and a cultural reality.
Tasmania's 'political class' needs to reflect upon the impact of their inept understandings and educate themselves about the realities of experiencing housing stress. We need to call upon all involved to prioritise dealing with 'housing stress' as a critical issue and put realistic strategies in place to both address the symptoms and their drivers with compassion and determination.
Tasmania/Launceston deserves leaders and bureaucratic functionaries who posses moral compasses, and who are committed to social justice, and are willing to collaborate and embrace change. Access to spaces and places that provide safe shelters for and 'homemaking' is a human right and it is not anything that should be 'investment driven'.
Local governance's primary purpose is all to do with placemaking and when it strays its constituencies suffer all manner of untoward outcomes.
We all might take some solace in the words of the Dalai Lama, who is known to have said: “Home is where you feel at home and are treated well.”
No comments:
Post a Comment