Everyone is treated the same by the BC government – except for those who aren’t.

Rich Coleman speaks of passing legislation stripping the homeless of their Charter rights by permitting police to use force to drag the homeless to the door of a shelter. Not in, just to the door.

In response Vancouver city councillor Andrea Reimer tweeted “Thinking about introducing a motion requiring police to pick up Minister Coleman next time he’s in Vancouver and drop him off at Jenny Craig,” which resulted in Councillor Reimer being assailed by the press.

Unfortunately Councillor Reimer opted for political expediency over character and conviction and retracted her statement and apologized.

Unfortunate because Reimer’s tweet was a most apt and penetrating critique of the liberal government’s ‘Assistance to Shelter Act’.

Although it is hardly surprising that the insight of Reimer’s comments should go unperceived and unremarked by a press corps that gave rise to the Victoria Times Colonist inaccurate headline “Law would force homeless inside”.

Coleman said the proposed law gives police authority to take people to shelters, even if it requires them to use force and that the government is doing it because they need to protect people who won’t help themselves.

Now, we know that being overweight raises the likelihood of dying from a heart attack or other health related complications.

Given that Mr. Coleman’s decision not to lose the excess weight puts his life at risk and in light of the BC Liberal government having adopted a policy of intervention in order “to protect people who won’t help themselves” does it not follow that Mr. Coleman must be taken, by force if necessary, to a weight loss clinic “for his own good” whether he wants to go or not?

If we are going to start having special rules and treatment for one classification or sub-group of citizens for what we deem to be “their own good”, should this principle not apply to all deemed “who won’t help themselves”?

A rather steep, slippery and treacherous slope to step onto.

Or will the BC government be limiting protecting “people who won’t help themselves” to the homeless to avoid those who are not powerless to defend themselves from this type of assault on their rights and freedoms?

The government claims that this course of action is in the best interest of the homeless; choosing to ignore that those who know and interact with the homeless on a daily basis believe this course of action is likely to cost, not save, lives

Moreover the government has chosen to wilfully ignore the wildcard Mother Nature has added into the mix this winter of 2009/10 – H1N1

Consider that the homeless are an at risk population with numerous health related issues and challenges; this is the first wave of H1N1; a second wave is expected in the New Year; all the schools in Kitimat are closed because of a H1N1 outbreak, as other schools have been forced to close by H1N1.

Picture a crowded homeless shelter full of people. Is not a crowded shelter an even better place for the transmission of H1N1 than a school? Are not the homeless, an at risk population, “ripe for the infecting” by H1N1? How many will die as a result of the H1N1 virus if forced to shelters?

Given the H1N1 pandemic sweeping the globe, forcing the homeless to shelters will condemn some to their death.

Hmmmm. Government rounds up what is considered a problem population and sends them off to locations where they die…. Sounds familiar…