Unmatched Generousity? To Whom?

Before somebody hurts themselves engaging in self-congratulatory back patting based on unfounded conclusions leapt to, let’s take a moment to question, analyze or think about what having the highest median donations really means.

Abbotsford has the highest median income; it follows that Abbotsford should have the highest median level of donation. All this bragging about an outcome one would expect. Now if Abbotsford had the lowest median income and had the highest median donations we would have something to be proud of.

What a statistic really means needs careful thought, not jumping to a false conclusion. I recommend “How to Lie with Statistics”, Darrell Huff’s perennially best-selling introduction to statistics for the general reader. Thoughts of voters and citizens being familiar with this book strikes fear into the hearts of politicians and other so-called leaders.

So before losing ourselves in pompous expressions of uncritical satisfaction with ourselves, let us examine the claims made: oft quoted MP Ed Fast last year gasconaded: “We share our blessings with those who need our help, we support our neighbours and we give to worthy causes.” What is the reality on the streets of Abbotsford?

Demand on the Abbotsford Food Bank is climbing with increasing numbers of women, children and seniors depending on the Food Bank to eat. More families, children and seniors depend on other charitable organizations and people for food, clothing and other necessities. The streets of Abbotsford become home to increasing numbers of homeless daily. Adults, children and seniors go to sleep each night hungry.

Raising the question: exactly how do they define “donation”, where are all these dollars going and who actually benefits from all the money raised? Look around Abbotsford and you will see it certainly is not “those who need our help … our neighbours and … worthy causes.” Just where and to whom does all this money go and what is it used for?

Convenient concern for the homeless and poor.

“Where was your concern for our low-income families then”?

This comment from a recent newspaper column took me back to a very similar thought I had while reading the editorial pages of all the local papers and finding letter after letter denouncing slots because “they are hard on/bad for the poor”. I was left sadly shaking my head at such blatantly self-serving morally objectionable behaviour.

I do mean to christen as immoral those who are concerned for those in need only when it is convenient or serves their self-interest and ignore those in need when it could inconveniently required effort or even (shudder) some small sacrifice or there is no self-interest to be served by being concerned for the well-being of the poor.

Immorality: something that is a cause or source of suffering, injury, or destruction: the social evils of poverty and injustice (American Heritage Dictionary).

Week in and week out papers were filled with letters about how bad for the poor slots would be, a vast outpouring of concern for the poor to the papers and to council. Before or after the slots debate?

Precisely.