The Diocese of Huron’s Bishop Linda Nicholls is agitating for the setting up, in London Ontario, of a safe injection site, a place where people can get free sterilised needles to inject themselves with illegal drugs.
There are pros and cons to these establishments, not the least of which is that nobody wants to live next door to one. Since the bishop doesn’t, she doubtless feels quite comfortable in writing this letter:
I write in support of the proposed safe injection sites being considered by Council at 441 York Street and 241 Simcoe St.
As noted by the Sisters of St. Joseph in their recent letter to you:
“A recent academic article in the Harm Reduction Journal, “Supervised injection facilities in Canada: past, present, and future,” offers a careful review of the experience and impact of supervised injection facilities (SIFs). It notes that Canadian efforts have learned from positive experiences in Western Europe. In addition, Canada’s first sanctioned SIF, which opened in Vancouver 2003, was rigorously evaluated and met its objective of reducing public disorder, disease transmission and overdoses. Equally important, it successfully referred individuals to a range of external programs including detoxification, and addiction treatment programs. The evaluation demonstrated that the SIF was cost-effective and did not result in increases in crime or encourage initiation into drug use.
It should be noted that over 40 peer-reviewed studies have highlighted the benefits and the lack of negative impacts for this site. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Canada justices ruled 9-0 in favour of the continued operation of the SIF, noting that it “has been proven to save lives with no discernible negative impact on the public safety and health objectives of Canada.” (2011 ruling, p. 139)”We would, of course, prefer to end the prevalence of drug addictions in our city. However, for those who are addicted the process leading to recovery is long, slow and difficult. Along the way the need for support including harm reduction through safe injection sites is a proven factor in assisting such healing.
Surely a safe injection site is preferable to the proliferation of the discarding of needles in public areas where they can be a hazard not only to the user but to other members of the public.
Ironically, I have heard nary a peep from the bishop on Canada’s plan to legalise marijuana, a drug known to cause irreversible brain damage. Surely standing against the legalising of a harmful drug makes at least as sense as providing safe space for the already addicted to further stupefy themselves?
Right:”nary a peep…” which is being disclosed in the House of Commons ‘Question Period’;
legalizing is proving to be a Liberal/Libertine $ boondoggle. This ‘Bishop’ et al. do not have any “clean needles”.
Considering the ACoC and its apostate primate and so-called bishops have abandoned the Gospel I am not in the least surprised at this action. The time has long since past for a return to the true Gospel and those who insist on using drugs should simply face the consequences. If they faced the prospect of dying from said use they would carefully consider their actions. Providing safe injection sites is nothing less than an inducement to try drugs and provides free advertising for the drug dealers. It also means that we are willingly subsidizing drug usage.
re: “Since the bishop doesn’t (live next door to a safe-injection site), she doubtless feels quite comfortable in writing this letter”
I really resonated with this observation. It’s very troubling that many of the liberalizations that have been advocated recently by the well-intentioned (such as safe injection sites, legalized brothels, marijuana, etc.), are in fact things that will have an immediate and negative impact on those who live in poor communities but do not wish to be thrust into the center of such destructive behaviours. Those who advocate for them, are generally people who will not be impacted by them. All done under the banner of helping “the most vulnerable.” The most vulnerable include the single mother living in community housing and trying to raise her children in an environment where they will not be directly exposed to these things at every turn. Legalization and tacit legalization only remove any recourse that such people have. Now they cannot even turn to law enforcement to help keep their communities safe for their children.
Following along the same line when it comes to those modern bien pensants who advocate these sorts of things, and regarding “legalized brothels” (as well as the euphemism “sex worker”), the only litmus test that counts is this simple question:
“If your daughter or son came home and told you they were going to become a professional sex worker, would you support their choice of career?”
If not, then you’re a hypocrite.
I find myself wondering if this sort of advocacy is a result of an echo-chamber environment – because those who are horrified by it have withdrawn their involvement. Were opponents silent? Are there no balanced voices left to ask such questions?
Yet another example of a woman pretending to be a priest but in reality abusing the office for left wing politics.
Today as I drove by St. George’s Owen Sound with my wife I noticed that a political sign is still there, in which it states that “Bells toll for murdered and missing women. Canada needs (needs has been crossed out) has (written in italics and red ink) an enquiry.” I said to my wife that although at times I miss attending St. George’s and the Anglican Worship service every time I see that sign I am disgusted that the left wing politics continues to infect this church and so I cannot go back.