Gay marriage
June 17, 2006
So let me get this straight. Iraq’s a disaster. Afghanistan’s going sideways. Terrorists are emerging with made-in-Canada credentials, and people are going hungry and homeless in virtually every town in North America.
And our leaders have nothing better to do than try to stop people in love from getting married?
Some people don’t like the idea of gays and lesbians getting married. Then again, some people didn’t like the idea of black Americans riding at the front of the bus, either. It’s all a question of civil rights.
Equality under the law is one of the underpinnings of a just society. Personally, I don’t take that to mean that the law can be used arbitrarily to deny certain groups equality, but that’s how the Bush government, Canada’s Conservatives and 45 individual states interpret the concept in terms of gay marriage. They want marriage laws that deliberately create inequality.
The hard-won right to marry regardless of sexual orientation has been law in Canada for barely a year now. Already, Prime Minister Stephen Harper has announced his government will revisit the law this fall and put it to a vote in the House of Commons.
In the U.S., gay marriage is still illegal, and the battle to keep it that way is intensifying. Forty-five states have either banned gay marriages outright or are in the process of it. For now, President George Bush’s pitch for a constitutional amendment reserving marriage solely for heterosexuals was stalled Thursday when the U.S. Senate voted it down, but he’ll no doubt take another run at it.
“Ages of experience have taught us that the commitment of a husband and a wife to love and to serve one another promotes the welfare of children and the stability of society,” said Bush in recent media reports.
Bush may truly believe that, in which case there are still many more things to worry about than gay marriage.
Forty-four per cent of married U.S. couples don’t make it to their 30th wedding anniversary. In Canada, the breakdown rate is 38 per cent. More than a quarter of our marriages fail in the first three years.
Not only do we divorce five times more often than we did in the 1960s, fewer of us even bother with marriage. In the last 25 years, the number of common-law couples in Canada grew from six per cent of all couples to 14 per cent.
If Bush and Harper see the marriage of a man and woman as the backbone of our society, any of those stats ought to really alarm them. Those trends will have an impact on marriage far greater than anything gay couples could ever provoke. And if not that, then any number of ongoing and looming disasters - war, pestilence, plague, the usual.
But no. We’re still talking about stopping gay people from marrying. Harper is actually putting Canada into the position of considering whether to roll back civil rights. That’s scary.
In Canada, we infringe on people’s rights only for the common good. But where is the harm to society from gay marriage? Marriage is a battered institution, and if anything stands only to be strengthened from gays and lesbians embracing it.
We prevent 14-year-olds from driving and 16-year-olds from drinking, because we know for a fact that young people can wreak havoc without some societal restraints. We curtail rights in thousands of other ways for young and old alike. You can’t park where you want, live where you want or dicker over whether to give the government a share of your income. You can’t call yourself a doctor if you aren’t one.
But there’s a reason for each of those laws. There’s somebody in an office somewhere who can explain to you exactly why a law was created, and at the root of all of them is an intent to protect the common good.
Marriage has rules, too. But they were developed for clear reasons - in many cases, to prevent families from marrying each other. Perfectly good biological explanations for laws like that.
The case for prohibiting gay marriage isn’t nearly so clear. Where are the stats around societal harm? What’s the concern? What’s the compelling case for infringing on people’s civil rights?
So far, the debate seems to centre solely on whether “marriage” is a term that only heterosexuals can lay claim to. If that’s the only question, then there’s only one answer. We can’t tolerate laws that encroach on civil rights for no valid and quantifiable societal reason.
Conservative movements in both the U.S. and Canada have affirmed that strong families matter. Loving, supported couples raising happy, connected children will change the world.
And how wonderful that a brand-new population is coming forward to remind us of the power of marriage in creating those families. May they find the secrets that too often elude the modern-day heterosexual.
In the meantime, let’s move on. We’ve got much bigger things to worry about than love.
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Sewage treatment
June 2, 2006
Scientific evidence is anything but absolute, as we’ve learned the hard way over the decades. Science certainly got radiation wrong the first time out, and most recently has failed us utterly around the safety of prescription drugs. Only one thing is for certain: Nothing’s for certain.
So when talk turns to sewage treatment - as it’s bound to every now and then in a community that pumps 47 billion litres of raw sewage into the surrounding ocean every year - you don’t want to be trusting everything to “science.” You just never know.
Sewage treatment was a hot topic when I moved here in 1989. A study (oh, you don’t want to THINK about the studies we’ve paid for) was just wrapping up, and people were talking about whether it might be time to move forward on treatment. While there did seem to be something different about local waters in terms of their ability to rapidly whisk away sewage, public distaste for dumping raw sewage was growing.
That was 17 years ago. Then as now, we are awaiting the findings of a scientific study - the most recent one costing $600,000 and due in July - on the pros and cons of treatment. We’ve come exactly nowhere in the intervening years, and spent a small fortune doing it.
Scientific evidence still prevails as the argument for doing nothing. Those with only a gut feeling that it has to be wrong to dump that much sewage into the ocean have obviously not been enough of a political force to register on anyone’s political radar, because sewage treatment is rarely raised as an issue.
I was horrified when I first learned that my new town dumped its sewage raw into the ocean. I wrote about it furiously for a while in my days of reporting on the Capital Regional District, but eventually moved on. Like almost everybody else, I soon forgot that I was once outraged.
But Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to town last week promising money for sewage treatment, and praise be to Victoria and Langford mayors Alan Lowe and Stew Young for making it clear that they’d like to talk.
“You might as well jump at it when money is available,” Lowe told local media after Harper’s visit. “Even if some people believe what we’re doing right now works, it’s still not going to be good enough for the future.”
He’s right - one of these days, we’re going to have treatment. So what are we waiting for? The price will always seem unbearable, but we’ll live. And at least it will be spent on action, not more study.
Fierce debate is inevitable whenever we talk sewage treatment, of course. Those versed in current scientific evidence around the special churning action of our waters are passionate and well-informed, as evidenced by numerous heated exchanges on this issue over the years.
But science doesn’t explain everything. Nor does it always get things right. Ever seen that old footage of the poor sots at the first nuclear-test sites in the U.S., mugging for the camera while brushing radiation dust off themselves with brooms?
No doubt it’s true that our ocean currents disperse raw sewage really well. But that’s not to say that our dumping habits aren’t having an impact. Forty-seven billion litres of untreated human waste a year simply has to have an impact.
As Chamber of Commerce chairman Robin Adair noted last week, “The optics outweigh any other consideration.” There’s an economic price to being one of the last cities in Canada still dumping raw sewage into the ocean. We don’t need that kind of reputation, especially not in a wealthy and fabulously beautiful region that can actually afford to treat its sewage.
In 1993, former federal cabinet minister David Anderson described sewage treatment for Greater Victoria as a “sheer waste of money and an exercise in woolly, soggy-minded thinking.” He said he’d be surprised if the federal government would ever lend an inch of land, an hour of time or “a dollar of our money” to the cause.
Times have changed, and so should we. What was right yesterday - a garbage scow dumping local waste into the ocean, for instance - isn’t necessarily right forever. And if the goal is to tread lightly on this earth, 47 billion litres of raw sewage is surely over the line.
Money needn’t be the stumbling block. Treatment won’t break the bank if all levels of government ante up, and it seems as though the stars may be aligning on that point. As Alan Lowe pointed out, the time is now.
More than 400 articles and letters on sewage treatment have run in the Times-Colonist in the last 15 years. But few cut to the chase better than the letter from a young West Langley Elementary student to the region back in 1993: “I think your idea of throwing raw sewage in the ocean is horrible.”
June 2, 2006
Scientific evidence is anything but absolute, as we’ve learned the hard way over the decades. Science certainly got radiation wrong the first time out, and most recently has failed us utterly around the safety of prescription drugs. Only one thing is for certain: Nothing’s for certain.
So when talk turns to sewage treatment - as it’s bound to every now and then in a community that pumps 47 billion litres of raw sewage into the surrounding ocean every year - you don’t want to be trusting everything to “science.” You just never know.
Sewage treatment was a hot topic when I moved here in 1989. A study (oh, you don’t want to THINK about the studies we’ve paid for) was just wrapping up, and people were talking about whether it might be time to move forward on treatment. While there did seem to be something different about local waters in terms of their ability to rapidly whisk away sewage, public distaste for dumping raw sewage was growing.
That was 17 years ago. Then as now, we are awaiting the findings of a scientific study - the most recent one costing $600,000 and due in July - on the pros and cons of treatment. We’ve come exactly nowhere in the intervening years, and spent a small fortune doing it.
Scientific evidence still prevails as the argument for doing nothing. Those with only a gut feeling that it has to be wrong to dump that much sewage into the ocean have obviously not been enough of a political force to register on anyone’s political radar, because sewage treatment is rarely raised as an issue.
I was horrified when I first learned that my new town dumped its sewage raw into the ocean. I wrote about it furiously for a while in my days of reporting on the Capital Regional District, but eventually moved on. Like almost everybody else, I soon forgot that I was once outraged.
But Prime Minister Stephen Harper came to town last week promising money for sewage treatment, and praise be to Victoria and Langford mayors Alan Lowe and Stew Young for making it clear that they’d like to talk.
“You might as well jump at it when money is available,” Lowe told local media after Harper’s visit. “Even if some people believe what we’re doing right now works, it’s still not going to be good enough for the future.”
He’s right - one of these days, we’re going to have treatment. So what are we waiting for? The price will always seem unbearable, but we’ll live. And at least it will be spent on action, not more study.
Fierce debate is inevitable whenever we talk sewage treatment, of course. Those versed in current scientific evidence around the special churning action of our waters are passionate and well-informed, as evidenced by numerous heated exchanges on this issue over the years.
But science doesn’t explain everything. Nor does it always get things right. Ever seen that old footage of the poor sots at the first nuclear-test sites in the U.S., mugging for the camera while brushing radiation dust off themselves with brooms?
No doubt it’s true that our ocean currents disperse raw sewage really well. But that’s not to say that our dumping habits aren’t having an impact. Forty-seven billion litres of untreated human waste a year simply has to have an impact.
As Chamber of Commerce chairman Robin Adair noted last week, “The optics outweigh any other consideration.” There’s an economic price to being one of the last cities in Canada still dumping raw sewage into the ocean. We don’t need that kind of reputation, especially not in a wealthy and fabulously beautiful region that can actually afford to treat its sewage.
In 1993, former federal cabinet minister David Anderson described sewage treatment for Greater Victoria as a “sheer waste of money and an exercise in woolly, soggy-minded thinking.” He said he’d be surprised if the federal government would ever lend an inch of land, an hour of time or “a dollar of our money” to the cause.
Times have changed, and so should we. What was right yesterday - a garbage scow dumping local waste into the ocean, for instance - isn’t necessarily right forever. And if the goal is to tread lightly on this earth, 47 billion litres of raw sewage is surely over the line.
Money needn’t be the stumbling block. Treatment won’t break the bank if all levels of government ante up, and it seems as though the stars may be aligning on that point. As Alan Lowe pointed out, the time is now.
More than 400 articles and letters on sewage treatment have run in the Times-Colonist in the last 15 years. But few cut to the chase better than the letter from a young West Langley Elementary student to the region back in 1993: “I think your idea of throwing raw sewage in the ocean is horrible.”
Mental health
May 26, 2006
The executive summary alone is 112 pages, so you can imagine how much the authors of this week’s national mental-health report had to say in full about the state of Canada’s system of care. But the essence of the standing Senate committee’s tens of thousands of informed words on the subject can really be boiled down to just two key ones: Do something.
Like so many other significant reports that have gone before it, the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is a heartfelt, wise read. After hearing from more than 2,000 people whose lives are directly affected by mental-health problems, the committee came to see the issue as one of the great travesties of our health system, and one in desperate need of transformation.
The report’s authors - senators Michael Kirby and Wilbert Keon - clearly developed a passion for the subject in the course of their three years of study. Their recommendations ought to elicit rousing cheers of approval from mental-health advocates when it comes to the vision the report sets out for dramatic reform. Whether our nation will be capable of putting the report into action - well, I’ve seen too many grand visions die on the shelf to make any assumptions on that point. But surely we have to try.
“Mental illness, even today,” notes the Canadian Mental Health Association in a quote featured in the report, “is all too often considered a crime to be punished, a sin to be expiated, a possessing demon to be exorcised, a disgrace to be hushed up, a personality weakness to be deplored, or a welfare problem to be handled as cheaply as possible.”
So true, and all the more discouraging because the CMHA quote dates back almost 50 years. Our culture understands physical illness, to the point of spending almost any sum to ensure people get cutting-edge treatment as rapidly as possible. But mental illness bedevils us still, as demonstrated very clearly by our ragtag, inadequate mental-health system and endless tragic stories from families affected by mental illness.
The fix is both incredibly simple and immensely complicated.
On the one hand, improving the way we manage mental illness is as simple as providing the services that people need.
Nobody tries to tell someone with cancer that there’s nothing out there for him; they just figure out what’s needed and provide it. Whatever criticisms a person might have about the continuum of services for physical illness, at least there IS a continuum: From the family doctor to the specialist, from the radiologist to the oncologist, and to any number of helpful services in between. Why can’t the same be true for mental illness?
On the other, anything grand our country undertakes seems to run a serious risk of bureaucratic paralysis and staggeringly high, poorly executed expenditures. So while there’s obvious merit in the report’s recommendation to create a national mental health commission to oversee the transformation of the system, I shudder at the thought of how much time, effort and money could be lost in the course of bringing such an entity to life. People currently living with mental illness need action, not the makings of another federal sinkhole.
Oversight is important, of course. If we hope to one day to treat mental health on par with physical health in terms of range and timeliness of service, we’ll need national leadership to ensure standards are established and provinces’ feet are held to the fire if they stray from the plan.
But we needn’t begin with administrative structure. Service agencies and families in every community across Canada know what’s needed to improve the lives of people with mental illness. They don’t need a mental-health commission to get things going - just a designated pot of money and an invitation to put their ideas forward for funding.
The senate committee’s report notes the importance of outcomes in monitoring the effectiveness of services. Absolutely. If we’re spending money on something, we deserve to know that it’s having a positive impact.
But those working on the front lines - or living in a family affected by mental illness - are well aware of what works and what doesn’t. Proving effectiveness of services isn’t the problem. The real problem is a lack of consistent, adequate funding over the long term to provide those services, which run the gamut from crisis intervention and medication to housing, addiction treatment and support for an exhausted caregiver.
As noted by Keon and Kirby in media reports this week, we needn’t look far afield for a better model to follow. In the ‘80s and ‘90s when other Canadian communities were fumbling the closures of their large psychiatric hospitals, things were going right in Brandon, Man. At every level, the city identified potential problems in the way it managed mental health and corrected course as needed. It now has the best community-based system of care in the country.
We asked all the questions, and know all the answers. Now it’s time to act.
May 26, 2006
The executive summary alone is 112 pages, so you can imagine how much the authors of this week’s national mental-health report had to say in full about the state of Canada’s system of care. But the essence of the standing Senate committee’s tens of thousands of informed words on the subject can really be boiled down to just two key ones: Do something.
Like so many other significant reports that have gone before it, the final report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology is a heartfelt, wise read. After hearing from more than 2,000 people whose lives are directly affected by mental-health problems, the committee came to see the issue as one of the great travesties of our health system, and one in desperate need of transformation.
The report’s authors - senators Michael Kirby and Wilbert Keon - clearly developed a passion for the subject in the course of their three years of study. Their recommendations ought to elicit rousing cheers of approval from mental-health advocates when it comes to the vision the report sets out for dramatic reform. Whether our nation will be capable of putting the report into action - well, I’ve seen too many grand visions die on the shelf to make any assumptions on that point. But surely we have to try.
“Mental illness, even today,” notes the Canadian Mental Health Association in a quote featured in the report, “is all too often considered a crime to be punished, a sin to be expiated, a possessing demon to be exorcised, a disgrace to be hushed up, a personality weakness to be deplored, or a welfare problem to be handled as cheaply as possible.”
So true, and all the more discouraging because the CMHA quote dates back almost 50 years. Our culture understands physical illness, to the point of spending almost any sum to ensure people get cutting-edge treatment as rapidly as possible. But mental illness bedevils us still, as demonstrated very clearly by our ragtag, inadequate mental-health system and endless tragic stories from families affected by mental illness.
The fix is both incredibly simple and immensely complicated.
On the one hand, improving the way we manage mental illness is as simple as providing the services that people need.
Nobody tries to tell someone with cancer that there’s nothing out there for him; they just figure out what’s needed and provide it. Whatever criticisms a person might have about the continuum of services for physical illness, at least there IS a continuum: From the family doctor to the specialist, from the radiologist to the oncologist, and to any number of helpful services in between. Why can’t the same be true for mental illness?
On the other, anything grand our country undertakes seems to run a serious risk of bureaucratic paralysis and staggeringly high, poorly executed expenditures. So while there’s obvious merit in the report’s recommendation to create a national mental health commission to oversee the transformation of the system, I shudder at the thought of how much time, effort and money could be lost in the course of bringing such an entity to life. People currently living with mental illness need action, not the makings of another federal sinkhole.
Oversight is important, of course. If we hope to one day to treat mental health on par with physical health in terms of range and timeliness of service, we’ll need national leadership to ensure standards are established and provinces’ feet are held to the fire if they stray from the plan.
But we needn’t begin with administrative structure. Service agencies and families in every community across Canada know what’s needed to improve the lives of people with mental illness. They don’t need a mental-health commission to get things going - just a designated pot of money and an invitation to put their ideas forward for funding.
The senate committee’s report notes the importance of outcomes in monitoring the effectiveness of services. Absolutely. If we’re spending money on something, we deserve to know that it’s having a positive impact.
But those working on the front lines - or living in a family affected by mental illness - are well aware of what works and what doesn’t. Proving effectiveness of services isn’t the problem. The real problem is a lack of consistent, adequate funding over the long term to provide those services, which run the gamut from crisis intervention and medication to housing, addiction treatment and support for an exhausted caregiver.
As noted by Keon and Kirby in media reports this week, we needn’t look far afield for a better model to follow. In the ‘80s and ‘90s when other Canadian communities were fumbling the closures of their large psychiatric hospitals, things were going right in Brandon, Man. At every level, the city identified potential problems in the way it managed mental health and corrected course as needed. It now has the best community-based system of care in the country.
We asked all the questions, and know all the answers. Now it’s time to act.
Looking on the sunny side
May 19, 2006
One of the perks of working in the non-profit sector are regular gatherings where you get the chance to talk about how to improve our community. It’s a difficult discussion sometimes, and tough as hell to put into action. But at least people are talking.
At one such gathering this week - this time at the request of the Victoria Foundation, a major funder in our community - I took to heart the central message of the day’s keynote speaker, Gordon Hogg.
The former minister of children and families cited some mighty depressing statistics about the speed at which we’re disengaging as communities. But he noted that the challenge is to focus on what we’re doing right rather than only to lament what’s going wrong.
Putting too much of a Pollyanna spin on the issue would be a disservice to everyone, because real hardship is going on out there. Still, things do indeed go mostly right in our communities day after day.
Off the top of my head, then, an incomplete and randomly ordered list of things we’re doing right in our region, all of them proof that the issues that bedevil us now can also be sorted out if we put our minds to it:
*We have social services. Demand most definitely outweighs supply in the Capital Region, but our area is still significantly better off than any number of smaller B.C. communities. At least we’ve GOT a shelter.
*Mostly, people are nice. I’m struck by this frequently, in this region and anywhere I’ve travelled. There are days when it can feel like everything is going wrong all over the world when you take in the news. But in fact, most people on any given day are just going about their business, no harm done.
A stranger passes too close on a crowded street, a driver speeds up to a pedestrian in a crosswalk - the opportunities to do bad things to each other are endless. But for the most part, nobody does.
*Our downtown is still terrific. While no stranger to strife and disappointment these days, Victoria’s downtown nonetheless remains gorgeous. Sometimes I catch the sparkly eyes of a tourist taking in the spectacle of sun and water and fine old buildings, and I’m reminded once more of how beautiful the city is.
Seeing lower Johnson Street really springing to life again is exciting, especially for those of us who love browsing around a great downtown. The downtown will always need our attention, as the social problems of the entire Island tend to accumulate in it. But all efforts are worthwhile, because it’s just too pretty to give up on.
*Violent crime is dropping. The good news is, we’ve seen 10 per cent less violent crime in Canada than a decade ago. Youth crime is also in decline, down four per cent in the most recent year. That’s a welcome change from the escalating crime rates of the early 1990s.
Unfortunately, the bad news is that while there’s less violent crime than there was a few years ago, there’s still 35 per cent more than there was two decades ago. We’re on the right side of the trend now, but there’s still a lot of ground to regain.
*We know how to plant a garden. Thank God for ungated communities, because I’d sure miss the experience of wandering through local neighbourhoods admiring other people’s gardens. We live in a region where gardens that would command a hefty admission fee almost anywhere else are free for the viewing.
The University of Victoria, the Horticultural Centre, Beach Drive, the fabulous floral boulevards put together by Saanich municipality - in virtually every neighbourhood throughout the region, somebody’s growing flowers for other people to enjoy. The “garden city” moniker can seem a little overused, but we really do grow a mean flower garden, and with such public spirit.
*We’ve got the Goose. Having a flat, well-maintained trail that runs from north of Sooke all the way to Sidney is a wonder in itself, but having it set aside as a regional park is truly miraculous. The Galloping Goose and Lochside trail systems are daily joys for countless dog-walkers, bicycle commuters, young parents and meandering couples, and former New Democrat MLA Andrew Petter shall always sit kindly on my mind for his role in making it happen.
*We’re still talking. No problem is beyond our ability to address if we just keep the lines of communication open. OK, maybe we get a bit bogged down in all the talking sometimes, but keeping our community moving forward won’t happen without those conversations.
To that end, mark June 2 on your calendar and make a point to attend the free day-long Voices of Substance community forum at the Ambrosia Centre, which will look at the impact of substance use in our region. Life’s good in our town, but that’s not to say it couldn’t be better.
May 19, 2006
One of the perks of working in the non-profit sector are regular gatherings where you get the chance to talk about how to improve our community. It’s a difficult discussion sometimes, and tough as hell to put into action. But at least people are talking.
At one such gathering this week - this time at the request of the Victoria Foundation, a major funder in our community - I took to heart the central message of the day’s keynote speaker, Gordon Hogg.
The former minister of children and families cited some mighty depressing statistics about the speed at which we’re disengaging as communities. But he noted that the challenge is to focus on what we’re doing right rather than only to lament what’s going wrong.
Putting too much of a Pollyanna spin on the issue would be a disservice to everyone, because real hardship is going on out there. Still, things do indeed go mostly right in our communities day after day.
Off the top of my head, then, an incomplete and randomly ordered list of things we’re doing right in our region, all of them proof that the issues that bedevil us now can also be sorted out if we put our minds to it:
*We have social services. Demand most definitely outweighs supply in the Capital Region, but our area is still significantly better off than any number of smaller B.C. communities. At least we’ve GOT a shelter.
*Mostly, people are nice. I’m struck by this frequently, in this region and anywhere I’ve travelled. There are days when it can feel like everything is going wrong all over the world when you take in the news. But in fact, most people on any given day are just going about their business, no harm done.
A stranger passes too close on a crowded street, a driver speeds up to a pedestrian in a crosswalk - the opportunities to do bad things to each other are endless. But for the most part, nobody does.
*Our downtown is still terrific. While no stranger to strife and disappointment these days, Victoria’s downtown nonetheless remains gorgeous. Sometimes I catch the sparkly eyes of a tourist taking in the spectacle of sun and water and fine old buildings, and I’m reminded once more of how beautiful the city is.
Seeing lower Johnson Street really springing to life again is exciting, especially for those of us who love browsing around a great downtown. The downtown will always need our attention, as the social problems of the entire Island tend to accumulate in it. But all efforts are worthwhile, because it’s just too pretty to give up on.
*Violent crime is dropping. The good news is, we’ve seen 10 per cent less violent crime in Canada than a decade ago. Youth crime is also in decline, down four per cent in the most recent year. That’s a welcome change from the escalating crime rates of the early 1990s.
Unfortunately, the bad news is that while there’s less violent crime than there was a few years ago, there’s still 35 per cent more than there was two decades ago. We’re on the right side of the trend now, but there’s still a lot of ground to regain.
*We know how to plant a garden. Thank God for ungated communities, because I’d sure miss the experience of wandering through local neighbourhoods admiring other people’s gardens. We live in a region where gardens that would command a hefty admission fee almost anywhere else are free for the viewing.
The University of Victoria, the Horticultural Centre, Beach Drive, the fabulous floral boulevards put together by Saanich municipality - in virtually every neighbourhood throughout the region, somebody’s growing flowers for other people to enjoy. The “garden city” moniker can seem a little overused, but we really do grow a mean flower garden, and with such public spirit.
*We’ve got the Goose. Having a flat, well-maintained trail that runs from north of Sooke all the way to Sidney is a wonder in itself, but having it set aside as a regional park is truly miraculous. The Galloping Goose and Lochside trail systems are daily joys for countless dog-walkers, bicycle commuters, young parents and meandering couples, and former New Democrat MLA Andrew Petter shall always sit kindly on my mind for his role in making it happen.
*We’re still talking. No problem is beyond our ability to address if we just keep the lines of communication open. OK, maybe we get a bit bogged down in all the talking sometimes, but keeping our community moving forward won’t happen without those conversations.
To that end, mark June 2 on your calendar and make a point to attend the free day-long Voices of Substance community forum at the Ambrosia Centre, which will look at the impact of substance use in our region. Life’s good in our town, but that’s not to say it couldn’t be better.
Teen pregnancy
May 10, 2006
When I think back to my own years as a teenage mom - pregnant at 16, and completely unprepared for the rigours of child-raising - I still can’t explain why it happened that way. I knew all about birth control, and had a mother who had no problem talking frankly about such matters. But I got pregnant all the same.
We can count it as a victory that Canada’s teen pregnancy rate has dropped significantly since then. While I’ve never doubted the decision to give birth to my dear son, who’s coming 32 in June, I don’t recommend teenage pregnancy as a matter of course.
In 1974 - the year my son was born - Stats Canada recorded a pregnancy rate of 58 per 1,000 in girls ages 15 to 19. By 1997, that had fallen to 43 per 1,000, and then to 31 as of 2004. Good on us for doing something right, because the U.S. rate of 100 per 1,000 in 1974 remains stubbornly the same more than three decades later, and in fact spiked all the way to 120 in the early 1990s.
But there’s an untold story about the differences between yesterday and today for Canadian girls, and the news isn’t nearly as good.
For one, Canadian teenagers are now more likely to have abortions than they are to give birth. Ninety-six per cent of them are single girls when they arrive for the procedure. Years into the so-called sexual revolution, the sad legacy of unexpected pregnancy is still a girl’s problem to sort out.
Nor has life gotten easier for the girls who do choose to have their babies. I know from my own experience that in fact, things have gotten considerably worse, largely because boys and men are no longer held to any standard of responsibility around pregnancy. If you didn’t know better, you’d think single mothers reproduced single-handedly.
People who hear that I had the first of my three children at the age of 17 often assume that it was tougher being a pregnant teenager in 1974 than it is in 2006. Not a chance.
When I was a teenage mother, I had a husband who worked at the mill in Campbell River while I stayed home and looked after the kids. We had two vehicles, a great house, and at least one holiday a year. I had no idea how to be a mother and a wife, but at least I had a guy who understood that being the father meant something.
These days, four-fifths of Canada’s single-parent families are headed by single mothers. More than a third of them live below the federal low-income cutoff. That’s an improvement over 10 years ago, when 58 per cent of them did. But it’s no 1974.
And while it’s great that fewer single mothers and their families are living in poverty, 36 per cent of them still are. Compare that to just two per cent of seniors, and seven per cent of two-parent families. Being a single mom in our country is a serious ticket to poverty.
Girls sometimes get pregnant for reasons that have nothing to do with knowledge of birth control methods, a point I proved in my own life 32 years ago. But that’s not to diminish the importance of keeping girls informed about birth control and sexuality. Avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place ought to always be the ultimate goal.
But once children are born, much of what ails Canada’s single moms could be solved through a drastic refit of the country’s family policies. A single mother of average circumstance simply isn’t going to be as financially comfortable as a double-income family, and will pay out a vastly higher percentage of her household income on childcare costs. She ought to be eligible for any number of tax breaks, job-related daycare benefits and temporary allowances to correct for that imbalance.
She’d be even better off if the father of her child stuck around more often. I mean no disrespect to single fathers and other fine dads, of which there are many. But the tough circumstances facing a significant number of teenage and single moms in Canada these days is all about fathers who have abdicated their responsibility.
In 1974, that really wasn’t an option. The term “shotgun wedding” was still heard from time to time, and there was a general expectation in the community that when a guy got a girl pregnant, he married her. Twice divorced, I’m in no position to tout a return of old-fashioned values. But when exactly did we decide that it was OK for our young men to walk away from their responsibility as fathers?
Life goes on even for teenage mothers, and sometimes it doesn’t turn out half-bad. But the lot of a young mom shouldn’t have to be this tough, nor fathers free to go missing in action.
May 10, 2006
When I think back to my own years as a teenage mom - pregnant at 16, and completely unprepared for the rigours of child-raising - I still can’t explain why it happened that way. I knew all about birth control, and had a mother who had no problem talking frankly about such matters. But I got pregnant all the same.
We can count it as a victory that Canada’s teen pregnancy rate has dropped significantly since then. While I’ve never doubted the decision to give birth to my dear son, who’s coming 32 in June, I don’t recommend teenage pregnancy as a matter of course.
In 1974 - the year my son was born - Stats Canada recorded a pregnancy rate of 58 per 1,000 in girls ages 15 to 19. By 1997, that had fallen to 43 per 1,000, and then to 31 as of 2004. Good on us for doing something right, because the U.S. rate of 100 per 1,000 in 1974 remains stubbornly the same more than three decades later, and in fact spiked all the way to 120 in the early 1990s.
But there’s an untold story about the differences between yesterday and today for Canadian girls, and the news isn’t nearly as good.
For one, Canadian teenagers are now more likely to have abortions than they are to give birth. Ninety-six per cent of them are single girls when they arrive for the procedure. Years into the so-called sexual revolution, the sad legacy of unexpected pregnancy is still a girl’s problem to sort out.
Nor has life gotten easier for the girls who do choose to have their babies. I know from my own experience that in fact, things have gotten considerably worse, largely because boys and men are no longer held to any standard of responsibility around pregnancy. If you didn’t know better, you’d think single mothers reproduced single-handedly.
People who hear that I had the first of my three children at the age of 17 often assume that it was tougher being a pregnant teenager in 1974 than it is in 2006. Not a chance.
When I was a teenage mother, I had a husband who worked at the mill in Campbell River while I stayed home and looked after the kids. We had two vehicles, a great house, and at least one holiday a year. I had no idea how to be a mother and a wife, but at least I had a guy who understood that being the father meant something.
These days, four-fifths of Canada’s single-parent families are headed by single mothers. More than a third of them live below the federal low-income cutoff. That’s an improvement over 10 years ago, when 58 per cent of them did. But it’s no 1974.
And while it’s great that fewer single mothers and their families are living in poverty, 36 per cent of them still are. Compare that to just two per cent of seniors, and seven per cent of two-parent families. Being a single mom in our country is a serious ticket to poverty.
Girls sometimes get pregnant for reasons that have nothing to do with knowledge of birth control methods, a point I proved in my own life 32 years ago. But that’s not to diminish the importance of keeping girls informed about birth control and sexuality. Avoiding unwanted pregnancy in the first place ought to always be the ultimate goal.
But once children are born, much of what ails Canada’s single moms could be solved through a drastic refit of the country’s family policies. A single mother of average circumstance simply isn’t going to be as financially comfortable as a double-income family, and will pay out a vastly higher percentage of her household income on childcare costs. She ought to be eligible for any number of tax breaks, job-related daycare benefits and temporary allowances to correct for that imbalance.
She’d be even better off if the father of her child stuck around more often. I mean no disrespect to single fathers and other fine dads, of which there are many. But the tough circumstances facing a significant number of teenage and single moms in Canada these days is all about fathers who have abdicated their responsibility.
In 1974, that really wasn’t an option. The term “shotgun wedding” was still heard from time to time, and there was a general expectation in the community that when a guy got a girl pregnant, he married her. Twice divorced, I’m in no position to tout a return of old-fashioned values. But when exactly did we decide that it was OK for our young men to walk away from their responsibility as fathers?
Life goes on even for teenage mothers, and sometimes it doesn’t turn out half-bad. But the lot of a young mom shouldn’t have to be this tough, nor fathers free to go missing in action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)