Advertisement

News

Michael Bryants political resurrection takes ironic turn

There are many ways for a thoughtful person to react to former attorney general Michael Bryants political semi-resurrection as an advocate for the poor and homeless. Ill offer two: irony and disappointment. Both resonate personally for me.

At a December 15 Queens Park media conference and in a contribution to the Globe and Mails opinion page (Squeegee law hurts the poor. I should have abolished it) Bryant rebuked himself retroactively for a failure of principle: He did not repeal the notorious Safe Streets Act when he had the chance.

Bryant now contends he should have (it was the right thing to do), could have (he was then attorney general in the McGuinty Liberal government), would have acted (had he known what he knows now).

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. Its a neat rhetorical ploy to beg forgiveness of past sins of omission, when one is no longer in a position to do anything to change the consequences of those sins.

The Mike Harris governments mean-spirited law imposed heavy fines for panhandling and, in particular, for squeegeeing, guerrilla washing of the windshields of motorists held temporarily captive by red lights at busy intersections.

Who gets ticketed? Bryant asks and answers, The poor, the homeless, the mentally ill, addicts, alcoholics. My friends, our neighbors.” Hence the irony.

My late son, Darcy Allan (Al to his many bike messenger and street friends) was a homeless squeegee guy in 2005 and 2006. He worked the intersection at Queen and Spadina.

If you recall being accosted there by an energetic jokester speaking in a fake Aussie dialect, you probably met him. He bagged his share of tickets. I helped pay some. When I refused, he did some time.

Had Bryant repealed the law when he had a chance, who knows what might have happened? My son might still be plying his squeegee trade. He might not have become a bicycle messenger. He might never have found himself on Bloor Streets Mink Mile, on the night of August 31, 2009, and missed the bizarre encounter that resulted in Bryants being charged with a serious criminal offence that involved the death of my son. Thats Bryants delightfully delicate non-description of the incident that ended with his being charged with criminal negligence causing death which would later be withdrawn by special prosecutor Richard Peck.

Shoulda. Coulda. Woulda. Didnt.

Now, some 10 years later, Bryant says he could have made a difference to the victims of a bad law. Striking with iron now grown cold, he leads a campaign against the Safe Streets Act.

Does the former attorney general really believe that eliminating fines for panhandling (assuming that police do not have other ways to hassle the distressed poor and homeless) will make a significant difference for young and old who are so desperate as to have to resort to such measures to feed an addiction or put food on the table?

Bryant says he was educated to the impact of the Safe Streets Act through friendships with poor and homeless regulars at Sanctuary Toronto. That is certainly knowledge worth having. But to address the causes of destructive and self-destructive behaviour Bryant and his supporters would have to tackle the much harder task of making it unnecessary to panhandle.

Had he talked to my son at his preferred sanctuary, the Church of the Redeemer at Bloor and Avenue Road a stones throw from where Al died after his encounter with Bryant he would have learned that many (if not most) squeegee kids are addicts.

He would have also learned that any poor addict, such as my alcoholic son, who seeks treatment, faces a vicious Catch-22. To get treatment, one must first go through detoxification and remain clean and sober until placement.

But being clean and sober does not guarantee admission. There arent enough places to meet need. So addicts seeking help must wait potentially for weeks, for an opening. Its almost inevitable they will fall off the wagon as my son did.

The Globe introduced Bryants rumination by noting that he speaks and writes on addiction recovery and mental illness.

Its hard to understand why a presumed expert would argue that the way to help addicts is to enable them to panhandle without fear, rather than to advocate for more, and more effective and accessible, detox and treatment options.

That is the real need, and the real challenge. It is what Bryant and his supporters, whom I sincerely applaud for their concern, should be doing.

Anything less is, to borrow a quotation from Shakespeare, merely a tale… Signifying nothing.

news@nowtoronto.com | @nowtoronto

Advertisement

Exclusive content and events straight to your inbox

Subscribe to our Newsletter

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

By signing up, I agree to receive emails from Now Toronto and to the Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions.

Recently Posted