Behind Closed Eyes

Introduction

You have already witnessed, first-hand, the use of authoritarian techniques to implement in a very short time with forced legislation, the unquestioning compliance of our social, educational, military, police, medical and judicial realms, with very little conscious awareness or self-reflection. All in the name of the public health and safety. Who are those managing the the implementation of authoratirianism techniques behind the scenes? No one seems to know for certain, but among the possibiities are the Chinese Communist Party, the Liberals and NDP, those referred to by President Eisenhower in his farewell address as the military-industrial complex, or by others as the Illuminati. Possibly they have all found common ground and are working together.

So it should come with little suprrise "they are up to it again." Those who performed a trial run with the COVID-19 Pandemic - the biggest scam the world has ever seen - are up to it aain. Even though it is a few years later, many people still unquestioningly believe that there was a unique, life-threatening virus. And the bio-weapon that was administered to a majority of citizens willingly received the DNA-altering injection, falsely redefined as a "vaccine." The reality is that the COVID-19 vaccine contained a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) engineered nano-weapon with an autonomous, self-constructing robot that builds carbon structures to enable communication between computers and the human bionome.

It's crucial to recognize that these regimes often employ a range of tactics to maintain power and control over the populace. The primary strategy involves creating a comprehensive system of surveillance and regulation. In fascist regimes, like Mussolini's Italy or Nazi Germany, this meant using propaganda to manipulate public opinion and create a uniform ideology that everyone was expected to follow. The state's control over media and education, much like today in modern America, ensured that dissenting views were not just suppressed but actively eradicated.

In communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union under Stalin or Maoist China, the mechanisms of control included rigorous censorship and the establishment of a pervasive surveillance network. The goal was to create an environment where the state’s ideology was not only accepted but internalized by the populace. This often involved the enforcement of ideological purity and the persecution of those deemed to be enemies of the state.

These regimes also frequently utilized the guise of health and safety to justify their control measures, just as the COVID-19 Pandemic did. For example, they might frame their actions as necessary for the greater good, thereby masking their true intent with a veneer of benevolence. In the Soviet Union, this could mean enforcing strict regulations on behavior under the pretext of creating a more equitable society. In fascist states, it might involve the suppression of any groups deemed to be a threat to national purity or unity.

One of the most insidious techniques used is the redefinition of acceptable behavior. By continually shifting the parameters of what is considered permissible, these regimes create a situation where individuals are constantly adjusting to new norms and regulations. This not only makes dissent more difficult but also ensures that individuals are perpetually off-balance and less likely to question the system.

The psychological impact of living under such regimes cannot be overstated. People become conditioned to self-censor and conform out of fear. Over time, this leads to a significant erosion of personal autonomy and the internalization of the regime’s values and beliefs.

To resist these tactics, it’s essential to maintain a vigilant awareness of how power operates and to uphold the principles of individual liberty and critical thinking. By understanding these mechanisms, we can better defend against the encroachment of authoritarian control and protect the freedoms that underpin a free and democratic society.

Observe this technique in action at any of the Calgary Public Libraries

Whenever anyone closes their eyes, perhaps to reflect on something they've been reading, or their eyes are sore and tired and need a few moments to relax, a library staff member who suspiciously resembles a medical attendant, immediately approaches him or her. They lean over, look into their face, and ask repeatedly, "Are you feeling alright, sir? Is everything okay? Are you overdosing? Feeling sick? Do you need First Aid or CPP? We can administer it until the ambulance arrives."

This question is asked ad nauseum every single time someone is seen closing their eyes, even if only for a moment. Despite reassurances that I am fine and merely closing my eyes to meditate, they continue to ask the same set of questions. They claim their actions are for health and safety reasons, explaining that they are trained in first aid and are prepared to assist if you have lost consciousness, experienced a drug overdose, or are having a vaccine reaction that might require an ambulance.

This scenario I've described is a compelling example of how institutions may employ techniques that, while seemingly benign or well-intentioned, may have more profound implications for personal autonomy and psychological well-being. I break down the underlying dynamics and potential motivations behind this behavior in the following paragraphs.

1. Institutional Overreach and Control:

The constant, intrusive questioning about the state of your health when you close your eyes, despite your repeated assurances, reflects a broader pattern of institutional control. By enforcing this behavior, the library staff is essentially asserting control over how you use the space, including how you choose to engage with your own thoughts. This can be seen as an attempt to regulate personal behaviors under the guise of health and safety, thereby creating an environment where personal autonomy is subtly undermined.

2. Behavioral Monitoring and Modification:

The uniformity in their responses and the persistence in questioning can be indicative of a behavior modification strategy. In this case, the library staff might be following a protocol designed to discourage certain behaviors—such as closing your eyes—by associating them with potential emergencies. The repetition of the same questions and responses may be aimed at conditioning patrons to alter their behavior to align with the staff’s expectations. This technique can gradually lead to self-censorship where individuals become hesitant to engage in any activity that might trigger such intrusive scrutiny.

3. Psychological Impact and Compliance:

By repeatedly asking the same questions, even when no genuine concern is warranted, the staff is creating a sense of psychological discomfort or anxiety. This strategy can be used to ensure compliance with institutional norms and to discourage behaviors that deviate from the prescribed standards. Over time, individuals may become more self-conscious and less likely to engage in actions that could draw unwanted attention, such as closing their eyes in public spaces.

4. Surveillance and Norm

alization:

The practice of closely monitoring patrons and asking intrusive questions can also serve as a form of surveillance. By normalizing this behavior under the pretext of health and safety, the library staff conditions patrons to accept a higher level of scrutiny as normal and necessary. This normalization of surveillance can extend beyond the library environment and influence how individuals perceive and accept similar measures in other contexts.

5. Undermining Personal Space and Autonomy:

The underlying implication of such behavior is a subtle erosion of personal space and autonomy. By dictating when and how you can close your eyes, the staff is encroaching upon your personal time and mental space. This can undermine the very essence of individual freedom and autonomy, turning a space intended for personal contemplation into one of enforced compliance.

6. Potential Institutional Philosophy:

Finally, the uniformity in responses and the emphasis on health and safety might reflect an institutional philosophy that prioritizes control and conformity over individual comfort and privacy. This philosophy could be rooted in a broader belief that safety and order are paramount, sometimes at the expense of personal liberties.

Conclusion:

In sum, the behavior of the library staff, while ostensibly framed as a concern for health and safety, can also be interpreted as a method of enforcing behavioral norms and exerting control over individuals. The repeated questioning and uniform responses suggest a strategy aimed at modifying behavior and normalizing a higher degree of institutional oversight. This approach serves to condition individuals to accept a certain level of scrutiny and control, subtly undermining their personal autonomy and privacy.

Understanding these dynamics can help individuals better navigate and respond to such situations, ensuring that their rights to personal space and autonomy are respected while also recognizing the broader implications of institutional control mechanisms.

Closing your eyes in a public space can have several symbolic meanings, depending on the context:

1. Introspection or Meditation: It can indicate a desire for inner reflection or meditation, seeking a moment of peace amid the chaos of the public environment.
2. Trust: It might symbolize trust in the environment or the people around, showing a sense of security.
3. Avoidance: It could signify a wish to block out the external world, avoiding distractions or unpleasant stimuli.
4. Rest or Fatigue: Sometimes, it's a simple indication of tiredness or the need for a brief rest.
5. Spiritual Connection: In some cultures or practices, closing the eyes might be a way to connect with a spiritual realm or focus on a prayer or mantra.

The Symbolic Act of Closing One's Eyes in Public Spaces

The act of closing one's eyes in public, seemingly mundane, holds profound symbolic significance. It can evoke various responses, from curiosity to intense discomfort, reflecting deep psychological, social, and political undercurrents.

Psychological Dimension

Psychologically, closing one's eyes in public signifies a retreat into oneself, a moment of introspection or mental respite. It can indicate an individual's attempt to block out external stimuli, focusing instead on inner thoughts or feelings. This inward turn disrupts the social norm of constant alertness and interaction, suggesting a detachment from the shared public space. For instance, consider the historical practice of meditative retreats in religious traditions, where individuals would isolate themselves and close their eyes to connect with the divine, symbolizing a profound inward journey.

Social and Cultural Context

Socially, our culture highly values alertness and participation in public life. Closing one's eyes contravenes these expectations, signaling non-participation and vulnerability. This act challenges social dynamics by defying the implicit social contract of mutual awareness and engagement. It evokes discomfort because it disrupts expected behavior in public spaces, where maintaining eye contact and vigilance are often associated with safety and social cohesion. Historical examples include the cultural practices of the Stoics in ancient Greece, who would close their eyes in contemplation to disconnect from societal distractions, emphasizing personal virtue over public opinion.

Political and Radical Interpretation

Politically, closing one's eyes in public can be seen as a radical act, challenging the status quo. It symbolizes resistance to societal pressures and norms, an assertion of individual autonomy in the face of collective expectations. This act can be particularly provocative in environments where control and surveillance are prevalent. For example, during the Vietnam War, Buddhist monks closed their eyes in silent protest, a powerful symbol of peace and resistance against the violence surrounding them. This act was both a personal and political statement, challenging the mainstream social order.

Reactions to Closed Eyes

The intense reactions—ranging from discomfort to rage—toward individuals who close their eyes in public can be understood as stemming from deep-seated fears and societal conditioning. In a world that prizes productivity, vigilance, and constant engagement, an act that symbolizes disengagement is seen as a threat to the established order.

One morning I was at Tim Horton’s enjoying a cup of coffee, trying to wake up slowly, when I heard fists banging a table top like electric hammers, and an employee screaming as loud as possible, “Wake up! Wake up! I told you not to fall asleep again or I will have security throw you out onto the street! “ Everyone in the room turned to look at who was screaming and who was sleeping. The intensity of the employee’s anger was entirely inappropriate to the incident. I wondered what had occurred to stir the server’s fury. Her reaction must have been an unconscious trigger which reawakened underlying anxiety about control and conformity. The closed eyes disrupt the visual and social equilibrium, evoking a visceral response to reassert control and restore the expected social order.

Homelessness and Public Spaces

For homeless individuals, closing their eyes in public spaces is often met with revulsion and hostility. This reaction can be attributed to societal prejudices and the stigmatization of homelessness. For instance, during the Great Depression, homeless individuals, often seen sleeping in public places, were frequently subjected to police brutality and public scorn. Their visible presence, particularly with eyes closed, challenged the sanitized and orderly image society strives to maintain. It also confronted the housed public with the harsh reality of homelessness, evoking discomfort, guilt, and fear.

Historical Context

Historically, sleep deprivation has been used as a method of control and punishment. During the Korean War, North Korean and Chinese forces used sleep deprivation as a means of torture for American POWs. The act of closing one's eyes, or resting, was seen as an act of defiance against their captors. The intense reactions from society can thus be seen as a continuation of these deep-seated power dynamics, where the ability to rest is controlled and regulated.

Subconscious Beliefs and Reactions

The revulsion and hostility directed towards homeless individuals with closed eyes reveal subconscious beliefs and projections. The act of closing eyes in public spaces can symbolize surrender, vulnerability, and a refusal to conform to societal expectations. This evokes fear and discomfort in those who witness it, as it challenges their own sense of security and societal norms. The housed public's reactions are often a projection of their own fears and anxieties about control, security, and the fragility of social order.

Conclusion

The act of closing one's eyes in public carries profound symbolic weight. It challenges social norms, disrupts expected behavior, and evokes strong emotional reactions. Whether viewed as an act of introspection, a radical assertion of autonomy, or a confrontation with societal prejudices, it reveals the complex interplay between individual actions and collective responses in public spaces. This symbolic gesture, laden with historical and cultural significance, continues to provoke and challenge our understanding of public behavior and societal expectations.

Avenues to Freedom

The truth is revealed in the glaring hypocrisy of the Calgary Public Library’s policy. If you were to ask a library visitor, employee, coffee shop worker, or random citizen, the main reason the homeless are not welcome is their perceived disregard for the expected social order and acceptable behavioral norms. When the homeless are out in public, especially in groups, they tend to be noisy, use profanity, get into arguments, emit odors from a lack of bathing, and leave behind food crumbs and garbage. The irony is that when they are asleep, they are at their most well-behaved. There’s no fighting, no loud or rude comments, no attempts to use drugs or smoke in non-smoking areas. They aren’t demanding attention from each other or from the employees. When their eyes are closed, everything is quiet and peaceful, except for the occasional snorer.

I spoke with a library employee who claimed that someone falling asleep is often an indication of drug use, particularly with substances like Fentanyl and Benzodiazepines, which have caused a staggering number of casualties. I asked her, “How many people have died from using these drugs at the library?” She refused to answer, either because she didn’t know or because the number was so low that it clearly didn’t justify the surveillance and the supposed concern for their health.

The primary reason the homeless fall asleep at the library is exhaustion. To avoid the negative environments and criminal activities that plague drop-in centers, they stay up all night, wandering city streets, parks, and any place they can find a little privacy without putting themselves in danger. Averaging three hours of sleep per night causes anyone to start dreaming while awake, which is why staff so often see homeless individuals pausing mid-thought. They are not lost to drugs; they are simply sleep-deprived.

If it were fentanyl, staff would observe homeless people suddenly slumping over with their arms hanging and heads down, sometimes with their pants slipping below exposed buttocks, maintaining that position for 30 minutes or more. Most of us have seen these "neo-zombies" in heavily trafficked drug areas of the city. They might vomit or defecate. There would be no need to ask them, “Are you okay?” It would be clear as day that they were in a drug-induced stupor or overdosing. If their heart stopped due to a fentanyl overdose, they would collapse to the floor, not breathing, with their skin rapidly turning gray, blue, or pale. Additional symptoms of overdose include:

• Cold, clammy skin
• Gray, blue, or pale skin
• Blue or purple lips and nails
• Respiratory arrest or cessation of breathing
• Extreme decreases in consciousness
• Limp or unresponsive limbs
• Slurred speech or inability to speak
• Loss of consciousness
• Unresponsiveness
• Vomiting
• Choking or gurgling sounds

None of these symptoms align with someone struggling to function after three hours of sleep per night for over a month. This is the level of ignorance and hypocrisy displayed by the Calgary Public Library’s administration when they claim that their control and surveillance measures are for public health reasons. If they truly cared about the health of the homeless, they would let them sleep, undisturbed, until closing time. There is ample space for everyone—the homeless resting, and regular patrons engaging in library activities. Children could play together and listen to Drag Queen Storytime Hour without anyone being disturbed—except perhaps for right-wing conservative radicals. And it’s not the sleeping homeless that bother these conservatives but rather the library’s (barely hidden) initiative to undermine the innocence of children by oversexualizing them with age-inappropriate sex education and barbaric surgeries that permanently disfigure and cause life-long infertility, in addition to trespassing on the sanctity of family and parental autonomy.

The Calgary Public Library’s justification for its policies is a fallacy, rooted in control, subjugation, and the pleasure derived from feeling superior to others. This need to dominate and dehumanize the less privileged is a trait shared with psychopaths. It’s the only way they experience pleasure and self-worth. And all who participate in this Marxist exercise of power gain the (false and undeserved) social benefit of appearing to care about public safety and the health of addicts.

Forcing the homeless to survive on three hours or less of sleep each night may be nearly as dangerous as a fentanyl addiction. Sleep deprivation can have a significant impact on health and longevity. Sleep is a vital physiological process that allows the body and brain to rest, recover, and perform essential functions, including memory consolidation, emotional regulation, immune function, and overall health maintenance. Sleep deprivation can lead to poor short-term and long-term health outcomes, impairing everyday functioning. Changes in mood—including feelings of depression, anxiety, stress, paranoia, and even suicidal thoughts—are common. Low motivation and decreased interest in sex are also frequent consequences.

Sleep deprivation can even induce psychosis, involving changes in perception of reality, disorganized thoughts, speech, and delusions or hallucinations. Recent research involving 172,321 adults found that men who get adequate sleep live about five years longer than those who don’t. For women, it’s two years. However, about a third of adults cut their sleep short, raising their risk of heart attack, dementia, and diabetes, among other health conditions.

In the end, the library's actions reveal a deeper issue, one that goes beyond the simple enforcement of rules. It’s a reflection of a society that prioritizes control over compassion, surveillance over support, and the illusion of public safety over the reality of human dignity.

The psychological process of transforming a group of people from "friends" or at least neutral entities into "foes" or enemies is often referred to as dehumanization. Dehumanization is a critical component in the creation of a dual system of human rights, where one group is considered "us" and the other "them." This process strips away the humanity of the target group, making it easier to justify discrimination, violence, and even atrocities against them.

Dehumanization: Techniques and Methods

1. Propaganda and Labeling:

• Demonization: The target group is portrayed as evil, dangerous, or a threat to society. Nazi propaganda, for example, depicted Jews as rats, vermin, or a disease that needed to be eradicated.
• Stereotyping: Broad generalizations are made about the target group, often exaggerating negative traits. This reinforces the idea that all members of the group are the same and are fundamentally different from "us."
• Derogatory Language: Using dehumanizing language, such as slurs or terms that reduce the target group to animals or objects, helps to strip away their humanity.

1. Scapegoating:

• The target group is blamed for societal problems, such as economic downturns, crime, or moral decay. This creates a sense of urgency and justification for taking action against them.
• Historical Examples: Hitler blamed Jews for Germany's defeat in World War I and for economic hardships, which helped galvanize public support for their persecution.

1. Moral Disengagement:

• People are encouraged to disconnect from their own ethical standards when dealing with the dehumanized group. This is often achieved through the idea that the target group is not deserving of moral consideration.
• Euphemistic Language: Actions like mass murder or ethnic cleansing are described in sanitized terms, such as "final solution" or "ethnic purification," making them seem more palatable.

1. Social Isolation and Segregation:

• The target group is physically and socially isolated from the rest of society. This can involve ghettos, concentration camps, or other forms of segregation.
• Examples: The Jewish ghettos in Nazi-occupied Europe, the internment of Japanese Americans during World War II, and the apartheid system in South Africa.

1. Normalization of Discrimination:

• Discriminatory laws and policies are implemented that gradually strip away the rights of the target group, making their mistreatment appear normal and justified.
• Nuremberg Laws: In Nazi Germany, these laws institutionalized the racial theories prevalent in Nazi ideology, stripping Jews of their civil rights and laying the groundwork for further persecution.

1. Public Participation and Surveillance:

• The general population is encouraged or coerced to participate in the persecution of the target group. This can include reporting the whereabouts of individuals, as was the case in Nazi Germany, or participating in mob violence.
• Techniques: Incentives, fear of punishment, or appeals to patriotism and duty can be used to motivate people to turn against their neighbors.

1. Desensitization:

• Continuous exposure to violence or harsh treatment of the target group leads to a gradual acceptance of such actions as normal or inevitable. This can be achieved through media, public displays, or repeated propaganda.

Psychological Underpinnings

• Ingroup/Outgroup Bias: Humans naturally categorize themselves into groups (ingroups) and others into opposing groups (outgroups). Dehumanization exacerbates this bias by making the outgroup seem fundamentally different and inferior.
• Fear and Anxiety: Leaders or regimes often play on existing fears or anxieties to justify dehumanization. Economic hardship, social instability, or fear of crime can all be manipulated to turn a population against a scapegoated group.
• Conformity and Obedience: Social pressure and the desire to conform to group norms can lead individuals to accept or even participate in dehumanizing behavior, especially when it is endorsed by authority figures.

In summary, dehumanization is a powerful and dangerous process that involves a combination of propaganda, social isolation, moral disengagement, and public participation. These techniques can transform a previously neutral or friendly group into an enemy, justifying discriminatory and even genocidal actions. Understanding these methods is crucial to recognizing and combating them in modern society.

The process of dehumanization, which has historically been used to justify atrocities such as genocide, can be alarmingly applied to the homeless population. This process begins with subtle societal shifts in perception and can escalate into outright violence, potentially leading to the support of their extermination by the public.

Dehumanization of the Homeless Population

Stereotyping and Labeling:

• Negative Stereotypes: The homeless are often labeled as lazy, dirty, mentally ill, or addicted to drugs. These stereotypes reduce a diverse group of individuals to a set of negative traits, making it easier for society to view them as "other" or "less than human."
• Dehumanizing Language: Terms like "bums," "vagrants," or "junkies" strip the homeless of their humanity and dignity, framing them as nuisances rather than people in need of support.

Scapegoating:

• Blame for Societal Issues: The homeless are increasingly blamed for a wide range of societal problems, such as rising crime rates, urban decay, and public health issues. This scapegoating creates an "us vs. them" mentality, where the homeless are seen as the root cause of these problems, rather than as victims of systemic failures.
• Moral Panic: As homelessness becomes more visible, especially in urban areas, there is growing fear and anxiety among the general population. This fear is often manipulated by political figures or media outlets to further stigmatize the homeless, portraying them as a threat to public safety and quality of life.

Social Isolation and Segregation:

• Anti-Homeless Legislation: Laws that criminalize homelessness, such as bans on sleeping in public spaces, panhandling, or loitering, effectively isolate and segregate the homeless from the rest of society. These measures push the homeless into increasingly marginalized and invisible spaces, making it easier for society to ignore their plight.
• Physical Barriers: Cities have implemented hostile architecture, such as spikes on benches or fences under bridges, to prevent the homeless from finding places to rest. These physical barriers are a form of social exclusion that reinforces the idea that the homeless are not welcome in public spaces.

Normalization of Discrimination:

• Public Apathy and Acceptance: As discrimination against the homeless becomes more normalized, public apathy grows. The more people see the homeless being mistreated or ignored, the more they come to accept it as a normal part of life. This normalization can lead to a dangerous desensitization to their suffering.
• Media Portrayal: The media often reinforces negative stereotypes and focuses on the perceived dangers of homelessness rather than the root causes or solutions. This skewed portrayal contributes to public acceptance of harsh measures against the homeless.

Moral Disengagement:

• Justification of Harm: When society begins to see the homeless as fundamentally different or less deserving of rights, it becomes easier to justify harmful actions against them. For example, forcibly removing homeless encampments or cutting funding for shelters can be seen as necessary measures rather than acts of cruelty.
• Lack of Empathy: Dehumanization leads to a lack of empathy for the homeless. Society starts to see their suffering as self-inflicted or as a problem that they should solve on their own, rather than a collective responsibility.

From Dehumanization to Extermination

The dehumanization of the homeless can potentially escalate to violence and, in extreme cases, lead to support for their extermination:

• Rising Violence: As homelessness increases and public anxiety grows, there have been rising instances of violence against the homeless. These attacks are often framed as acts of frustration or "cleaning up the streets" rather than as hate crimes. This normalization of violence is a dangerous step toward broader societal acceptance of more extreme measures.
• Support for Extermination: If the homeless are sufficiently dehumanized, the idea of their extermination could gain traction. This could start with more extreme policies, such as forced removal or confinement, and could escalate to more overtly genocidal acts, justified by the belief that the homeless are a blight on society. This is how genocides have historically been rationalized—by convincing the public that the targeted group is a threat that must be eliminated for the greater good.

Current Trends in the USA and Canada

There are worrying signs that the dehumanization of the homeless is already beginning to take root in the USA and Canada:

1. Anti-Homeless Legislation: Both countries have seen an increase in laws targeting the homeless, from bans on camping in public spaces to criminalizing panhandling. These laws effectively make it illegal to be homeless and push the homeless further into the margins of society.
2. Public Sentiment: In many cities, there is growing public frustration with the visible presence of homelessness. This frustration is often fueled by media coverage that emphasizes the negative impacts of homelessness on property values, business revenues, and public safety, rather than addressing the underlying causes of homelessness.
3. Rising Homelessness: As homelessness and poverty reach new highs, particularly in the wake of economic downturns and the COVID-19 pandemic, the strain on public resources and social services has intensified. This has led to increased public support for more punitive measures against the homeless, rather than for comprehensive solutions.
4. Hostile Architecture: The use of hostile architecture to deter the homeless from public spaces has become more common in cities across North America. This is a physical manifestation of the societal desire to "invisibilize" the homeless, treating them as a problem to be hidden rather than as people to be helped.

Conclusion

The dehumanization of the homeless population is a dangerous process that can lead to increasing levels of discrimination, violence, and potentially even genocidal acts. While it may seem far-fetched, history has shown that once a group is sufficiently dehumanized, the unthinkable can become reality. The rising levels of homelessness and the corresponding public anxiety in the USA and Canada create a fertile ground for this process to take root. Recognizing these patterns early and addressing the underlying causes of homelessness with compassion and comprehensive solutions is crucial to preventing a descent into further dehumanization and violence.

The Dehumanization of Homeless Populations and MAID in Canada

The intersection of homelessness and Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in Canada has become an increasingly complex and concerning issue. As the homeless population faces ongoing dehumanization, there has been a troubling trend of increased MAID referrals and usage among this vulnerable group.

Dehumanization of the Homeless

Homelessness is a dehumanizing experience that places individuals at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder. The public often treats homeless people with indifference, avoiding eye contact or acknowledgment, which further strips away their humanity. This societal apathy can turn into annoyance, with homeless individuals being viewed as nuisances rather than fellow human beings deserving of compassion and support.The language used to describe homeless individuals also contributes to their dehumanization. Terms like "homeless" and "transient" have become othering labels that dismiss and demonize people who lack housing. There is a growing push to use more humanizing language, such as "houseless" or "unhoused," to better describe the situation without stripping away an individual's personhood.

MAID and the Homeless Population

In recent years, there has been an alarming increase in both MAID referrals for homeless individuals and voluntary MAID requests from within the homeless community in Canada. This trend raises serious ethical concerns about the intersection of poverty, lack of social support, and end-of-life decisions. Several factors contribute to this troubling phenomenon:

1. Inadequate Support Systems: The lack of comprehensive social safety nets and housing support leaves many homeless individuals feeling hopeless and without alternatives.
2. Early Onset of Health Issues: Homeless populations often experience accelerated aging and develop chronic health conditions at much younger ages than their housed counterparts. This can lead to increased suffering and a desire to end that suffering through MAID.
3. Mental Health and Substance Use: The high prevalence of mental health issues and substance use disorders among the homeless population can complicate decision-making processes around end-of-life care.
4. Systemic Discrimination: The healthcare system often fails to adequately address the needs of homeless individuals, leading to subpar care and potentially premature considerations of MAID.Ethical Concerns and Policy ImplicationsThe increasing use of MAID among homeless populations raises significant ethical questions:
5. Autonomy vs. Vulnerability: While MAID is intended to provide individuals with autonomy over their end-of-life decisions, the extreme vulnerability of homeless populations calls into question whether these choices are truly free and informed.
6. Societal Failure: The rise in MAID usage among the homeless could be seen as a failure of society to provide adequate support and resources to its most vulnerable members.
7. Potential for Coercion: There are concerns that the availability of MAID could be used, either explicitly or implicitly, to coerce homeless individuals into choosing death over life in difficult circumstances.To address these issues, policymakers and healthcare providers must take several steps:
8. Improve Social Support: Increase funding and resources for housing, mental health services, and addiction treatment to provide alternatives to MAID.
9. Enhanced Safeguards: Implement additional safeguards in the MAID assessment process for vulnerable populations, including comprehensive evaluations of social and economic factors.
10. Education and Training: Provide healthcare providers with specialized training on the unique needs and challenges faced by homeless individuals to ensure more compassionate and appropriate care.

Address Root Causes: Tackle the systemic issues that lead to homelessness, including poverty, lack of affordable housing, and inadequate mental health support.The increasing referrals to and use of MAID among homeless populations in Canada is a complex issue that requires urgent attention. By addressing the root causes of homelessness and providing comprehensive support, we can work towards a society where MAID is truly a choice of last resort, rather than a perceived escape from systemic neglect and dehumanization.

Dehumanization of homeless individuals contributes to increasing referrals to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) in several concerning ways:

1. Reduced empathy and compassion: When homeless people are dehumanized, society views them as less than human, leading to decreased empathy and compassion. This can result in healthcare providers and social workers being less inclined to explore alternative support options before considering MAID.
2. Objectification: Dehumanization causes people to view homeless individuals as objects rather than human beings with complex needs and emotions. This objectification can lead to a callous approach to end-of-life decisions, where MAID may be seen as an expedient solution rather than a last resort.
3. Neglect of mental health and social needs: The dehumanizing perception of homeless people often fails to consider their mental health struggles and social circumstances. This neglect can result in inadequate support for underlying issues, potentially pushing individuals towards MAID as a perceived escape from their situation.
4. Societal indifference: When homeless people are dehumanized, their suffering becomes less visible or important to society. This indifference can lead to a lack of public pressure for improved social services and housing, leaving MAID as one of the few options available to alleviate suffering.
5. Reinforcement of systemic inequalities: Dehumanization perpetuates the systemic inequalities that contribute to homelessness. Without addressing these root causes, the cycle of poverty and despair continues, potentially increasing the appeal of MAID as a way out.
6. Reduced quality of care: Healthcare providers who unconsciously dehumanize homeless patients may provide lower quality care or fail to explore all treatment options. This can lead to premature considerations of MAID when other interventions might have been effective.
7. Internalized dehumanization: Constant exposure to dehumanizing attitudes can cause homeless individuals to internalize these negative perceptions. This may lead to decreased self-worth and hopelessness, potentially increasing their willingness to consider MAID.To address this issue, it's crucial to implement policies and practices that humanize homeless individuals, improve social support systems, and ensure equitable access to healthcare and mental health services. Additionally, healthcare providers and social workers should receive training to recognize and counteract dehumanizing biases when working with vulnerable populations.

How does dehumanization affect the mental health of homeless individuals

Dehumanization can have severe negative impacts on the mental health of homeless individuals in several key ways:

1. Internalized dehumanization: When constantly exposed to dehumanizing attitudes, homeless individuals may internalize these negative perceptions, leading to decreased self-worth and hopelessness. This self-dehumanization can sabotage treatment efforts and exacerbate existing mental health issues.
2. Increased social exclusion: Being perceived as less than human increases feelings of social exclusion and decreases others' willingness to help or show empathy. This social disconnection can amplify the risk of developing or worsening internalizing disorders and substance use issues.
3. Exposure to violence: Dehumanization increases tendencies to actively harm people or tolerate harm perpetrated by others. Homeless individuals who are dehumanized are at higher risk of experiencing violence, which is a significant psychiatric risk factor.
4. Reduced quality of care: Healthcare providers who unconsciously dehumanize homeless patients may provide lower quality care or fail to explore all treatment options. This can lead to inadequate mental health support and treatment.
5. Increased stress and trauma: The constant experience of being dehumanized and treated as less than human can be deeply traumatic and stressful, potentially exacerbating existing mental health conditions or contributing to the development of new ones.
6. Barriers to seeking help: Dehumanization can create a sense of unworthiness or fear of further stigmatization, making homeless individuals less likely to seek mental health support when needed.
7. Cognitive impact: Chronic exposure to dehumanizing attitudes can affect cognitive processes, potentially leading to difficulties in problem-solving, decision-making, and emotional regulation - all crucial for maintaining good mental health.
8. Perpetuation of homelessness: The cycle of dehumanization can make it more challenging for individuals to escape homelessness, as it affects their self-efficacy and ability to engage with support systems, potentially prolonging their homeless status and associated mental health challenges.To address these issues, it's crucial to implement strategies that humanize homeless individuals, improve social support systems, and ensure equitable access to mental health services. Additionally, healthcare providers should receive training to recognize and counteract dehumanizing biases when working with this vulnerable population.

What strategies can be implemented to reduce dehumanization towards the homeless

To reduce dehumanization towards people experiencing homelessness, several strategies can be implemented:

1. Promote direct contact and interaction: Organizing opportunities for the public to interact with homeless individuals, such as through volunteer work at soup kitchens or shelters, can help humanize the homeless population. These interactions provide mental state information about homeless individuals, reducing dehumanization.
2. Share personal narratives: Providing stories and narratives about the lived experiences of homeless people can increase empathy and understanding. This can be done through media campaigns, documentaries, or public speaking events featuring individuals who have experienced homelessness.
3. Use humanizing language: Encourage the use of person-first language, such as "people experiencing homelessness" instead of "the homeless," to emphasize their humanity.
4. Education and awareness campaigns: Implement programs that educate the public about the complex factors contributing to homelessness, challenging stereotypes and misconceptions.
5. Encourage small acts of acknowledgment: Promote the importance of simple gestures like making eye contact, offering a smile, or engaging in small talk with homeless individuals to combat the dehumanizing effects of social invisibility.
6. Address systemic issues: Work towards policy changes that tackle the root causes of homelessness, such as affordable housing initiatives and improved mental health services.
7. Media representation: Encourage responsible and humanizing portrayals of homeless individuals in media and popular culture to counter negative stereotypes.
8. Empathy training: Implement empathy-building exercises and training programs for service providers, law enforcement, and other professionals who frequently interact with homeless populations.
9. Community integration: Develop programs that integrate homeless individuals into community activities and events, fostering a sense of belonging and shared humanity.
10. Challenge dehumanizing practices: Actively oppose and speak out against practices that further marginalize homeless individuals, such as hostile architecture or discriminatory policies.By implementing these strategies, we can work towards reducing dehumanization and promoting more compassionate and effective approaches to addressing homelessness.