By N. Invictus (an anonymous Canadian teacher)
The legacy media and some of our elected officials feel entitled to resort to name-calling and labelling in order to discourage opposition to decisions that could jeopardize the safety of our neighbourhoods. These decisions normalize the use of various drugs and regard encountering needles in playgrounds as an acceptable occurrence, a new norm, something we're expected to tolerate. They've led to increased crime and theft in communities that previously had lower records of break-ins. Furthermore, some of these decisions were made without following proper procedure and despite the clear opposition of residents. In one instance, the close to unanimous opposition of vulnerable seniors with language barriers was blatantly disregarded.
These days, if you seek to live in a safe and secure neighbourhood, you may find yourself labelled a NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard). Likewise, if you expect city officials to adhere to due process and respect the voices of the people, you may be branded a NIMBY. Even if you exercise your democratic right to appeal a decision or request a review, you risk being unfairly labelled as a NIMBY— not just by the legacy media, but also by those who may lack awareness of the specifics of your situation and disregard the civic duty of individuals to exercise their democratic rights. We live in very strange times!
I highly doubt that those who label other people NIMBYs would actually permit any homeless person to set up camp in their backyard or even on their front lawn! Would they open their homes to them? Would they be willing to provide shelter for the less fortunate? Would they leave their child with them? Would any of our city councillors or our Mayor share one of his/her rooms for an extended time with a homeless person who is also addicted to illicit drugs? What about the journalists who find writing about these issues and branding the opponents enticing? If not, why not? Where do they draw the line, and how do they define a NIMBY?
Full disclosure, I proudly identify as a NIMBY, as do all of us, including our parents who immigrated to Canada because they were dissatisfied with the situations in their home country. We did not like what was going on in our backyards over there! We could not change it, so we departed from what we found unacceptable. Unable to alter those circumstances, we opted to live in a better backyard. We came here for a better backyard. Rest assured, every one of us (or our ancestors) took this path! We are either all NIMBYs or a descendent of a NIMBY and not being inclined to admit it does not change anything!
Being a NIMBY does not signify a lack of compassion or sympathy towards the less fortunate. Instead, it reflects the honesty and courage to prioritize your family's well-being, as you rightly should. It means placing your community and neighbourhood first, as they deserve. It signifies prioritizing your country and its people, as is necessary.
The bitter truth is that, to our dismay, there is no shortage of less fortunate people in the world. Despite our compassionate hearts, it deeply pains us to acknowledge that we cannot realistically shoulder the responsibility of rescuing everyone. I genuinely wish we could. However, we must recognize the necessity of prioritization. This is why our family, our community, and our country must come first. This is why we left our backyards, our extended families, our communities and our home countries to deal with the problems and miseries and chose a better life for ourselves and our children. We are all NIMBYs. Don’t get offended, simply face it!
Our lives consist of countless choices, many of which are incredibly difficult and heart-wrenching. If, hypothetically, I were confronted with the unimaginable decision between saving the life of my parent or that of my child, I would choose to save my child. This decision, however, does not diminish the love and respect I hold for my parent. The weight of such a choice would undoubtedly be agonizing, and I would carry its burden for the rest of my life. Yet, while I wouldn't regret the decision itself, I would deeply regret the necessity of having to make such a choice.
If I am faced with the decision between ensuring the safety of children playing in the local park after school or allowing individuals addicted to illicit drugs to freely wander the neighbourhood and discard their needles in the parks, without a second thought but with a heavy heart, I will choose the safety of the children—the future generation of our country.
I am a NIMBY.
Suppose I must choose between providing a safe injection or harm reduction site for individuals struggling with addiction and ensuring the comfort and well-being of the seniors and elders in my community. In that case, with sorrow but in a heartbeat, I will prioritize protecting the seniors who have devoted their lives to hard work and building the foundations of our present existence.
I am a NIMBY.
Similarly, these decisions do not diminish my care and compassion for those who have fallen on the wrong path or may be suffering from mental health issues. Ideally, I would prefer not to have to make such decisions at all. Ideally, our governing bodies would have implemented reasonable policies to prevent addiction, homelessness, and mental health crises. Ideally, our system would empower people to address and overcome these issues rather than merely accommodating them. Ideally, our elected officials would have had the foresight to plan for the future, would not have a hefty deficit, and had balanced their budget. However, we do not live in an ideal world. In a not-ideal world, everyone is a NIMBY.
Like many others, I chose to leave my home country behind in pursuit of a better life for myself and my children. I prioritized our well-being and sought what was considered better for us, just as you (or your parents, or grandparents) did. I prioritize my community and Canada above all else. That is the citizenship oath I took. Nevertheless, this decision in no way contradicts my love for my home country, its culture, and its people. I carry the pain of the situation there with me, and I endeavour to reach out and help within my means- but I still put my family first, as I rightly should. That is my responsibility. It is how we are wired and our survival instinct.
I am a NIMBY and so are you.
___
Thanks for reading. For more from this author, read May his name and legacy never be forgotten
BREAKING NEWS: James Pew has contributed a chapter to the new book Grave Error: How The Media Misled us (And the Truth about Residential Schools). You can read about it here - The Rise of Independent Canadian Researchers
Also, for more evidence of the ideological indoctrination in Canadian education, read Yes, schools are indoctrinating kids! And also, Yes, The University is an Indoctrination Camp!
There are now two ways to support Woke Watch Canada through donations:
1) By subscribing to the paid version of the Woke Watch Canada Newsletter for - $7 Cdn/month or $50 Cdn/year
2) By making a contribution to the Investigating Wokeism In Canada Initiative, which raises the funds necessary to maintain and expand Woke Watch Canada’s research and investigation into Dysfunctional Canadian School Boards, Education, Indigenous Issues, Free Speech, and other areas of Illiberal Subversion and the Canadian Culture Wars.
This is good and I agree with it, but I will make one comment to expand on what you are saying - As far as I know, the acronym NIMBY is usually tinged with hypocrisy, I believe it was originally coined to describe citizens who, while agreeing with a state policy (say on energy, environmental or social issues), didn't want these policies affecting them personally.
I would say that with regards to drug policies (so-called safe supply, harm reduction, etc) NIMBY isn't strictly the right word to use, because most people who don't want these programs in their backyard also don't agree with the policies from the get-go. So we need another word for people who reject these polices overall. Maybe we could use the expression 'non-ideological responsible citizens who can correctly interpret empirical data".
One characteristic of socialists/Trudeau Liberals is their huge arrogance in telling people how they have to live their lives and spend their wealth, and it just does not stop, ever. That is totally unacceptable, and Trudeau needs to go.