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".
Absolutely, and as you stated this is another misuse of terms/acronyms used to label people who do not agree with the policies to begin with. It is a tactic. It is happening and it has taken over the original definition!
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.
Most people are unaware of the degree to which substance use policy is being driven by the advocacy groups, which typically include current and/or former users (in BC, think DULF, VANDU, KISS, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition). Collectively they are nudging the model away from one of understanding and compassion towards one of entitlement (or in their parlance, human rights). There’s a whole industry now, a whole metier, around substance use ‘management’ and harm reduction. Previous (or even current) drug use is a qualification for many of those jobs, and the people holding them have not just an ideology but a livelihood to protect. They consider themselves progressive, but I don’t think they represent, or even particularly care about, the truly vulnerable, DTES-type drug users. And they certainly don’t care about the rest of us, or the harms to young people or neighbourhoods – or the costs to society as a whole.
I agree with other commenters that NIMBY is probably the wrong word. I don’t hear us being called that, so much as “hateful”, “bigoted,” “far right” (you seldom see right wing without “far” tacked on for emphasis) or simply “uncaring.” BC’s retiring chief coroner Lisa Lapointe says “Our politicians need to be courageous.” [read: they need to ignore the majority public opinion] “They need to push back against that narrative that we are providing drugs – and I hate to use this word – to drug addicts. That’s an ugly word. It’s stigmatizing. It’s dehumanizing.”
She’s happy to stigmatize/characterize concerned citizens as callous and backward-thinking, however.
NIMBY typically refers to urban development. In my opinion the author is way off relating immigrants to nimbyists. I was an immigrant and coming to Canada had nothing to do with nimby. Immigrants look for a better FUTURE. Nimbyists want to keep the status quo. NIMBY refers to incongruous land development as when I protested to my local city councillor putting three 32 storey highrises in my single family neighborhood.
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".
Absolutely, and as you stated this is another misuse of terms/acronyms used to label people who do not agree with the policies to begin with. It is a tactic. It is happening and it has taken over the original definition!
Well said.
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.
Most people are unaware of the degree to which substance use policy is being driven by the advocacy groups, which typically include current and/or former users (in BC, think DULF, VANDU, KISS, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition). Collectively they are nudging the model away from one of understanding and compassion towards one of entitlement (or in their parlance, human rights). There’s a whole industry now, a whole metier, around substance use ‘management’ and harm reduction. Previous (or even current) drug use is a qualification for many of those jobs, and the people holding them have not just an ideology but a livelihood to protect. They consider themselves progressive, but I don’t think they represent, or even particularly care about, the truly vulnerable, DTES-type drug users. And they certainly don’t care about the rest of us, or the harms to young people or neighbourhoods – or the costs to society as a whole.
I agree with other commenters that NIMBY is probably the wrong word. I don’t hear us being called that, so much as “hateful”, “bigoted,” “far right” (you seldom see right wing without “far” tacked on for emphasis) or simply “uncaring.” BC’s retiring chief coroner Lisa Lapointe says “Our politicians need to be courageous.” [read: they need to ignore the majority public opinion] “They need to push back against that narrative that we are providing drugs – and I hate to use this word – to drug addicts. That’s an ugly word. It’s stigmatizing. It’s dehumanizing.”
She’s happy to stigmatize/characterize concerned citizens as callous and backward-thinking, however.
NIMBY typically refers to urban development. In my opinion the author is way off relating immigrants to nimbyists. I was an immigrant and coming to Canada had nothing to do with nimby. Immigrants look for a better FUTURE. Nimbyists want to keep the status quo. NIMBY refers to incongruous land development as when I protested to my local city councillor putting three 32 storey highrises in my single family neighborhood.