Response and Responsibility

Up at Whistler - snowy Vancouver-side playground of the wealthy, a tower holding up the hawsers from which dangles the gondola, or ski-lift, was 'ice-jacked' and broke in half, leaving the occupants of said gondola suspended precariously in mid-air for three and a half hours. Poor buggers. I'd have had to have pee-ed out of the window during that time.
The branch of the mob known as Vanoc are wringing their hands in dismay. What will people think? How will they ever trust the ski-lifts at Whistler?

Well, let's think. The Chinese government have an appalling human rights record, something that's so swift to drop from anyone's mouth when China is mentioned that it's almost a cliché. They are polluting the planet as though there were no tomorrow - which in fact, should they continue, there won't be. They have bullied Tibet mercilessly, supplied arms to Darfur and in spite of communism, tolerate miserable poverty in their country. BUT IT DIDN'T STOP THE OLYMPICS. So I don't think there's too much to worry about.

In Britain, town halls are struggling with increased demand for their services, one of which is housing. Yes, in Britain, the city or town is responsible for housing those who cannot afford to own or rent privately. In line with the Social Contract, those who deign to govern and take on that privilege, also take on certain duties.
Here, by contrast, no-one is responsible. Rights without responsibility.
There is a new mayor in Vancouver, and a large part of his campaign was fought on the promise to house the homeless.
Clearly this is something that worries Vancouverites. So what does Mayor Robertson do as soon as he assumes power? Why asks the churches to open their doors at night. Yes, I think this comes under the label of abrogation of the social contract, and I know what you're thinking, surely I meant to say, 'establishments where faith is practised'? Did he not ask the mosques, temples, synagogues and so on ? Nope. Just the churches.

Now, you could indeed argue that Christians have a responsibility towards the poor and homeless, and this is no doubt why some of them open their doors, but churches here, even more than back home, have limited resources, severely limited; to heat rooms up outside of normal hours puts a very real strain on that church, and to have the church staffed overnight is relying on overstretched volunteers.
In Richmond, there is ONE church that opens its doors, let's re-state that, ONE faith establishment, the one I attend. And that means there is literally only ONE place that homeless women and children can go to, because the Sally-Anne offers shelter, but only to men.

Why do the cities not have responsibility for this? Beats me.