In answer to Darren Bennett's letter ["In support of inclusion," November 16], I must bring a few observations to the table.
Bennett seems to be all in favour of blanket "inclusion" of anyone, while dismissing the concerns of potential neighbours. I read the original article and it concerns "a single client with challenging behaviours."
Inclusion Powell River admitted it basically tried to sneak this one in without talking to the potential neighbours, and it was very sorry about that. I read that to mean it got caught.
How far do we take this "inclusion" mantra? Do we open our neighbourhoods to rapists who have been released? After all, they have served their time. Do we open our neighbourhoods to violent psychopaths whom it would be cruel to lock up and therefore not be "included”?
This warm and fuzzy politically correct mantra must be used with caution. Regardless of hurt feelings, some people cannot live around others without creating a danger.
Bennett talks of his list of three central concepts, the last being the "need for freedom through personal autonomy" and talks further about how cruel it is to take this away from the individual. I would ask then, why would he advocate for the neighbours to have their "freedom through personal autonomy" taken away? Why is it alright to tell the neighbours, in essence: You have no say here, we will do as we wish, we will take no responsibility for our actions, nor will we protect you when this individual causes damage or threats?
It is not fair to have all the rights placed in one group's hands while making a seemingly powerless group take all the responsibility. If these folks with "challenging behaviours" cause no issue, then place this house next door to Bennett's home, or the director of inclusion Powell River, who tried to hide this in the first place.
Let’s all work together to find a solution that works for all, not this one-sided imposition.
Cameron Bailey
Huntingdon Street
