Hope-brokers in the face of violence

A column on the gun violence in Toronto, with some great insights by Colin McCartney, executive director of Urban Promise Toronto:

McCartney's solutions knock conventional wisdom. A strong law and order approach won't work. ("If you have no hope, you don't care if you get arrested.") Investing in youth programs won't work. ("It's not enough. In some cases, if you get a 17- or 18-year-old who's messed up, it's too late.") And he has harsh words for church leaders who parachute into a community, host a BBQ, do a "prayer walk" to places where violence has occurred, then leave. All that does is further stigmatize and stereotype the community as a "bad" place, says McCartney. Even worse, the Christians aren't there to help the rest of the time.

His solution is two-fold: Focus on children. Be there.

...McCartney sees himself and his staff as "hope-brokers" giving young children and youth positive role models, help and hope for a better future outside the violence they see.

Comments

[Rob Auld]

Darryl, What a great article. A ministry like that would be worth the resources! Rob

[Arthur]

I do not mean to diminish the shooting of the young lady on Yonge Street on Boxing Day in any way, shape or form. What happened WAS, and IS, tragic, especially given the fact that she was only 15 years old with all her life ahead of her, and was minding her own business when the shots rang out. Truly an innocent and beautiful bystander caught in a sensless act of violence. I have to ask, however, if the victim was a young, black, male, "known to police,".... would there still be such an outcry by the public? Would there still be so many people coming forward to declare that he was so loved, and was such a "bright light," and that he will be missed so much by his family and friends? Would the makeshift shrine be so large? Would our esteemed politicians have been so quick to promise to do whatever it takes to rid our streets of violent gangs? Would there still be another push to ban hand guns, (which, by the way have already been effectively banned for many years?) Or would the silence be deafening? I remind myself that to Jesus, even the most marginalized of our society is precious in His eyes, and the loss of even one life, regardless of colour, regardless of "innocence" or lack thereof, is a tragedy. And I ask myself: "What am I doing to help, not hinder?" And, to my shame, I reply: "Not enough. Lord, not nearly enough."

[Paul Johnston]

Darryl, what about individual and family accountability. While programs like the one outlined by Mr. McCartney seem compassionate, are they productive? Do they effect people in such a way whereby individuals, families and communities assume personal responsibility and strive for self sufficiency or do they help create a culture of perpetual dependence? Frankly, I'm of the opinion that "conventional wisdom", has gravitated away from authoritarian solutions that expected acountability and obedience and rather embraces an ethos that excuses laziness and lawlessness. I cannot fathom a Christian expression that does not demand obedience and best efforts from all, regardless of their personal circumstances, as well as compassion and generosity.

[Arthur]

Hey, Paul. Happy New Year to you. I, for one, agree with you wholeheartedly. The article quoted by Darryl says: "A strong law and order approach won't work. ("If you have no hope, you don't care if you get arrested.") Under the existing state of our legal system, I would have to concur with that statement, but I believe that if the perpetrators of the violence faced a punishment that actually reflected the seriousness of their crime, they would perhaps think twice before going out and shooting up our neighbourhoods. In some cases, the criminals have been out on bail even before the cop who arrested them has had the time to write his report on the incident. A friend of mine who is a cop told me of one instance where he hadn't even arrived back at the police station at the end of his shift before the guy who took a shot at him was allowed back out on the streets. His attitude now is almost "Why bother?" I think that there should be no bail for crimes of violence, no "two (or three) for one deal" and a minimum sentence of ten years for any crime committed with any weapon, and consecutive sentencing for multiple convictions. I also believe that we should follow the example of the States, and have a "three strikes and you're out" policy. Life should mean just that: LIFE. Not fewer than ten years. I believe if the punishment was made to fit the crime, we would have far fewer people willing to face the consequences, and thus the streets would be a lot safer. However, having said that, let's put the number of murders in Toronto in perspective. In 2005, there were fewer than 100 murders reported in a city of over 2 million people. In The States, in Chicago (for example,) there were +/- 600 murders reported in 2005. In several cities of 250,000 or less people, the murder rate was double that of Toronto. Suddenly, Toronto doesn't seem all that bad, does it?

[Darryl]

Well, a tough approach does get people off the streets, but I think Colin's statement is valid. Some people's lives are so messed up that jail couldn't make it any worse. I read that the current crime spree is in part because some of the more mature gang leaders are in prison, leaving the more immature ones out of control. Who knows? I believe in accountability, but I think what Colin is talking about is working with kids who will be gang members in 5 or so years if no one cares for them. And I think he's right. It won't solve the problem of those who are already out there, but it may help to prevent a fresh crop of gang members. And it may be the best way to teach accountability. I'd rather have Urban Promise teaching them than the courts.

[Paul Johnston]

Hi Arthur, thank you for the kind sentiments and a very happy and blessed new year to you also, sir. Darryl it is hard to disagree with a program that is committed to giving children hope for a better life. My concern though is that unless mothers, fathers and communities are challenged to accept responsibility for improving their children's future, no amount of church or government assistence is likely to make much of a positive difference. In fact it might be just as likely that such programs, without a realisticly devised and implimented "community accountability" quotient, paradoxicly perpetuate the contributing factors of family and community irresponsibility that are just as, if not more responsible for the present social dilemna, as external forces are.

[Arthur]

Holey Socks! Once again I find myself agreeing with Paul. Quick, somebody take my temperature ... I must be coming down with something! :) Darryl: "Well, a tough approach does get people off the streets,..." It does more than that. It holds people accountable, and it works! When society starts becoming tough on the smallest of infractions, (like graffiti, for example,) the overall crime rates decrease. I am not advocating jail time for minor infractions, but I am suggesting that society as a whole must start holding criminals accountable for their actions. The soft slap on the wrist approach has been proven not to solve anything. Our courts are overloaded. Our legal system is full of loop-holes benefiting nobody but the criminals. Our judges don't deal with criminals effectively and are more concerned with the perpetrators' rights than those of the victims and the rest of society. Our politicians mumble platitudes and impose restrictions on law-abiding citizens, rather than deal with the real problems. By all means, institute programs aimed and preventing the kids from following a life of crime. Work on some of the underlying causes of the problem ... like the housing shortages, the marginalization of the youth, the lack of parental control, and such ... if you will. And I agree that I would rather have a program of prevention by a group such as "Urban Promise" than one by our politicians and justices. BUT, once the line has been crossed and a person has chosen to resort to a life of crime/violence, the only solution is to come down on him/her HARD.... with a sentence that reflects the severity of the crime. How does it benefit anybody but the criminals to allow a gun-toting gang member back on the streets to continue his/her lifestyle of violence?

[Darryl]

I think we're more or less agreed. As Eugene Rivers said today, it's important to remember the enforcement alone won't get the job done. But of course it's going to be part of what needs to happen.