We’re witnessing a crisis on our streets unlike any we’ve seen before. Thousands of our fellow Londoners are unhoused and we see them every single day. Our city tries to help, the province tries to help, but nothing seems to be working. Why not? If you were to ask me that question, I would say because homelessness has become another ideological purity test, and we are stuck with two opposing views that are equally as reductive and dangerous.

Are you Progressive™? Then people living on the streets are innocent, gentle souls, who wouldn’t even hurt a fly. They just need shelter and food so they can get back on their feet!

Are you Conservative™? Then all homeless people are monsters and burdens on society, and they should all be arrested, relocated or institutionalized!

I won’t spend any time explaining why the second view is messed up. We know it’s morally wrong to lock up all homeless people. But that kind of idea is the devil you know. It’s glaringly immoral. It’s the other side we need to talk about, the more insidious evil of turning a blind eye to the people most in need of help, because it hurts your feelings to admit that some people truly can’t help themselves.

Let’s break that down: people who are experiencing homelessness are not a monolith.

To the bleeding hearts: yes, many people are living on the streets because they were simply dealt a rough hand. Maybe they lost their job or were unjustly evicted. Maybe they have no serious addiction issues and avoid committing any unnecessary crimes. All they need is support and they can become fully functioning members of society again. Let’s call them Group A.

To the sociopaths: yes, there are people living on our streets with severe mental health problems, and crippling addictions, who are destroying neighbourhoods and would gladly stab your grandmother for a baggie of meth. Let’s call them Group B. And yes, those people deserve help, too.

What we really need to do is identify who fits into which category and respond accordingly. Mixing the two groups together, in any way, is not only ineffective, but dangerous. For those in Group A, our current response is ideal. They need shelter, food, and support. But, unfortunately, sharing those resources with Group B renders them less effective, and puts them at risk of unpredictable violence.

For Group B, on the other hand, simply providing services like shelters and hubs are completely ignoring their most dire need: the need to be (and I’m sorry if this is hard to hear) put into an ethical mental health facility, whether they consent to it or not, because they will likely die if they do not get that help (and it will be a slow, painful and undignified death as they spiral further and further into addiction). They are not going to just spontaneously stop using meth and fentanyl because you gave them a bed and a blanket. Anyone who thinks otherwise has clearly never known an addict.

This is just common sense. If you observe what goes on in our city, you also know this. But as long as we are unwilling to admit there are more than one type of homeless, and we continue to apply band-aid solutions that show little sign of helping, all we are doing is letting people overdose, letting people terrorize neighbourhoods with rampant crime, letting human beings, who are completely unable to help themselves, waste away in front our very eyes, all the while patting ourselves on the backs for being so caring and virtuous, unlike those cruel right-wingers who want them in jail…housed…fed…and drug free.

And before you lose your collective minds: no, I am not advocating for the prison solution. Merely, I’m pointing out the abject hypocrisy of the left, of which I have always considered myself a part.

At the end of the day, these are not easy conversations to have. They’re often uncomfortable, but I stand by the fact that it is less uncomfortable than dying on the streets of London with no one to help you. Saving lives is more important than our feelings. Always.