How serious a problem can 'conflation' be...?

Last weekend, I ran into some typical Hamilton thinking. (It's not something the city has a monopoly on, believe me. I see it everywhere, all the time.) I wrote about it here.

The core of its dysfunction strikes me as conflation.

Which can be caused by intellectual laziness.

Or, it can be caused by wrapping oneself in an ideology, the equivalent of putting your hands over your ears, closing your eyes, stamping your feet while yelling "LALALALALALA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU, THEREFORE I'M IMMUNE TO YOUR RATIONAL WAYS!!!"

Or it can be caused by fear. Fear brought about by frustration, exasperation...desperation.

Or...all of the above. (We have working against us, as a kind of 'exacerbation-factor', our 'legacy-malaise'.)

'typical Hamilton thinking' tends to get initiated at the worst times. When there's a lot on the line, when distrust is high, when communication has been knee-capped by any number of possible elements: 'Us vs Them', an earnest need to finally feel part of the proceedings, and/or to stand up for 'victims'.

We're seeing it currently with the 'radial separation bylaw' as it's being judged by the Ontario Human Rights Commission's Barbara Hall, as prompted by the Lynwood-Charlton application for exemption to move their facilities from Charlton Hall to Augusta Street.

Misinformation.

Heels-dug-in resistance.

And a ton of conflation.

Conflation to me has always brought to mind the therapist's mantra for couples when arguing: 'Stick to one issue.' To not bring into the 'discussion' other problems, other bones-of-contention, other grievances.

In simple terms, it's a variation on 'tarring with the same brush'.

With this article in today's Spec, and in the resultant comments, we're seeing conflation at its worst.

Those who feel that patients/clients of residential care facilities need to be defended from any resistance to their proposed presence bring into the fray that old mainstay 'NIMBY-ism', and in the process, use phrases such as "...from the mentally disturbed young women of Charlton Hall, to the MORALLY disturbed people of Augusta St."

Those who have a fondness for 'human rights' (I'm not exactly sure where that leaves those of us who don't line up with them unreservedly) have embraced what Ms Hall has declared as being above reproach, and therefore, have assigned all councillors responsible for the original passing of the 'radial separation bylaw' in the previous decade as well as all attached legal staff and their paid professional advise as...well...doofuses. (Hamilton residents seem to be consistently champing at the bit for validations of their distrust and cynicism where Council is concerned.)

And those who strain from the other side of the fence...the ones who don't seem to grasp much of anything beyond not wanting to see 'nutbars' wandering around in traffic or huddling on neighbourhood sidewalks...add their own contributions to the mix.

The result is...a mess.

For the sake of clarity, here's what I believe in:

-That great neighbourhoods are a mix of all manner of elements. The other end of the spectrum is a ghetto.

-That people-in-need deserve to be graciously and humanely provided what they require.

-That we need to be aware –and wary– of neighbourhoods becoming 'oversaturated' with care facilities. Not because the clients/patients are 'bad', but because a community that's in this state becomes an 'industry enclave' and in the end, becomes that possibility as mentioned at the conclusion of my first point.

-That tied to this is the need for consideration of the concept of a 'poverty industry'.

-That the Hamilton we see before us where social services are concerned is hardly the Hamilton we saw before Premier Mike Harris proceeded with their 'downloading'...making possible the above notion. 

-That we need to be able to discuss everything attached to our communities rigourously, with discretion and kindness, but that discussion must unfold, discussion with as little conflation as possible.

I'm hoping that along with a few other pivotal issues that Hamiltonians will soon be grappling with, this 'radial separation bylaw' as it relates to how our inner-city neighbourhoods are composed will find us actually discussing and exploring and maybe even arguing at a much higher level of engagement than we're used to in this city. 

But I recognize that it's not going to happen because our councillors provide inspirational and motivational leadership. 

And it won't happen because mainstream media nudges us just so. 

It'll happen because enough suitably-inclined people decide that it's time we finally got down to talking. 

And to Hell with the conflation, yeah?

M Adrian Brassington