The Globe and Mail frightens me

The City of Toronto tells its residents each winter to “be nice, clear your ice,” yet it has 6,300 addresses on file of people who cannot. Instead, municipal workers are sent to chop it up and remove it for them. Why must the infirm and aged rely on a city to remove snow and ice from their sidewalks? Where are their neighbours?

When I read this in a Globe and Mail editorial, I had a strong emotional reaction that I can best characterize as part fear, part helplessness, part "NO FAIR!" I've had it kicking around in my head for two weeks, and I'm finally able to articulate why I feel this way.

The Globe & Mail editorial is assuming its readers are the people who are capable of helping. In fact, they're looking at it solely from the perspective of the people who are capable of helping, with no identification or empathy whatsoever for the people who are in need of help.

I identify with the people who are in need of help. While I am capable of shovelling a sidewalk specifically, in life in general I'll never be wholly self-sufficient. There will always be areas of life that I won't be able to handle by myself. And it terrifies me that they'd want to take away a measure that guarantees assistance in areas we can't handle ourselves and instead put us at the mercy of those who happen to be near us.

Currently the situation is as follows:

Government: "You must obey this law!
You: "I'm physically incapable of obeying that law."
Government: "Well, we aren't unreasonable. Give us your name and address, and we'll send someone over to take care of it for you."

The Globe and Mail wants to change this situation to the following:

Government: "You must obey this law!"
You: "I'm physically incapable of obeying that law."
Government: "Well, your neighbours should be good citizens and take care of it for you. But if they don't, you will be punished for disobeying the law."

Isn't that terrifying? Can't they see why that's terrifying?

On top of that, and apart from the fact that putting you at the mercy of your neighbours introduces the possibility of extortion and exploitation, building a relationship where you can ask your neighbours for help requires a certain amount of social skill/credibility on the part of the people in need of help. Do they not realize how much privilege that takes?

I can usually convince people to help me when I need help. But I'm a harmless-looking white girl. I speak clear and articulate English and am able to communicate both my need for help and culturally-appropriate apologies for the imposition. I have a beautiful smile, have bathed within the past 24 hours, and own a suitable variety of clothing that falls within the range of general social norms. I have the financial stability to pay all my bills on time. When I have a panic attack, it's because of something that's visible and tangible that is culturally marked as scary and/or yucky. I live in a context where I lose no face if I say "I'm not strong enough to lift that." And I also live in a context where the people I already trust can often help me with the stuff I need help with. This is all privilege, and none of it is entirely of my own making, some of it being completely outside my control.

People would be less likely to help me if I was a shady-looking old man, or if I were snaggle-toothed and smelly. People would be less likely to help me if my request for help was crude and unclear and didn't contain acknowledgment and mitigation of the imposition. My supers and other people I do business with would be less inclined to help me with stuff that's not strictly within their mandate if I didn't have an impeccable record of paying what I owe on time. I'd get far less understanding if my panic attacks were caused by something only I can see. It wouldn't work nearly as well if it were a humiliation for me to admit I don't have the physical strength required for the task, or if I had to go to strangers or randoms or people I don't trust for help with things that are better handled by people I trust. There are lots of people who are in these situations, often for reasons that are not within their control.

It terrifies me that the Globe and Mail doesn't see this. It terrifies me that the fricking newspaper of record would presume to tell us as Canadians that we should change things in a way that puts those in need at the mercy of people who happen to be in the general vicinity. And it terrifies me that it doesn't even seem to cross their minds that their readership might contain people in need, instead marginalizing this ever-growing segment of the population with a few ill-chosen words, and then printing then on the front page above the fold.