From time to time even heavens themselves have angels and others within who have conflicts to resolve. And judging by United Nation’s vote that Canada is the best nation on Earth many times thus far, we can be seen as a heaven of sorts. Though after thirty years here claiming we are the best makes me truly disappointed in the rest of you fellow Earthlings. If a city like Toronto with its graffiti-ridden and pothole streets such as Chinatown and other downtown cores is what the best people consider beautiful and best, then something’s truly wrong on this whole planet. If I was in charge Chinatown would have giant beautiful polished statues of yellow dragons and lions and people would have open plateaus to do things of interest, as is in my case Qi Gong, one of my favourite daily routines. Living down town I have to travel at least forty five minute just to find a nice clearing of space with trees let alone to be away from what to most ears sounds like a war zone with its sirens, helicopters, motorcycles, whirring submarine-like generator noises, klaxons of garages and beeps of trucks. If that is your idea of the best environment on Earth, then okay, but to me it isn’t even a decent one.
All that aside, that amount of chaos is bound to produce a mess in people’s psyches. And that mess, given interpersonal differences, can translate into conflicts which can lead to even violence and crime. The more people are in one area the more potential for problems, this is just a reality fact. If you have one person in a room there is less chance than if there is the maximum allowable by fire code. So amassing as many as possible via condo build outs into a downtown core is not exactly the wisest of urban planning decisions but its how City of Toronto is doing things - maybe they’re thinking they can build another New York without the related problems? Given the fact that we do not have as good a subway system, perhaps the absence of all that underground traffic of evil will not result in the same gangs and violence as it did over there? I can’t figure it out, for personally every few city blocks I would have developed space for the public to enjoy outdoor activities for free. But in TO they build parks spending millions and not a single place for even a ball to be kicked exists. How they expect future generations of children to be raised downtown is beyond me. So right there we have a built-in conflict - an inhuman design principle ruling these people’s lives. Does somebody feel sports training leads to military and thus to violence? Or did someone grow up with video games all their life and has no concept of how fun it is to swing a giant staff around the foilage of autumn and see the wind move around their body in a public park? Whatever it is, I don’t like it, so we have another conflict again without even any other people involved.
So right here I demonstrated the first step in resolving conflict situations, acknowledging the problem. Drug addicts have a hard time doing this first step. Take my mother for example. Even after thirty years of smoking she can not acknolwedge it as she still says that it took her one day to quit, and not thirty. I moved out of our family home as a teenager due to her smoking, but even to this day she says that it was her choice and that she chose to smoke for thirty years and simply changed her mind one day after those thirty years - the reality is she was na addict for thirty years and couldn’t acknowledge it. Second step is fairly obvious in conflict resolution and it is to let individuals express their feelings. If all parties in a problematic situation do not have a fair and equal voice there can be no right decision ever made for any of them. In my direct dealings with Toronto’s authorities so far others whom wrote accusations of me got to tell Justice Of The Peace what they thought of me and the judicial masters of law signed off on their words without me being asked for even a single word on my own behalf. If you were like me, and loved Dick Wolf’s shows, you might be surprised by this fact. See how the television tricked us all? I believed we all had the right to say our piece before being judged, sentenced, and punished,..err, I mean corrected. But in Canada, or at least in Toronto, it is not the case. Ten years later, I still know what the accusers think of me, but not one person in the system knows what actually took place and I never so far even made a statement. So clearly the conflict is not something the legal systems of Canada can ever resolve and in fact those wielding this peaceful behemoth’s arsenals are a bit heavy handed. The conflict was resolved from their perspective but in reality not really. This is w hy the third step is important, for only when all parties had their say can you define the problem. If you have only allowed one side to speak the problem is not defined, but only their problem is defined. The problem is not the same as their problem and it is not the same as my problem nor the same as your problem. In relativity I believe this is called the observer effect. Whenever an event happens, we perceive the event from the point we see light. I think Einstein stated this quite clearly. What we observe is what the light we see conveys to us with a delay of c. From another observer’s perspective the event is different. And from a third vantage poitn in space the speed of light can show a third event altogether. Black holes confuse the whole thing especially due to bending of light. Sounds confusing? So is what happens on schoolyards when adults aren’t watching. Girl says boy punched her first, boy says she hit him from behind for no reason - but nobody saw it. What do you do? Do you interview for personality histories? Do you work with historical oppression of females? Do you suspend them both? You see, the theory of relativity is very handy isn’t it? But should you do nothing, someone will hit someone again and probably far worse that time. Either for reporting it, or out of love. But if you do not ask both kids for their feelings and what they say happened you can not define the problem. And then you can not solve it. Canadian authorities seem to only care about the person whom first reported the issue and not at all about what truly transpired and this itself is a human rights violation that even the CBC viewership, as dumb as they may be, would be appauled at for happening in North Korea, let alone in Toronto.
The next aspect is to determine the reasons and origin of the conflict - what were those involved trying to achieve for themselves, and why that particular approach did they choose. This is called determining the underlying need. Why was the City of Toronto building condos near condos until trees weren’t visible in the distance? Why did the two kids fight in the school yard? Why did the Toronto judicial system deny me even a word out of my mouth and abused me for ten years if I was healthy and innocent? Why did someone choose a specific path through the forest and not another? Only then can you find common areas of agreement, no matter how small. Commonalities result in resolution of problems to some extent and lead to peace. The solution must satisfy the original needs that created the decision through the forest of the conflict. And monitoring those involved may be required. If the two kids fought, some type of watchful adult eye may be needed - except the kids aren’t always in the school yard. And finally determining whta to do if the conflict persists is important. But if both parties did not get to have their say, and do not get that option then conflicts will never be resolved and will only pester and eat away at the whole. This is in part how Canada does things. By not focusing on what truly transpired, nor who is right or wrong. Its why much of advice coming from Canada is not about who was at fault, but rather on appeasing those in power until they are no longer bullying or abusing the ones within their grasp or reach. And in doing so Canada seems to suggest using the least lethal or harmful solution. While this is not peacekeeping, it reduces violence and diminishes pain. It is one approach though not a good one and one I would never recommend for any other nation’s leaders.
No comments:
Post a Comment