Letters May 6: Protecting society from dangerous people; in praise of council's direction
It is unrealistic to expect lay people or police officers or judges to diagnose major mental illness and distinguish psychotic disorders from other mental illness.
But in the case of the Lapu Lapu festival mass killing on April 26, it appears that for at least two days before the rampage, the system was no longer containing a seriously disturbed person. A similar situation has often existed before other mass killing incidents.
Some years ago, involuntary commitment to a psychiatric hospital was practised routinely, with little consideration for individual rights of the patient. But then a more humane society began to provide safeguards to protect the rights of the mentally ill.
In reviewing or revising the Mental Health Act or how we care for the mentally ill, we must acknowledge that, at some point, in the management of major mental illness, protection of society must trump an individual’s rights.
E. Robert Langford, M.D.
Professor Emeritus, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto
Victoria
Victoria Coun. Stephen Hammond has proposed a motion to review tenant compensation policies. Specifically, he wanted to increase compensation for long-term tenants displaced by redevelopment from a maximum of six months’ rent to 18 (one month per year of residency).
As a landlord who understands Victoria’s rental market, I support this proposal. This is a crucial step toward fairness for tenants, especially as the new Official Community Plan will only exacerbate displacement issues.
Yet, Councillors Dave Thompson, Jeremy Caradonna, Matt Dell, Krista Loughton and Susan Kim actively weakened the motion so severely that Hammond couldn’t support his own proposal!
Let’s be honest, developers are making plenty of profit, and the policies put in place that further prioritize their bottom line do not translate into savings for renters or buyers; however, Caradonna added an amendment to remove the specific amount of required compensation. Thompson argued that such protections would “impede the development of new rental housing........
© Times Colonist
