This should’ve been about something else.

Is it just to accept assistance from an individual who was a party to an action that was unjust?

We need to define justice first: behavior or treatment that is fair or morally correct.

Who’s moral standards do we go by? I’m going t o suggest a simple one. Treat everyone the way you want to be treated. The Golden Rule is universal.

Was the eviction of the houseless at city hall just, based on these two measuring sticks? IT can be argued that it was morally correct because the city saw danger of fire, and wanted to protect its citizens in the camp. It could be argued that they were treated fairly because they were given notice. It could be argued that there are housing opportunities for them that they did not take advantage of.

It could also be argued that the presence of the camp was brought about because there was a lack of justice in the existing programming for houseless people. It could be argued that while there were safety issues due to addiction, due to crime, there is in fact a need for more significant harm reduction to help combat those issues. These were promised that were made by city hall, and then broken by city hall.

So while the eviction action might have seemed just in the minds of those conducting it, an action is not just if it is not conducted with overall fairness Given how these people have been treated in the past, and are continuing to be treated, I believe the eviction of the camp was not, in fact, a just action.

Were they treated the way we want to be treated? Have they been treated the way they should be treated? Will they be treated the way we would hope to be treated were we found to be houseless?

What about the other side of this coin?

Is it just to potentially jeopardize the only significant source of income for a home that houses at risk youth in the 2SLGBTQIAP+ by pointing out that one of the people participating behaved unjustly towards another at risk group in our city?

Certainly, these concerns being brought up, these questions being asked, could be seen as an attack by the organizers of a cause that serves a greater good. That’s compounded by the possibility that needed funds to keep a home open could be at risk. Our youth could be at risk if this home were to close.

When a politician takes part in an action that appears to be unjust, and draws a line by doing so between those who can be heard and those who cannot, the question that must be asked is this:

Is this individual trustworthy given that their actions are not consistently just?

Are those who align themselves trustworthy?

Is it morally acceptable to accept the fruits of the actions of an individual who is applying a justice that favors some over others?

Does the action of one individual negate the actions of others?

In a Facebook post recently, I categorized this fund raising event as “caucasian” That was an incorrect term, and I ask the community to forgive me for the potential implications of the use of that term. The correct term I should’ve used was privileged. The term privileged in this context means that the event is focused on a certain group of people who have the means to provide assistance to those who do not have the means. That in itself, it could be argued, isn’t an issue.

However, it becomes an issue when the privilege stops us from seeing the reality of the situation.

The study of philosophy literally saved my life. One of my heroes of philosophy urged us to trust the test of experience.

Keeping that in mind.

Let us define privilege as a right or immunity granted as a peculiar benefit, advantage, or favor. Justice cannot exist in a state of privilege. Justice is meant to destroy privilege.

Did justice exist in the action of evicting the camp in front of city hall?

Does justice need to be consistent, or can it change overnight?

Are we wrong for wanting to question an individual who is a leader and claims allyship in our community? Its difficult to ask that question, and asking that question may cause potential harm to the vulnerable the fundraiser is designed to protect.

But how safe are those vulnerable who are being protected by the monies being raised if the policies of one of the individuals in the fundraiser is to treat vulnerable people by applying justice differently depending on the type of vulnerability?

These are big questions that need to be asked by everyone involved. Not asking these questions because it may rock the boat, while claiming a need to be protective, is privileged.

Challenging privilege is frustrating to those in the state of privilege because it seems fruitless. It gets in the way of what’s necessary to get things done, to protect the status quo. However, for those who are not in a condition of privilege, like my friend who is confined to a wheelchair and faces the challenges of accessibility daily, or another friend who wants to contribute to a worthy cause and enjoy a show but needs to spend money required to pay rent and buy food to do so–these challenges aren’t irrelevant. Aspects of this fundraising experience limit their ability to participate fully.

More often than not, it stops with argument and a need to be the “winner” or the one who is “right” rather than seeing the other side of the coin. It ends because the need for self preservation supersedes understanding that the very act of self preservation they engage in works opposite to inclusivity; an inclusivity that the 2SLGBTQIAP+ community has been actively fighting for to the tune of almost 75 years, and continues to fight for today.

So I would conclude this.

It is just that an event is held to raise money for a vulnerable group within our community. However, it is morally questionable to include an individual in that fundraising event who has, by virtue of recent events, presented a concept of justice that is not equal for all. This then unfortunately forces those involved into a position where they must in some way define their concept of justice to be one that is consistent with behavior and treatment that is fair and morally correct, doing unto others what they would have done to themselves. I think that can be done. But it will require effort outside of the event as well as during the event.

As it was pointed out to me by someone on the other side of the coin, this even has been a point of education and change for at least one person. Everyone in this event has the opportunity to change what their concepts of justice are. They have the opportunity to demonstrate this change with meaningful action. But that action must have willingness, and it must be sincere, and it must be immediate.

Meanwhile, the vulnerable on the other line that has been drawn require our help. So let’s let the privileged argue about how we are wrong, and focus our energies on the vulnerable that need our help instead.