Trauma-informed decision-making

Last week, we made decisions at a Regional Council meeting that were unpopular with the people who were present and in the wider community and also that provided relief for many people in the wider community.

A colleague presented a motion that was causing division in our communities in Niagara, and – because of that – Council made a 26-2 decision to remove the item from the agenda.

For me, this decision was less about whether we should get involved in foreign affairs and/or international conflict (we shouldn’t, in my opinion) and more about real and potential harm done in our communities here in Niagara.

From the outset, the behaviour around and motivations for this motion were being called into question with me by both Jewish and Muslim community members. They were concerned that this discussion would not happen with the care it requires (potentially causing harm and more trauma), and they did not want the motion to go to the floor at all, even though these same people were expressing that they would also like to see a ceasefire, as would I.

We don’t have the knowledge required, as Regional Councillors, to discuss this issue as it would need to be discussed.

Further, heading into that meeting last Thursday, I wrote this blog entry, and the response to it was serving only to prove my point: that most people are unwilling/unable to have the appropriately nuanced discussion about Israel and Palestine without (intentionally or unintentionally) saying something deeply antisemitic, Islamophobic, or both.

The St. Catharines Standard interviewed the Councillor about their motion, and – following that interview – I was inundated with e-mails asking/demanding/begging that I second a motion that I had not been asked to second. It is unorthodox for a Councillor to bring a motion to Council or Committee without having discussed it with another Councillor who has committed to seconding the motion. It is well within a Councillor’s right to come to Council or Committee without a seconder, of course, but – again – rather unorthodox.

After the 27th e-mail I received (there were many more to come) asking/demanding/begging that I second the motion and telling me that – if I didn’t – then all work I’ve ever done on diversity, equity, and inclusion is a lie (I’d quote what was actually said, but it is vulgar), I wrote the blog entry cited above explaining why the motion does not belong at Regional Council.

I wrote the blog entry, because I do know a number of people who were scheduled to delegate and believed I’d know many people who would be present, and I felt that I owed them and the community I represent an explanation, and I felt it was better to put out a message in written format in my own words in an effort to ensure there was no miscommunication.

Following the blog entry, I received nearly 30 more e-mails; private messages on social media; and tags in posts on Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter calling me racist; calling my feminism into question; calling me a hypocrite; telling me I have blood on my hands; accusing me of killing children in the Middle East; and so on. You will note that the blog entry does not give any indication as to my position on this issue; however, much of the response to it was proving my point and confirming what so many Jewish and Muslim community members who were reaching out to me were concerned about: that most people are unwilling to have the nuanced discussion this issue requires.

Back to the community members – of Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths – who were asking me to do what I could to not let this discussion happen: I was deeply concerned – before I even started receiving messages – that if Council debated this motion (which is well outside of our jurisdiction), there would be things said that were deeply antisemitic, Islamophobic, or both, and it is my opinion that that would be far more harmful to Niagara communities. Maybe the community members who were reaching out to me knew about the recent events at Brock around some Holocaust education sessions that resulted in both antisemitic and Islamophobic harm and violence?

The calls I received pleaded with me to not let this motion go to the floor; to not let people lay out their trauma for all to see/hear so that we could then debate it and pass a motion that does nothing meaningful/is outside our jurisdiction; to not further traumatize these communities by having a discussion we are not equipped to have.

I am also aware that Councillor Siscoe’s office was receiving numerous calls for this motion to not be debated at Regional Council. Some of those were because it is outside of our jurisdiction and some of them were because of concerns about divisiveness here in Niagara.

Arranging for a lot of people show up to speak to an issue doesn’t mean that everyone in the community is on that side as well, as I’m sure whomever is reading this well knows.

It is impossible for me – and I should think anyone who understands diversity, equity, inclusion, and trauma – to invalidate the feelings and concerns of the numerous people who reached out to me with the concerns and fears they had about this motion even being discussed. How does one rationalize ignoring the feelings and concerns of the group of people asking for it not to be discussed who look the same as the people who wanted it discussed?

I know that we had a motion last term about Ukraine. We shouldn’t have. We should stay out of foreign affairs. While I have always thought that motions about international conflict have no place at Council, I didn’t see any potential harm coming from these previous motions (which is not to say I shouldn’t have), so I didn’t do anything about them.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is nuanced and complex, which is not only how I characterize it, but how many Jewish and Muslim community members and many media personalities here in Niagara also characterize it, including one who dislikes the decision we made. And it is not within the jurisdiction of the Region. And when members of communities from all sides of the issue are asking me to please consider the harm that this motion has already done and the harm it will do if it goes to debate, I have to listen to that. That is what trauma-informed decision-making entails.

Had the Councillor who brought the motion considered seeking any feedback at all from staff or their colleagues, I would imagine that something could have been written that wouldn’t have been so harmful had it gone to the floor. Inexplicably, the Councillor was unwilling to do that.

I have all the time in the world for hearing from community members about this issue, especially when they’re civil about it (and, yes, it is reasonable for me – as a human being – to expect civility). It doesn’t change my opinion that this discussion doesn’t belong in Council Chambers or that there wouldn’t have been significant harm caused to Jewish and Muslim members of our communities if the motion had gone to the floor and been debated. The existence of the motion – which had to include a clause about not using the motion for racism, antisemitism, or Islamophobia – was already causing harm.

Very few people have asked me for an explanation in a manner that isn’t abusive. Very few people have approached this from a ‘hmmm…this seems out of character for Laura, I wonder what’s up?’ angle, so I thought writing this blog entry might help. It is – for all intents and purposes – the body of an e-mail that I’ve sent to a few people who’ve expressed their concerns/disappointment/ confusion with my decision.

So, I understand how this looks, and I hate how it looks. Nothing we would have done around this issue or how it was handled was going to be satisfactory for everyone.

While some community members are suggesting I did not honour principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion, I would argue that I most certainly did along with being trauma-informed, and I do believe that we took the approach that would ultimately cause the least amount of harm and/or division.