Tree, Wagamese — two men who disappointed us

Two men from widely different backgrounds — and for much different reasons — disappointed their community last week. Their stories made the front page on the same day.

Ted Tree went AWOL from Kamloops six months ago, turning up safe and sound in eastern Canada.

Richard Wagamese drove drunk early in March of last year — twice — and was found guilty in a Kamloops courtroom.

Both are examples of the challenges of legislating human behaviour.

I met Tree only a couple of times, when he was trying to put together a hockey tournament in support of our troops. I’ve never met Wagamese, and have no insights into what prompted the actions of either.

However, the consequences are clear. Tree abandoned his business and family to disappear. Family spent half a year looking for him and worrying.

There was a public cost as well, since police and search authorities assisted in trying to find him.

Presumably, Ted Tree had the ability to check the news back home and be aware of the distress his unannounced road trip was causing. He apparently made no attempt to reassure anyone that he was OK.

The question arises, should Tree be required to pay compensation, or be legally liable, for what he did? After all, even lost skiers have to pay the cost of being found if they wander into prohibited areas and get lost.

But being irresponsible isn’t in itself a crime in Canada. People have a right to go anywhere they want without explaining themselves to anyone. It’s one of the privileges of living in a democracy.

The only way someone like Ted Tree could be made to do “the right thing,” to provide notice and details of his whereabouts, would be to create a police state in which we would all have to relinquish freedom of movement.

That’s not a solution, so we’re left with the lesson that allowing irresponsible and inconsiderate behaviour is sometimes preferable to the alternative. We can question Ted Tree’s behaviour, even condemn it, but we’re stuck with the fact the only rule he broke was one of civility.

Richard Wagamese, on the other hand, broke a law that’s in place to protect public safety, including his own. His irresponsibility, though it might be the product of any number of experiences in his past, is entirely unacceptable.

On March 1 and 6, 2010, Wagamese was stopped for driving with a blood-alcohol level over .08. His penalty has yet to be pronounced, and I leave it to others to explain why actions that put the general community at risk should be resolved through a First Nations sentencing circle, as has been proposed.

Wagamese was on page one not because he is aboriginal, or was drunk, but because he is a prominent role model who behaved badly.  He is an author and columnist who was awarded an honorary doctorate by Thompson Rivers University last year.

Role models, leaders and spokesmen have a duty to act responsibly in all they do. They are example setters, for better or worse.

Maybe he’ll be able to convert his acts of irresponsible behaviour into a positive by using them as a base of understanding for what it is he wants to say, but it has to start with an apology and payment.

Sometimes writing rules about human behaviour is impossible; other times good rules are simply broken.