The bigger the magnitude, the bigger the response; the aftermath of this Colchester tragedy

Contributed by Serena Lewis, MSW, RSW

Scientists study the impact of earthquakes, and the devastation that can, and does, occur in the aftermath. The Richter scale was developed, teams collaborate, coordinate and respond. There is science, and there is a human element of cost that occurs. The Portapique tragedy would rank on the highest end of the scale, if we’re measuring and responding in the same way.

But we haven’t created a scale for trauma and loss with an understanding of the magnitude of the tragedy. When it comes to experiences of mass loss, we don’t have the tools to exam the effects on those most closely affected, those a bit further in the perimeter- and the overwhelming impact on the collective as to what just happened? And so, we react. And do the best we can. But how we respond, rather than react, is where the greatest lessons are learned.

As a resident of West Colchester and a professional who has worked in the field of grief for the past twenty years, I am in awe that we are collectively not comprehending the magnitude of what has occurred. For families, the communities, and the world who watched in horror of what was endured here, there has been an eerie kind of stillness. In earthquake terminology: the aftershock is settling in.

What I have discovered in my work is that death impacts us. When processing death and its aftermath —whether through palliative care, or in a violent or tragic way— there is a lack of understanding by the outside world of the magnitude of what has occurred. 

We in North America have been challenged to talk about all thing’s death related; maybe we can talk about the ‘facts,’ but what about the depths of grieving? We are reactionary, as we deliver our obligatory lasagna, and struggle to find the right words for a social media post or maybe a sympathy card. Before March 2020 we may have courageously stepped into a formal ritual with family. We have struggled as a society with how to engage with our grievers.

So, after the earthquake of our lives has occurred, and the few days of attention and support, we are then left with our grief that finally, and deeply settles in. We understand that the loss isn’t just the person, it is everything that this person has meant to us: the good, the bad, and the hard to discuss. This post ‘casserole delivery’ phase is what I call the ‘silencing of the mourners’— not because we have forgotten or are being rude, we just haven’t been taught how to stay in the depth of the sorrow that this quake has caused. So, we back away, we try to find the appropriate words and actions. But let’s stop and consider the impact to the griever? 

I have come to see there is something far greater than suffering. It is when we are left to suffer alone. That’s not to say we do not need or desire our quiet, reflective and private moments. Instead, it means that we need people to still be able to acknowledge us, and the person who has died, being present in a responsive and long-term way, as our lives are forever changed. There is no closure, there is no magic cure for grief; it’s a lifelong process that can be affected by the compassionate, responsive understanding by the people around us.

Jack Saul states that when mass loss occurs, healing becomes a collective process done with ‘inside/ outside support’, meaning that we need to see and hear the experts with the lived and skilled experience. Dr. Gabor Mate reminds us that when intense grief is not expressed, it settles into our body; the unacknowledged trauma associated with tragic loss has major impacts for the long term on individuals and communities at large.

So just what is meant by trauma-informed grief? What it means is that we need to listen, and we need to hear what the families, who have had this massive, sudden and violent loss of people they cherish, are trying to process and express. It means hearing what will be helpful from the individuals (who may seek skilled guidance to identify and express these things), and then hearing how we as friends, professionals, organizations and governing agencies need to responsively act. The grievers must be our top priority.

And then we need to consider the people who have been impacted on the periphery by what has been endured, whether they be communities of first response teams or neighbours. Colchester County has been shaken by losses such as a sense of safety, friendships and neighbours, homes, economic impacts and also trust. There’s also a loss associated with this new identity — Portapique will now be identified as that place— and these are all aspects of the aftermath. 

Being trauma-informed means that we will commit to listen, and respond to our grievers; we will create spaces for them with the people they choose (experts within and without), in safe and respectful ways. We will learn new tools of communication, and not pathologise nor patronise the impact of what started in Portapique on the dreadful night of April 18. This collective trauma will require collective healing. 

A public inquiry means we’re learning that silencing mourners is not responsive or healthy. It will not be an easy process, but honest dialogue has the opportunity to create collective healing and support social change.


Serena Lewis is a Registered Social Worker who lives in Colchester County, NS. She has worked in the field of grief with schools, hospice and palliative care, long term care, corrections, and alongside First Nations communities. Serena is committed to see recognition of grief as a proactive means to support mental wellbeing, and strives to support grief /death literacy through trauma-informed practice.

3 thoughts on “The bigger the magnitude, the bigger the response; the aftermath of this Colchester tragedy

  1. I respect your knowledge, training and years of experience. Since the multiple tragedies that have affected our province have happened I have heard and read a lot about theory and best practices especially when dealing with grief especially from the “professionals.” Comparatively little has been heard from those most affected so far. It has been interesting to watch the “professionals” and “experts” try to carve out a piece of the aftermath to make their points and analysis of what needs to be done. It feels very uncoordinated and still not driven by those most affected. Yes we need support from “professionals” but not at the exclusion of the most affected. I have always struggled when we parade people in the media when they are so raw after a traumatic event or events. Of course everyone will have opinions on what is best but our priority should be to protect those most affected. I believe we must be careful not to rush this process before they are ready to really tell us what they need or the result will not be useful or effective. It scares me when it appears to only be the professionals who get most of the air time. I have many questions about who gets to be the “expert” or the professional. A lot a very valuable non experts and professionals can have very valuable inputs as well. In my opinion we sometimes try to professionalize many things in particular when dealing with trauma. Remember the real experts are those most affected.

  2. Very Well said Serena! Your words and facebooks posts throughout this ordeal have given much needed support to so many! You are truly a great individual!
    Thankyou

  3. There are so many valuable and compassionate insights in this article that I will read it many times,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

mail_outline