There is no comfort when a stubborn recession hangs through the clouds, as I walk about this region. As I walk about this city, the familiar faces straggle about the street corners, the Tim Horton's and the bank machines. On average, I am asked for change or for a couple of bucks three or four times each time I do walk this walk. These walks are becoming more dreary lately. While our city is admittedly trying to spruce up the downtown, one cannot help but notice the developing contrasts, potential for gentrification of housing developments, even in the downtown, which has already been identified as one of the many "priority" neighbourhoods in the Niagara Region.
My walk to my office as I start out each morning reflects more of the same old, same old ... and less of the hopeful prospects our politicians always want to get us to see. It is not that the presence of the 1% in this region goes without being noticed. I walk by places like Critelli's Furniture, which is located on the same strip of land and asphalt that includes many of our homeless and destitute and persons soliciting pocket change. Critelli's sells good quality furniture for thousands of dollars apiece. I note the quality is good, but who can pay $3,000 - $4,000 for one chair, $750 for a drink table to set beside a recliner or $2,000 for a mirror? Even many of my colleagues can't put out that much money at a shot for that kind of purchase! For most, even one of these items cost more than they earn in a month! In my mind, I ask who among the 1% would dare walk downtown to visit a place like this to buy this kind of furniture, while just outside their windows, the problems and miscreants of our society await. Across from Critelli's, there are two Japanese restaurants side by side, literally in direct competition with one another. I have friends that are laying bets wondering if they are both owned by the same company. We also flip coins to see which one will outlast the other, which seems to be a major sport in the downtown area these days. Betting any business will last beyond the year is risky.
The downtown corner where Tim Horton's is almost always occupied by people standing around smoking cigarettes and chattering, while across the street, a private college lets its students out at noon and at four thirty each day like clockwork. I wonder mildly how many of those students going to that career college will find a job in their field after they graduate. Maybe the concern these days is putting bums in seats, and not so much caring about how people will move on from there. How come I feel that we should care? Life in the downtown is rather predictable. I can almost tell what is going to happen before I even get there. Once I am off the bus and start walking toward my office, I pass the building where the Landlord and Tenant Board holds its hearings, and dozens of people are evicted every time this takes place. I have spent many mornings and afternoons in those hearing rooms, trying to bring reality to the minds of the adjudicators, trying to arrange deals for people that may be able to get a good start on paying their rent on time for now on, or enforcing orders for those that won't.
With all of my cognitive deficits imposed on me from various health issues, I sometimes have trouble reading faces, but I do know names. Everybody represents a phase of my life, sometimes I yearn to return to, but cannot as everything I am involved with is just a phase. I was once a big part of Occupy Niagara, which has sort of fizzled out. I was involved in various environmental movements, meetings around transit issues, and various workshops on climate change, as well as recent gatherings about the social assistance reform. In the past, I also participated in economic development activities and advocated for the small businesses in the area, as I don't see too many of them faring much better than those I witness begging for coins. I even had a hand in organizing a demonstration or two, which I might try to do once again if our provincial government insists on going the way of downloading administration of disability allowances to the region (which would be an unmitigated disaster in many ways). People are silently suffering and crying out for change, though they can no longer mouth the words, as our voice has been squashed by the powers that be, imposing fear and anxiety as opposed to assurances and hope for a bright future ahead of us.
Brighter Prospects, the oxymoronic name for the recently released report on social assistance reform, tries to paint its recommendations as betterment for the masses, while I can't see this after reading the fine print. I am trained to read the fine print and paid to do so by many of my clients - individuals and businesses alike, and being in the profession I am in, I don't see "brighter prospects" for anybody in this report. I am asked almost daily and sometimes multiple times each day what is going to happen to "us", and by "us" the asker is referring to people who are on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP). These are people who I successfully appealed their benefits claim, who I represented at the provincial offences court, or even on a charge of assault or trespassing in the Ontario Court of Justice. They see me as part of "us" because I speak for those that cannot speak for themselves, or are afraid to. I also speak for small and medium sized business and try to believe that hard work will get "us" somewhere as well, although I sometimes begin to doubt that as well. I see us all as both sides of the same coin, all of us affected by the economy, the current endless recession and the increasing plight of bad attitudes all over.
Our government is almost positioning this report as the panacea for the misery all around us, when indeed it feeds it and ignores the travesty of legislated poverty, the globalization of labour and the balkanization of all of our voices alike. The report was not written with poverty reduction in mind, but instead was written to appease those that want to see the deficit trimmed, as if the poor were recently treated to some big party of massive spending and now we need to retreat. The Commission that produced Brighter Prospects did not get the memo that the poor are not responsible for this deficit, nor do they care. All they want is a home, a job and a friend, which Brighter Prospects offers none of this. Of course, it is not a problem to make cuts, when you are not the one that is affected, or not the one that gets to see the consequences of them. I don't think "Brighter Prospects" is going to make my daily trek to the office and around to the coffee shop any more pleasant; in fact, I will see exactly what I know is going to happen to "us" as the people around me are currently asking - I can only see things get worse.
Brighter Prospects is about putting people with disabilities back on welfare in some misguided attempt to erase the stigma against people on Ontario Works, which many of my detractors like to bash and punish simply for having bad luck and not accepting their just desserts while they fell. Adding a whole new group of people to this "undeserving" bunch is not going to make the whole bunch look to be less criminal to the ignorant populace, but is simply going to add people with disabilities to this very misunderstood category of people, who will only become further legislated into poverty. There is not one recommendation in Brighter Prospects that frees people from this legislative trap. It is not going to put more people into jobs, because evidence shows that time and time again, when people are forced to look for and accept jobs that don't exist, they are not likely to leave Ontario Works or any other program. When other media reports point out the growing number of young people, older people and others who have no disabilities or minimal barriers, or even have a great education, who are not getting hired, who in their right mind believes that employers will suddenly wake up and hire people off the social assistance rolls?
I recall discussions with many of the employers I have been retained by in my legal office, as well as those I have consulted with while I was part of the Employment Standards Development Committee, as part of the implementation of the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. After they got over the fact that I do not have three heads and get around to finally asking what the AODA actually is, they tell me they simply will not hire anybody who has been on assistance, yet at the same time some have told me that they should just "get a job". I often wondered if this employer in front of me is not going to hire anybody like this, who will? I guess this is going to take a lot of time to change people's minds. I am quite aware of the struggle of the small business owners in my region. They need people who will help them fulfill their business goals and who are reliable. I concur. I take issue and frequently point out boarded up storefronts along the downtown streets, or large offices that have moved out of the downtown region, often to locales that are difficult to reach by transit. It is clear that some employers know who they want working for them, and it is not "us" as my friends refer to themselves. I then turn to the government to ask them how they are going to force employers to take on members of the OW and ODSP community and give them lasting jobs to help them get off the system. I know forcing them is not the answer, but ...
... another call for consultations takes place and we are all back in Toronto to communicate with one another, sector to sector, to answer these kinds of questions. I am at these meetings, where many large employers, business associations, employment service providers, municipal managers, as well as people like me, are set up in round tables to talk to one another about what the answers should be. I speak for the small businesses that can't possibly be there who need support, who need to know what they have to do and not have it cost them a whole lot. I am there for those with disabilities that have the skills and want to work, to explain how to close that disconnect which seems to be in the wind whenever we go to these roundtables. The whole issue of putting people to work seems to be the non sequiter, but government policy types want to know the HOW. I always want to explore the reasons WHY first, then the IF, and then the HOW, for those for whom it can work, but we cannot assume that no matter how well meaning we all are (and I have no doubts that all of us around those tables is well meaning), that more than two percent of people will ever work themselves off ODSP, particularly with the rules they currently have and the government refuses to change.
Brighter Prospects has made a big deal about letting "social assistance recipients" keep an extra $200 a month before their working income gets clawed back at a rate that already far exceeds the average taxation level of even the wealthiest millionaires. If our government suddenly announced that it will tax millionaires at the rate of eighty five percent of all income they receive, chances are they will balk and try to move to other locales that will not tax them so heavily for their "efforts". So, why is it any different for poor people? We are no more motivated to work when our income gets cut to the bone than anybody else, so using this strategy over and over again and expecting different results is insane.
I worry a lot about this region. I don't see a lot of opportunities coming in for "us", as my friends refer to the group of people with traditional difficulties fitting in. It will still be a recession for a long, long time for them, even if the economy turns around in Ontario and even Niagara is booming again. While Niagara booming will be great for my small businesses, I still want the connect that is needed to make it work for those that haven't yet experienced the possibility of prosperity. People with disabilities are promised things will be better when the economy turns around and when it does, nothing ever changes. When the economy flounders, they are told they have to sacrifice even more to help pay off a debt they had no part of. If the authors and promoters of Brighter Prospects really want to make things different, they should join me someday, as I get off the bus and walk my way to my office and join me as I meet with my people, and speak to others over the telephone. They should walk with me as I meet with too many people who month over month seem to get their cheques put on hold by the region's OW office, the same office that wants to take over ODSP cases so the same abuse can be done to this group as well.
Once again I ask, Brighter Prospects for whom?
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Showing posts with label protest. Show all posts
Sunday, March 10, 2013
Sunday, August 28, 2011
JACK LAYTON'S LEGACY - 1950 -2011
It was early last Monday morning my son announced he just heard that Jack Layton, NDP Leader and Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, had died of the cancer he had contracted in July 2011. We we filled with hope that he would be back fighting in spirit in Parliament on September 19, 2011, when Parliament resumes.
I watched the State Funeral he was given yesterday. One of the songs, Hallelejah, by Leonard Cohen, was one of the songs that was played to him apparently in his final days. At his funeral, Steven Page, former front man for the Barenaked Ladies sung it at the Roy Thompson Hall, with grace as members of the audience on both the inside and outside had tears in their eyes. The other one was with the original singer, Lorraine Legato, of Parachute Club fame, singing Rise Up. Reverend Brent Hawkes talked about his Sunday sermons, he would check the balcony above and he would find Jack and Olivia in attendance.
To me, Jack Layton was a big part of how Toronto became the wonderful place I find it to be today. I am so fearful that the recent election of Rob Ford is going to destroy that community. Jack Layton stood up for inclusive communities, and for a long time, Toronto tried to be an inclusive community. I always envied those who lived there for their lives, and today they are interwoven in the Toronto legal, social, urban and political landscape, while I, as an outsider can only come when I take part in something province wide.
But, I want to tell you about Jack Layton. I have met him numerous times, many times as a young person when I was all NDP-idealistic and even presided the riding association at one point. I belonged to a group called ACT for Disarmament, which was a fight against the cold war, something both my husband and I recall as being big in the 1970's and 1980's. We would have marches here by the federal MP's office at one time when the Landmark Building was actually a federal building. We would travel to Toronto, and join the larger peace movement there, led by Toronto's ACT for Disarmament.
Jack Layton would be involved. I remember his face, simply by looking at what he looked like in the 1980's. He would sometimes speak, and make various venues available to us. I loved Toronto then, as it was so much bigger and more powerful and it was branching out to Niagara in those early days with our rag tag group, which still seemed to attract hundreds to our own local demonstrations and Hiroshima and Nagasaki awareness days in the park. I remember listening to the music in my ear, especially of We Built This City by Jefferson Starship. Ben and I were young then, both of us in college during that age, and even afterwards.
You see, Niagara was not always the drab, conservative, do-nothing, bend-over-and-let-me-let-you-screw-me type of community like it can be now. There were at least fourteen activist organizations that had my name on them somewhere. At the same time, I fought major battles before I was trained in the law. One was being denied access to university funding and education, and the other was an action I had to take against the very old fashioned CMHA at the time for their decision to expell me because of my politics at the time. I organized the clients of the agency to teach them demand better, and ask for jobs there, or to become volunteers so we can run our own programs to some extent. Apparently, a substantial petition was taken to force them to take me back, as well as a legal action, which attracted Ontario Division and United Way to the table, a nightmare I was not going to allow to stop until they stopped excluding me. I ended up joining the Board after I came back and served there for many years, and was eventually awarded a lifetime membership.
There was also the Unemployed Action Alliance. I pass the old Grantham Township Building in St. Catharines everyday. This was 145 King Street, where a drop-in centre, advocacy and support services were provided for the city's unemployed. We held the clout to bring the Mayor and city council to the table and make demands for things like reduced bus fare, and free activities like a large picnic for the unemployed, where I eventually met my husband (who was volunteering for the event). We would also demonstrate, do protests, as well as enjoy Christmas dinners at behest of the local labour leaders. We responded to the rhetoric of the day about those of us that were unemployed, that said we were lazy, did not want to work, and resisted a version of workfare that being introduced at the time.
I was in college then, first taking my legal clerkship and then later fighting throught the Ombudsman and the MPP office for my OSAP. I was a force to be reckoned with, as I was not happy to let people tell me I cannot do this, or cannot do that. I lived on my own since I was a teenager, and always trying to adjust to the rules that either enabled me, or confined me in many respects. Somebody I met in Toronto told me to talk to Mel Swart, then an MPP for the NDP representing Welland. They told me I was not capable of going to university, and further, OSAP would not qualify me, so I fought. I still have the letters I wrote, until the NDP took me up as a case in the legislature, and because I received very little support from my parents (even for signing a damned form!), I had to do things the hard way ... I still remember Mel phoning me to tell me that the Minister approved my application for OSAP by order-in-council, and I could get information for this from the finance department at the university, which I did.
While all this might not seem to be about Jack Layton, he was in my life throughout this whole period of time. I was in the NDP. I would attend provincial and federal conferences, as well as attend meetings where NDP leaders would come down to do a meet and greet. Jack Layton sat at my table at a couple of these conferences. He encouraged me to apply for co-operative housing, which I did. I remember Jack standing up and stating why the government had so much against co-ops ... because the people in them were politically aware and can push for change.
It was a few years later that Jack Layton was attacked by the Toronto Sun because he and his wife, Olivia Chow, were living in a downtown housing co-operative and at the time, collectively were bringing in over $100,000 a year. This was all based on the public's ignorance of the philosophy of co-operative housing. While co-operative housing IS a form of social housing, it is not necessarily a "low income housing". It is part of the co-op mantra to include people from all backgrounds, all incomes, all races, all religions, etc. to live in an intentional community. If it were so wrong for Jack and Olivia to live in their co-op at the time, why didn't mine evict my family when I used to make approximately $85,000 a year on my own? You just don't get your rent subsidized when you earn good money, but you are not excluded.
These were the days when the latter half of the baby boomers were beginning to speak out, and the earlier baby boomers supported us. There was a large movement to develop cooperative housing in the Niagara Region during the 1980's and early 1990s from what I remember. That is why there are a considerable number of these projects in the region today, even though much of what we did back then has become depoliticized and individualized by those that didn't want the change.
I began to go to Toronto a lot in the late 1980s to the mid 1990s. On many of these occasions, we would meet in places where the political movers and shakers of Toronto met, and we would interact. In the early 1990's, I was given a special invite to Niagara-on-the-Lake's Queen's Landing, where then Premier Bob Rae and his Cabinet were having a meeting, and we not only were able to stay for the public part of it, we were able to socialize with them afterwards. I remember speaking to Frances Lankin at the time, then made Minister of Economic Development and Trade. There was a similar meet and greet in Toronto, where Jack Layton was also present among the invitees, and at that time I shared a table with Premier Bob Rae, and his wife Arlene Perly Rae.
I was just getting out of school in Toronto, and supporting myself through a variety of consulting contracts, both for the federal and provincial government ministries, as well as for private non-profit organizations. After my 10 1/2 year adventure in university was over, I had no job waiting for me. I continued to be a consultant until I became an executive director of the local Niagara Mental Health Survivors Network, a job I held for three years which allowed me to see both sides of an issue, changing my politics considerably. I still have downstairs all the copies of the Niagara Survivor's Journal we ever published through that organization. Later, I accepted similar jobs at the provincial and federal level, until I was exhausted. Upon returning to my roots, I started up private practice again and eventually situated my office next to Start Me Up Niagara, an organization which was formed and funded through one of the jobs that I held over the years.
When I read Jack Layton's history, he did not have a work history like "everybody else's" either. Neither did I. There were no organizations begging for my services (apart from my expertise as a consultant or now as legal representative). I found that the timing of my job search hit every major recession in my career path, leaving employers with no openings for new people, just those who have already been laid off. At one point, I did bluntly ask how I could make myself into somebody that has already been laid off there so I can have a chance at a job. Experiences like this led to some of my more centrist positions on issues. But, regardless of what stage of my life, Toronto was always there for me.
It could be for the peace movement, the NDP, contacting various legislators to get issues pushed, conferences, and even some of my schooling. Eventually I worked on contracts in Toronto, and this has always given me a positive feeling about Toronto. To me, Jack Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow, were very much a part of moving Toronto into a progressive metropolis. Over time, I used Toronto as a way to be surrounded by progress, even in the law, as I once went around taking pictures of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Law Society, the University Avenue Courthouse, the Human Rights Tribunal, etc. This was the location where the power sources were, and how they generated themselves out to the broader province of Ontario. I would attend conferences, accept various appointments, and do other work in Toronto, simply to get away from Niagara, which since about 1998, has become a very apolitical and hostile environment in which to live. The last anti-poverty conference was held in the mid 1990's, and was organized by me and my agency.
Today I have been so proud to see some people come out. Niagara has been dull for so long, and we have been so isolated. The political epicentre here is Start Me Up Niagara, and my legal office, it seems. There are scattered people in Welland, but they've never concerned themselves with the interests of others in the region, where our problems are just as bad. I have to unfortunately be politically neutral in my direct dealings with government agencies, as my legal office serves many interests. Being involved as a young person with the NDP, then spending some of my time working with the Progressive Conservatives in the 1990's gave me a good bird's eye view on how the inner political workings work, even though I am not interested in any political party now, although I will work with whoever wants to get the stuff done that I want to see done.
During the last federal election, I was torn. I liked both candidates for the Conservatives and for the NDP, but I liked Jack Layton better than Stephen Harper. On May 2, 2011, Jack Layton made an excellent victory and concession speech to a very large crowd of cheerful supporters, and Stephen Harper glowed in his victory in finally achieving a majority government. In a way, Canadians all got they wanted. We got rid of separatism in Quebec with an orange sweep over Quebec, and the NDP won an unprecedented number of seats, placing him and Olivia in Stornaway, an honour never given to an NDP member of Parliament in all of history. Conservative supporters also got the majority they long sought after.
During the election campaign, I was very impressed with the NDP ads. They were not mean and vicious against other parties and other leaders; they were cheerful, optimistic and powerful. When he spoke on election night, he was so optimistic, and I bet every Canadian across the land except for those whose heads were deeply in the sand did want to see a Canada for all Canadians "where nobody gets left behind". Various election ads, such one about small businesses, health care, and leadership. Many of these commercials during the election ended with Layton speaking to a large audience saying, "We won't stop until we get the job done!".
And then last Monday comes along. Jack Layton is not coming back. He died at 4:45 a.m. last Monday, just after a meeting I was part of at Montebello Park planning an anti-poverty response to the provincial election. It is like I lost a major limb, or a large part of my heart was cut out ... it is more than a "now what?". Is this the end of an era? I hope not. Canada has become too lean and mean lately. While I resented a lot of the political correctness, union issues etc., during the Bob Rae era, I wanted so badly to see a progressive movement like one led by Layton that did not push these issues that turned too many off the NDP.
My family watched the State Funeral on Saturday. It was Stephen Harper that approached now widow, Olivia Chow, to offer it. The procession was wonderful, a celebration of his life, and how the people of Toronto gathered in the thousands and thousand on sight and mourned and others of us mourned across the nation ... not a dry eye in this land. But what do we make of this? Jack Layton wrote a final letter to Canadians from his death bed, which I was not able to read in its entirety. There is too much of me in it, too much of my time in Toronto in it, and too much of dawning realities in it ... a mother-in-law with possible cancer in the liver, a friend of mine just diagnosed with another type of cancer, and how Layton - a hero in the minds of so many Canadians - just was felled by the same thing.
The Letter to Canadians is inspiring me to act, to act against cancer, to act against the destructive influences of the ridiculous right, to find a way to unite Canadians, to find a way to help us find ways to love one another, to help one another, and to teach one another, and how to empower one another. A text version of the letter is available here
In closing, the final words resonated with all Canadians: My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.
And we'll change the world.
All my very best,
Jack Layton
I watched the State Funeral he was given yesterday. One of the songs, Hallelejah, by Leonard Cohen, was one of the songs that was played to him apparently in his final days. At his funeral, Steven Page, former front man for the Barenaked Ladies sung it at the Roy Thompson Hall, with grace as members of the audience on both the inside and outside had tears in their eyes. The other one was with the original singer, Lorraine Legato, of Parachute Club fame, singing Rise Up. Reverend Brent Hawkes talked about his Sunday sermons, he would check the balcony above and he would find Jack and Olivia in attendance.
To me, Jack Layton was a big part of how Toronto became the wonderful place I find it to be today. I am so fearful that the recent election of Rob Ford is going to destroy that community. Jack Layton stood up for inclusive communities, and for a long time, Toronto tried to be an inclusive community. I always envied those who lived there for their lives, and today they are interwoven in the Toronto legal, social, urban and political landscape, while I, as an outsider can only come when I take part in something province wide.
But, I want to tell you about Jack Layton. I have met him numerous times, many times as a young person when I was all NDP-idealistic and even presided the riding association at one point. I belonged to a group called ACT for Disarmament, which was a fight against the cold war, something both my husband and I recall as being big in the 1970's and 1980's. We would have marches here by the federal MP's office at one time when the Landmark Building was actually a federal building. We would travel to Toronto, and join the larger peace movement there, led by Toronto's ACT for Disarmament.
Jack Layton would be involved. I remember his face, simply by looking at what he looked like in the 1980's. He would sometimes speak, and make various venues available to us. I loved Toronto then, as it was so much bigger and more powerful and it was branching out to Niagara in those early days with our rag tag group, which still seemed to attract hundreds to our own local demonstrations and Hiroshima and Nagasaki awareness days in the park. I remember listening to the music in my ear, especially of We Built This City by Jefferson Starship. Ben and I were young then, both of us in college during that age, and even afterwards.
You see, Niagara was not always the drab, conservative, do-nothing, bend-over-and-let-me-let-you-screw-me type of community like it can be now. There were at least fourteen activist organizations that had my name on them somewhere. At the same time, I fought major battles before I was trained in the law. One was being denied access to university funding and education, and the other was an action I had to take against the very old fashioned CMHA at the time for their decision to expell me because of my politics at the time. I organized the clients of the agency to teach them demand better, and ask for jobs there, or to become volunteers so we can run our own programs to some extent. Apparently, a substantial petition was taken to force them to take me back, as well as a legal action, which attracted Ontario Division and United Way to the table, a nightmare I was not going to allow to stop until they stopped excluding me. I ended up joining the Board after I came back and served there for many years, and was eventually awarded a lifetime membership.
There was also the Unemployed Action Alliance. I pass the old Grantham Township Building in St. Catharines everyday. This was 145 King Street, where a drop-in centre, advocacy and support services were provided for the city's unemployed. We held the clout to bring the Mayor and city council to the table and make demands for things like reduced bus fare, and free activities like a large picnic for the unemployed, where I eventually met my husband (who was volunteering for the event). We would also demonstrate, do protests, as well as enjoy Christmas dinners at behest of the local labour leaders. We responded to the rhetoric of the day about those of us that were unemployed, that said we were lazy, did not want to work, and resisted a version of workfare that being introduced at the time.
I was in college then, first taking my legal clerkship and then later fighting throught the Ombudsman and the MPP office for my OSAP. I was a force to be reckoned with, as I was not happy to let people tell me I cannot do this, or cannot do that. I lived on my own since I was a teenager, and always trying to adjust to the rules that either enabled me, or confined me in many respects. Somebody I met in Toronto told me to talk to Mel Swart, then an MPP for the NDP representing Welland. They told me I was not capable of going to university, and further, OSAP would not qualify me, so I fought. I still have the letters I wrote, until the NDP took me up as a case in the legislature, and because I received very little support from my parents (even for signing a damned form!), I had to do things the hard way ... I still remember Mel phoning me to tell me that the Minister approved my application for OSAP by order-in-council, and I could get information for this from the finance department at the university, which I did.
While all this might not seem to be about Jack Layton, he was in my life throughout this whole period of time. I was in the NDP. I would attend provincial and federal conferences, as well as attend meetings where NDP leaders would come down to do a meet and greet. Jack Layton sat at my table at a couple of these conferences. He encouraged me to apply for co-operative housing, which I did. I remember Jack standing up and stating why the government had so much against co-ops ... because the people in them were politically aware and can push for change.
It was a few years later that Jack Layton was attacked by the Toronto Sun because he and his wife, Olivia Chow, were living in a downtown housing co-operative and at the time, collectively were bringing in over $100,000 a year. This was all based on the public's ignorance of the philosophy of co-operative housing. While co-operative housing IS a form of social housing, it is not necessarily a "low income housing". It is part of the co-op mantra to include people from all backgrounds, all incomes, all races, all religions, etc. to live in an intentional community. If it were so wrong for Jack and Olivia to live in their co-op at the time, why didn't mine evict my family when I used to make approximately $85,000 a year on my own? You just don't get your rent subsidized when you earn good money, but you are not excluded.
These were the days when the latter half of the baby boomers were beginning to speak out, and the earlier baby boomers supported us. There was a large movement to develop cooperative housing in the Niagara Region during the 1980's and early 1990s from what I remember. That is why there are a considerable number of these projects in the region today, even though much of what we did back then has become depoliticized and individualized by those that didn't want the change.
I began to go to Toronto a lot in the late 1980s to the mid 1990s. On many of these occasions, we would meet in places where the political movers and shakers of Toronto met, and we would interact. In the early 1990's, I was given a special invite to Niagara-on-the-Lake's Queen's Landing, where then Premier Bob Rae and his Cabinet were having a meeting, and we not only were able to stay for the public part of it, we were able to socialize with them afterwards. I remember speaking to Frances Lankin at the time, then made Minister of Economic Development and Trade. There was a similar meet and greet in Toronto, where Jack Layton was also present among the invitees, and at that time I shared a table with Premier Bob Rae, and his wife Arlene Perly Rae.
I was just getting out of school in Toronto, and supporting myself through a variety of consulting contracts, both for the federal and provincial government ministries, as well as for private non-profit organizations. After my 10 1/2 year adventure in university was over, I had no job waiting for me. I continued to be a consultant until I became an executive director of the local Niagara Mental Health Survivors Network, a job I held for three years which allowed me to see both sides of an issue, changing my politics considerably. I still have downstairs all the copies of the Niagara Survivor's Journal we ever published through that organization. Later, I accepted similar jobs at the provincial and federal level, until I was exhausted. Upon returning to my roots, I started up private practice again and eventually situated my office next to Start Me Up Niagara, an organization which was formed and funded through one of the jobs that I held over the years.
When I read Jack Layton's history, he did not have a work history like "everybody else's" either. Neither did I. There were no organizations begging for my services (apart from my expertise as a consultant or now as legal representative). I found that the timing of my job search hit every major recession in my career path, leaving employers with no openings for new people, just those who have already been laid off. At one point, I did bluntly ask how I could make myself into somebody that has already been laid off there so I can have a chance at a job. Experiences like this led to some of my more centrist positions on issues. But, regardless of what stage of my life, Toronto was always there for me.
It could be for the peace movement, the NDP, contacting various legislators to get issues pushed, conferences, and even some of my schooling. Eventually I worked on contracts in Toronto, and this has always given me a positive feeling about Toronto. To me, Jack Layton and his wife, Olivia Chow, were very much a part of moving Toronto into a progressive metropolis. Over time, I used Toronto as a way to be surrounded by progress, even in the law, as I once went around taking pictures of the Ontario Court of Appeal, the Law Society, the University Avenue Courthouse, the Human Rights Tribunal, etc. This was the location where the power sources were, and how they generated themselves out to the broader province of Ontario. I would attend conferences, accept various appointments, and do other work in Toronto, simply to get away from Niagara, which since about 1998, has become a very apolitical and hostile environment in which to live. The last anti-poverty conference was held in the mid 1990's, and was organized by me and my agency.
Today I have been so proud to see some people come out. Niagara has been dull for so long, and we have been so isolated. The political epicentre here is Start Me Up Niagara, and my legal office, it seems. There are scattered people in Welland, but they've never concerned themselves with the interests of others in the region, where our problems are just as bad. I have to unfortunately be politically neutral in my direct dealings with government agencies, as my legal office serves many interests. Being involved as a young person with the NDP, then spending some of my time working with the Progressive Conservatives in the 1990's gave me a good bird's eye view on how the inner political workings work, even though I am not interested in any political party now, although I will work with whoever wants to get the stuff done that I want to see done.
During the last federal election, I was torn. I liked both candidates for the Conservatives and for the NDP, but I liked Jack Layton better than Stephen Harper. On May 2, 2011, Jack Layton made an excellent victory and concession speech to a very large crowd of cheerful supporters, and Stephen Harper glowed in his victory in finally achieving a majority government. In a way, Canadians all got they wanted. We got rid of separatism in Quebec with an orange sweep over Quebec, and the NDP won an unprecedented number of seats, placing him and Olivia in Stornaway, an honour never given to an NDP member of Parliament in all of history. Conservative supporters also got the majority they long sought after.
During the election campaign, I was very impressed with the NDP ads. They were not mean and vicious against other parties and other leaders; they were cheerful, optimistic and powerful. When he spoke on election night, he was so optimistic, and I bet every Canadian across the land except for those whose heads were deeply in the sand did want to see a Canada for all Canadians "where nobody gets left behind". Various election ads, such one about small businesses, health care, and leadership. Many of these commercials during the election ended with Layton speaking to a large audience saying, "We won't stop until we get the job done!".
And then last Monday comes along. Jack Layton is not coming back. He died at 4:45 a.m. last Monday, just after a meeting I was part of at Montebello Park planning an anti-poverty response to the provincial election. It is like I lost a major limb, or a large part of my heart was cut out ... it is more than a "now what?". Is this the end of an era? I hope not. Canada has become too lean and mean lately. While I resented a lot of the political correctness, union issues etc., during the Bob Rae era, I wanted so badly to see a progressive movement like one led by Layton that did not push these issues that turned too many off the NDP.
My family watched the State Funeral on Saturday. It was Stephen Harper that approached now widow, Olivia Chow, to offer it. The procession was wonderful, a celebration of his life, and how the people of Toronto gathered in the thousands and thousand on sight and mourned and others of us mourned across the nation ... not a dry eye in this land. But what do we make of this? Jack Layton wrote a final letter to Canadians from his death bed, which I was not able to read in its entirety. There is too much of me in it, too much of my time in Toronto in it, and too much of dawning realities in it ... a mother-in-law with possible cancer in the liver, a friend of mine just diagnosed with another type of cancer, and how Layton - a hero in the minds of so many Canadians - just was felled by the same thing.
The Letter to Canadians is inspiring me to act, to act against cancer, to act against the destructive influences of the ridiculous right, to find a way to unite Canadians, to find a way to help us find ways to love one another, to help one another, and to teach one another, and how to empower one another. A text version of the letter is available here
In closing, the final words resonated with all Canadians: My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic.
And we'll change the world.
All my very best,
Jack Layton
Monday, February 28, 2011
PROTESTING FOR A BETTER LIFE
We take it for granted that we believe in a democracy.
Perhaps, we take it for granted that we do not live in a police state, where every action of ours is watched and punished when it moves against the state's ideology. Over the past year though, I begin to question that assumption as well.
But are taking all of this so much for granted that we do not see our democracy and freedoms diminish before our eyes? All around us, people in other countries, both democratic and autocratic are taking up arms against their states.
The power of the people at this stage will one day be written into our history books and be representative of change in our world history. I watched proudly as the people of Egypt took up peacefully against their own government dictatorship of 41 years demanding none other than Mubarek's resignation and a state where people worked, participated and moved freely within.
People around the world watched as Mubarek publicly resigned, left his office in Cairo and turned over power to the military that is now setting up a constitutional commission and is attempting to develop a new way of electing its leaders.
In Greece, people protested the new austerity crisis, where government is reacting to cut more and more and gut what represents to its people of its democratic and social institutions, as more and more Greeks live in poverty and can't find jobs. This angst has spread to Europe, where France has once again faced its own people pushing to moderate the austerity agenda and restore certain worker's rights.
In Ireland, where North American leaders have pointed to where corporate tax cuts have "worked", unemployment has recently hit a crisis point whereby many Irish companies are closing after being in business for generations. The concentration of wealth has never been so horrid worldwide as it is today, a mere repeat and exacerbation of our life just before the Great Depression.
In Great Britain, the new Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition led by David Cameron, promises to make deep cuts to almost everything that walks. Benefits for the poor have been decimated, health care for the elderly and persons with disabilities tightened up and housing councils are being sold to private interests. Voters seem to vote for leaders without agendas, without plans, other than to cut what is there, but not to hurt "the job creators" - or big business, despite the fact less and less jobs are actually being created.
This movement should concern us, and perhaps we should pick up pickets and do the same here. At the present time in the state of Wisconsin, newly elected Governor Scott Walker and his Republican dominated House have decided to press ahead by moving the clock backwards on worker's rights and even the right to collectively bargain as a union. One might think, "I'm not in a union, so this does not affect me", but this is only its most visible target. Health care and social benefits to the elderly and persons with disabilities have also been slashed.
What happens when a state gets this way? To me, this is not nation-bulding, and I would NEVER support any political party or leader that seems to go on this track. A governance plan of cuts and more cuts, means no nation building at all, no cohesion and no respect for the people that paid into developing it. These types of cuts invariably always wind up costing the public more money out of pocket for services we used to get for "free" or low cost, and in general - we tend to pay more out of pocket for these things than we get back in any reductions in taxes paid.
Taxes pay for civil society. Cutting the services that taxes pay for reduce this civility to much of what our society is becoming - rich against the poor, blacks against the whites, Christians against the Muslims, etc. The "other" groups become the ones responsible for the circumstances we find ourselves in. News outlets and call-in talk shows come out with allegations that people receiving income assistance from the state are pushing the whole nation into debt, when there is scant evidence to back any of this up.
A new poll that was published in Saturday's paper by Angus Reid indicated that the federal "Conservatives" hold a 13-point lead over its rival Liberals. When broken down by education, those with less education tend to support the "Conservatives", while those with more education tend to vote Liberal and somewhat NDP. Males tend to be more "Conservative" than females in all education groups and regions. I put quotes around the word "Conservative" because Stephen Harper's party is NOT the party of John A. McDonald or John Diefenbaker. It is an amalgam of Republican wannabes from Alberta, Preston Manning's Reform Party and Stockwell Day's attempt at pushing for an "Alliance" between the federal parties of the right. The former Progressive Conservative Party died the day Peter McKay agreed to the merger.
Canadians that support the "Conservatives" have no clue that the old Progressive Conservatives, even under the likes of Brian Mulroney, no longer exist. The party is now the party of the "slash and burn" variety, whereby Canada's historical ties to human rights abroad and within has diminished, its commitment to equality and ending poverty non-existent ... corporations will take care of us, if we only cut their taxes down to zero. Let the CEOs decide what social programs we need, they want to say. Stephen Harper said himself as the policy spokesperson for the Reform Party that Canadians would not recognize Canada once they would be done with it.
Canadians are either wilfully blind or are swallowing the hype from the increasingly Fox News like media in our own country that makes the Conservatives seem as moderate as their former counterparts. Yet, Canadians, when asked the right questions would understand why a majority government of this type might not be good for the majority of us. Most of us cannot afford to cover more of our health costs out of pocket, or pay into private health insurance for basics. We might have some problems with the idea of charter schools (where many of them are funded by private corporations), whereby wealthier families would be hands down able to provide a good education for their kids, while poorer kids will attend schools with diminishing and non-existent resources.
Yes, these things are provincial and Harper is federal. However, Harper has control over the purse strings, and can make decisions such as the "trial balloon" that he mysteriously allowed one of his favoured Cabinet Ministers to float over us this past fall to cut over $50 billion in transfer payments to the provinces and let the provinces have full autonomy over their own issues. (Normally, Harper is not fond of letting any of his Ministers speak out of turn, so this "trial balloon" seems to have been strategic). Then, with a fellow tax cutter like Tim Hudak, possibly forming the next provincial government in Ontario, it does not look good for Ontario.
I worked and made very good money by mid-1990's standards when Mike Harris was in government. Mike Harris cut our provincial portion of taxes by 30%, and basically to be honest, I did not spend more money in the community. I just paid down debts and put into investments like RRSPs and so forth. This is the same thing that 99.9% of other well off taxpayers did. Very little of this influenced job creation.
At the same time, the community around us became a war zone. People on welfare lost their homes, frequently moving from one place to the next, and children changing schools multiple times per year. I counted over a dozen suicides that were directly connected to Harris' cuts in his first year alone in my community. As I changed careers and moved on into my current legal practice, I still note a large number of my families undergoing foreclosure, people losing their teeth to various health conditions and not being assisted with dentures, social housing falling apart, gun shots in my neighbourhood, a substantial percentage of young people hooked on crack cocaine and working the streets, and people stopping us asking for loose change.
More and more of my clients are being screened for jail terms for non-violent offences, all in the name of public deterrance. I fail to see how a jail sentence is going to help many of these people, except keep them out of the legitimate labour force for a few years until we can secure a pardon for them. Of course, people don't want to go to jail, but the whole punitive thinking has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be ineffective in stopping crime, or even rehabilitating offenders. Harper is building more federal facilities to store people in, until they are released and have no choice but to commit another crime, when they find nobody will hire them, their families have disappeared and they have no money to rent or lease an apartment.
Cutting the taxes paid by businesses or by wealthy citizens is not going to create jobs. Jobs are created because a company needs a worker to do a certain job, not because it pays less taxes. It is the very nature of business to try to cut corners by hiring fewer people if it can get away with it to produce more. Businesses are not accountable to our government or to its employees, but only to its shareholders. If a corporation can show it can cut costs and reap a major profit, then the CEO gets a huge bonus, and the shareholders walk away with bigger dividends.
Tax cuts do not spur spending by these businesses, particularly on jobs or increasing the salaries of workers they already have. If you work at Wal-Mart, know that the corporate taxes they have been paying have been sloping downward for the past decade or more, but have your wages gone up any? I thought so. There is only a certain amount of spending that better off people will do; it quickly declines at its maximum marginal value. Businesses, as with families, only spend up to the point of its maximum marginal output. You will not purchase more gas, more groceries, more clothes, etc. than what you and your family need, even if you had a ton of disposable income left over after these necessary items are purchased. Once this slope is crossed, the future is considered and that is where investments and other non-economic drivers come in, e.g. retirement planning, paying off debt.
A better approach is not to bail out the banks, the automakers and other companies that probably caused themselves to go insolvent, but to provide assistance to those at the lower end to either obtain better jobs (e.g. infrastructure investments), increased income supports (e.g. employment insurance, social programs, pensions), and reducing or eliminating punitive rules in social programs that prevent incentive. If I were unfortunate enough to rely on social assistance, and was only able to purchase a roof over my head, the only "stimulation" I am providing is to my landlord, and not to the grocery store, the bookstore, the movie theatre, the Swiss Chalet, ther neighbourhood bar, etc. because I have no more money to spend at these other places ... the consequences of not eating well are well known, and I suppose it creates more jobs for the doctors and hospitals and pharmaceuticals, but given that much of this is publicly funded ... this is why health care is eating up more and more of our budget.
All I know is there might be a federal election around the corner, and I hear so many people tell me they trust Harper with the country's future. I don't. I have seen what he has done to the Senate, with the census, with political financing, with corporate tax cuts (while increasing some taxes on lower and middle incomes), increasing spending by the billions on fighter jets, planning G20's in the midst of Toronto and then falsely arresting over 1,000 people in it, etc.
I would be willing to hear what good Harper has done, but that is so miniscule compared to the harm. This is not a government that is based on a plan, a strategy, with the interests of all Canadians but instead it is a government of ideology. If Harper got a majority in the next election, I would love to be the one that does the polling, except this time I will ask the correct questions, and I am sure people will be very sorry they have voted this majority in.
Who to vote for? I think this is part of why some are moving to Harper, because the Liberal leader does not present well, and the NDP does curry favour with the public, as they do have ideology of their own. What we need is a better voting system, one that allows us to vote for a candidate of our choice, separate from the leader or the party of our choice. One can still vote for a local Conservative candidate, as there are many smart men and women in this party that are running, just like in any other party, but vote for a different leadership.
Unfortunately, none of the big parties will go for it, as they see this as eroding their base, and preventing majorities. My question would be then: What is the benefit to our country of majority governments that run roughshod over the rights of all Canadians, do whatever they like, regardless of what they campaigned on, and then destroy the country or province, and then leave a huge deficit for the next government?
I tend to prefer minority governments myself, with the power and movement for coalitions, both temporary and long-term, depending on the issues. That is how many western European countries operate, but why not ours?
Your thoughts?
Perhaps, we take it for granted that we do not live in a police state, where every action of ours is watched and punished when it moves against the state's ideology. Over the past year though, I begin to question that assumption as well.
But are taking all of this so much for granted that we do not see our democracy and freedoms diminish before our eyes? All around us, people in other countries, both democratic and autocratic are taking up arms against their states.
The power of the people at this stage will one day be written into our history books and be representative of change in our world history. I watched proudly as the people of Egypt took up peacefully against their own government dictatorship of 41 years demanding none other than Mubarek's resignation and a state where people worked, participated and moved freely within.
People around the world watched as Mubarek publicly resigned, left his office in Cairo and turned over power to the military that is now setting up a constitutional commission and is attempting to develop a new way of electing its leaders.
In Greece, people protested the new austerity crisis, where government is reacting to cut more and more and gut what represents to its people of its democratic and social institutions, as more and more Greeks live in poverty and can't find jobs. This angst has spread to Europe, where France has once again faced its own people pushing to moderate the austerity agenda and restore certain worker's rights.
In Ireland, where North American leaders have pointed to where corporate tax cuts have "worked", unemployment has recently hit a crisis point whereby many Irish companies are closing after being in business for generations. The concentration of wealth has never been so horrid worldwide as it is today, a mere repeat and exacerbation of our life just before the Great Depression.
In Great Britain, the new Conservative-Liberal Democratic Coalition led by David Cameron, promises to make deep cuts to almost everything that walks. Benefits for the poor have been decimated, health care for the elderly and persons with disabilities tightened up and housing councils are being sold to private interests. Voters seem to vote for leaders without agendas, without plans, other than to cut what is there, but not to hurt "the job creators" - or big business, despite the fact less and less jobs are actually being created.
This movement should concern us, and perhaps we should pick up pickets and do the same here. At the present time in the state of Wisconsin, newly elected Governor Scott Walker and his Republican dominated House have decided to press ahead by moving the clock backwards on worker's rights and even the right to collectively bargain as a union. One might think, "I'm not in a union, so this does not affect me", but this is only its most visible target. Health care and social benefits to the elderly and persons with disabilities have also been slashed.
What happens when a state gets this way? To me, this is not nation-bulding, and I would NEVER support any political party or leader that seems to go on this track. A governance plan of cuts and more cuts, means no nation building at all, no cohesion and no respect for the people that paid into developing it. These types of cuts invariably always wind up costing the public more money out of pocket for services we used to get for "free" or low cost, and in general - we tend to pay more out of pocket for these things than we get back in any reductions in taxes paid.
Taxes pay for civil society. Cutting the services that taxes pay for reduce this civility to much of what our society is becoming - rich against the poor, blacks against the whites, Christians against the Muslims, etc. The "other" groups become the ones responsible for the circumstances we find ourselves in. News outlets and call-in talk shows come out with allegations that people receiving income assistance from the state are pushing the whole nation into debt, when there is scant evidence to back any of this up.
A new poll that was published in Saturday's paper by Angus Reid indicated that the federal "Conservatives" hold a 13-point lead over its rival Liberals. When broken down by education, those with less education tend to support the "Conservatives", while those with more education tend to vote Liberal and somewhat NDP. Males tend to be more "Conservative" than females in all education groups and regions. I put quotes around the word "Conservative" because Stephen Harper's party is NOT the party of John A. McDonald or John Diefenbaker. It is an amalgam of Republican wannabes from Alberta, Preston Manning's Reform Party and Stockwell Day's attempt at pushing for an "Alliance" between the federal parties of the right. The former Progressive Conservative Party died the day Peter McKay agreed to the merger.
Canadians that support the "Conservatives" have no clue that the old Progressive Conservatives, even under the likes of Brian Mulroney, no longer exist. The party is now the party of the "slash and burn" variety, whereby Canada's historical ties to human rights abroad and within has diminished, its commitment to equality and ending poverty non-existent ... corporations will take care of us, if we only cut their taxes down to zero. Let the CEOs decide what social programs we need, they want to say. Stephen Harper said himself as the policy spokesperson for the Reform Party that Canadians would not recognize Canada once they would be done with it.
Canadians are either wilfully blind or are swallowing the hype from the increasingly Fox News like media in our own country that makes the Conservatives seem as moderate as their former counterparts. Yet, Canadians, when asked the right questions would understand why a majority government of this type might not be good for the majority of us. Most of us cannot afford to cover more of our health costs out of pocket, or pay into private health insurance for basics. We might have some problems with the idea of charter schools (where many of them are funded by private corporations), whereby wealthier families would be hands down able to provide a good education for their kids, while poorer kids will attend schools with diminishing and non-existent resources.
Yes, these things are provincial and Harper is federal. However, Harper has control over the purse strings, and can make decisions such as the "trial balloon" that he mysteriously allowed one of his favoured Cabinet Ministers to float over us this past fall to cut over $50 billion in transfer payments to the provinces and let the provinces have full autonomy over their own issues. (Normally, Harper is not fond of letting any of his Ministers speak out of turn, so this "trial balloon" seems to have been strategic). Then, with a fellow tax cutter like Tim Hudak, possibly forming the next provincial government in Ontario, it does not look good for Ontario.
I worked and made very good money by mid-1990's standards when Mike Harris was in government. Mike Harris cut our provincial portion of taxes by 30%, and basically to be honest, I did not spend more money in the community. I just paid down debts and put into investments like RRSPs and so forth. This is the same thing that 99.9% of other well off taxpayers did. Very little of this influenced job creation.
At the same time, the community around us became a war zone. People on welfare lost their homes, frequently moving from one place to the next, and children changing schools multiple times per year. I counted over a dozen suicides that were directly connected to Harris' cuts in his first year alone in my community. As I changed careers and moved on into my current legal practice, I still note a large number of my families undergoing foreclosure, people losing their teeth to various health conditions and not being assisted with dentures, social housing falling apart, gun shots in my neighbourhood, a substantial percentage of young people hooked on crack cocaine and working the streets, and people stopping us asking for loose change.
More and more of my clients are being screened for jail terms for non-violent offences, all in the name of public deterrance. I fail to see how a jail sentence is going to help many of these people, except keep them out of the legitimate labour force for a few years until we can secure a pardon for them. Of course, people don't want to go to jail, but the whole punitive thinking has been proven by peer-reviewed research to be ineffective in stopping crime, or even rehabilitating offenders. Harper is building more federal facilities to store people in, until they are released and have no choice but to commit another crime, when they find nobody will hire them, their families have disappeared and they have no money to rent or lease an apartment.
Cutting the taxes paid by businesses or by wealthy citizens is not going to create jobs. Jobs are created because a company needs a worker to do a certain job, not because it pays less taxes. It is the very nature of business to try to cut corners by hiring fewer people if it can get away with it to produce more. Businesses are not accountable to our government or to its employees, but only to its shareholders. If a corporation can show it can cut costs and reap a major profit, then the CEO gets a huge bonus, and the shareholders walk away with bigger dividends.
Tax cuts do not spur spending by these businesses, particularly on jobs or increasing the salaries of workers they already have. If you work at Wal-Mart, know that the corporate taxes they have been paying have been sloping downward for the past decade or more, but have your wages gone up any? I thought so. There is only a certain amount of spending that better off people will do; it quickly declines at its maximum marginal value. Businesses, as with families, only spend up to the point of its maximum marginal output. You will not purchase more gas, more groceries, more clothes, etc. than what you and your family need, even if you had a ton of disposable income left over after these necessary items are purchased. Once this slope is crossed, the future is considered and that is where investments and other non-economic drivers come in, e.g. retirement planning, paying off debt.
A better approach is not to bail out the banks, the automakers and other companies that probably caused themselves to go insolvent, but to provide assistance to those at the lower end to either obtain better jobs (e.g. infrastructure investments), increased income supports (e.g. employment insurance, social programs, pensions), and reducing or eliminating punitive rules in social programs that prevent incentive. If I were unfortunate enough to rely on social assistance, and was only able to purchase a roof over my head, the only "stimulation" I am providing is to my landlord, and not to the grocery store, the bookstore, the movie theatre, the Swiss Chalet, ther neighbourhood bar, etc. because I have no more money to spend at these other places ... the consequences of not eating well are well known, and I suppose it creates more jobs for the doctors and hospitals and pharmaceuticals, but given that much of this is publicly funded ... this is why health care is eating up more and more of our budget.
All I know is there might be a federal election around the corner, and I hear so many people tell me they trust Harper with the country's future. I don't. I have seen what he has done to the Senate, with the census, with political financing, with corporate tax cuts (while increasing some taxes on lower and middle incomes), increasing spending by the billions on fighter jets, planning G20's in the midst of Toronto and then falsely arresting over 1,000 people in it, etc.
I would be willing to hear what good Harper has done, but that is so miniscule compared to the harm. This is not a government that is based on a plan, a strategy, with the interests of all Canadians but instead it is a government of ideology. If Harper got a majority in the next election, I would love to be the one that does the polling, except this time I will ask the correct questions, and I am sure people will be very sorry they have voted this majority in.
Who to vote for? I think this is part of why some are moving to Harper, because the Liberal leader does not present well, and the NDP does curry favour with the public, as they do have ideology of their own. What we need is a better voting system, one that allows us to vote for a candidate of our choice, separate from the leader or the party of our choice. One can still vote for a local Conservative candidate, as there are many smart men and women in this party that are running, just like in any other party, but vote for a different leadership.
Unfortunately, none of the big parties will go for it, as they see this as eroding their base, and preventing majorities. My question would be then: What is the benefit to our country of majority governments that run roughshod over the rights of all Canadians, do whatever they like, regardless of what they campaigned on, and then destroy the country or province, and then leave a huge deficit for the next government?
I tend to prefer minority governments myself, with the power and movement for coalitions, both temporary and long-term, depending on the issues. That is how many western European countries operate, but why not ours?
Your thoughts?
Monday, June 28, 2010
LET'S ALL DO THE G20 HOP!
What happened last weekend in Toronto?
All I hear about is how some "Black bloc" riots started in the streets of Toronto, after breaking away from a massive peaceful demonstration organized by others, such as labour groups, women's organizations, anti-poverty groups and development organizations (like World Vision).
Unfortunately, the media missed the massive demonstration and the messages were lost. I am in contact with literally hundreds of folks who either were part of the protests, or who just happened to be in Toronto at the time of the "riot". What appeared to happen was "surreal", as described by one of my contacts.
Between 10,000 - 20,000 people arrived on the streets of Toronto early in the day, some bussed in the night before, some arriving that morning and others who live in the Toronto area. I watched wearily from the couch as the all-news stations gave blow by blow videos of the events.
For some time, there appeared to be large gatherings of people and even larger gathering of police, many on bikes, others in riot gear. For the most part, the police were there to keep an eye on things. Many of the organizers of peaceful protests were actually working with the police and included them as parade marshals to ensure no nonsense prevails.
However, at some point in the mid-afternoon, individuals previously hiding among the legitimate protesters grab themselves and relocate elsewhere to get changed into black clothing. The black clothing is par for the course for this method of rioting - a way to remain anonymous and organized for a short period of time and then vanish back into thin air. So, as the stories were told, about 100 of these people all black clad ran ahead of the others and began to do destructive things, smashing windows, throwing projectiles at police and eventually torching police cars. Many also spray painted various themes on other buildings and vehicles, mainly "No to G20". It was interesting to watch, as these people were on film.
They did not actually vanish, as the media did portray several of them changing clothes by Queen's Park, trying to hide behind legitimate protesters. What was interesting was, did anybody else notice somebody who first came in their street clothes, and then suddenly returning to the sidelines to change back into them? A media cameraman noticed this, and inquired about their change of clothes and one of them attempted to block the camera so as to hide who they were protecting. One would wonder how stupid these people are to do this openly in front of multiple cameras, and likely undercover police officers and other hired hands taking pictures of the events.
The television then showed several police cruisers going up in smoke, and there were strangely no police around for some time. There were lots of witnesses, as well as probably the people that started this arson. It was hard to tell who was who, as people naturally being curious creatures, many would creep in there to take pictures or simply stand on the sidelines to watch the action. Some reported that a few people cheered as the cruisers went up in flames. I can't confirm or deny this.
Eventually it appeared that arrests were being made. As protesters were headed back to Queen's Park, police using video tapes and photographs of the scenes and watching as people changed, they managed to grab a few of them, cuff them and bring them to a temporary detention centre set up for this event. I heard it was even worse than this. There was cause for criticism and concern.
Prior to the G20, or the G21, as I called it, coming into town, all sorts of stories entered the media, and new words or phrases were added to our collective vocabulary: perimeter, security, integrated security unit, public works protection act, etc. Most lawyers interviewed for these stories hardly heard of the Public Works Protection Act, although government advocates cited this as being in effect since 1937. However, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came in later and has precedence over all of this, or so we thought.
Anyways, people were told that if they walked within five meters of this "red zone", which was within the perimeter protecting the world leaders, one would be forced to show identification and explain why they are there. Normally, one does not even need to speak to a police officer, let alone show identification (except in lawful circumstances, or if done so voluntarily). Well, if you were also carrying a purse, a book bag or back pack, the police would automatically assume the right to search as well. They were allegedly looking for bricks, rocks, home-made bombs, weapons or even sharp objects. However, news of this new law was not made clear to most people walking their dogs, taking a stroll or going for their morning jog ...
I was told that not everybody was questioned. For example, if I showed up by the perimeter, I don't think I would get the same treatment that a young man would get, particularly if the young man was also of colour, or of a south Asian descent. I am in my late forties and look it, and in general, when I am in Toronto, I dress well, so the police would assume I have nothing to do with the protesters or any "Black bloc", so they did target certain groups. I know this because colleagues of mine in Toronto told me they were never bothered, while many young and racialized persons were hauled in for questioning.
However, after the "Black bloc" incident, the police were under severe criticism. The federal government promised about $1 billion worth of security, although this tab kept going up and up as time progressed. As this tally increased, the amount of criticism from armchair protesters like myself went up. Armchair protesters are people that write about protesting and criticize governments without actually physically showing up. Some of these people also include reporters and editors in our favourite newspapers, among those that remained inside. Others did go out and report on the external "events", while others were allowed in to report on the actual G20 discussions.
There were questions about how much security dollars were being used for this international gabfest among the twenty richest nations of the world, and prior to that the eight largest countries. The G8 was held in Huntsville, at Deerhurst Lodge and despite some protesters showing up, this event ran swimmingly. Things just began to turn bad when the G8 became the G20. Helicopters, motorcades, police cruisers (mostly RCMP), were traveling on closed highways or in the sky into the city, and somehow, they got into the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre. Some leaders brought hundreds of staff, others only brought a few. Hotel rooms were completely booked across the downtown.
Anyways, many of the demonstrators wanted to approach the perimeter. I always think this would have been a good tactic, but not to do anything violent. Once there, all of them would sit or stand purposely with their signs and chants, but no violence, no rocks, no Molotov cocktails, or even any attempts to get beyond the fence ... but police were too wise on this. They not only wanted to keep demonstrators out of the perimeter, they wanted to keep them completely out of the whole area around Front Street, University Avenue, etc.
But it was the lack of police presence when the Black bloc went wild ... we are spending over a billion dollars and we couldn't even get a few police officer to put an end to this rampage on time. As a result, many businesses were destroyed, vehicles defaced and the whole streets looking more like Afghanistan than Toronto. Toronto Police Chief Blair did a press conference later on, some questions answered, some he refused to, and some he genuinely didn't know ... he cut the conference short, not wanting to make this G20 gabfest an international embarrassment to the world. Police continued to work through the night, rounding up anybody they thought could be connected to these crimes, although many of these people weren't even protesters, and there were considerable complaints - hence, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms vanished by Order in Council by Cabinet on June 2, 2010?
Demonstrators then moved their protest to the temporary detention centre where they demanded the release of various detainees. Apparently, it was not pleasant in there. People were denied phone calls, being asked to use buckets for toilets, and not being fed for hours, and when fed, maybe a cheese sandwich. How true all of this was, will best be left to an inquiry, but these conditions did not even seem to meet the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War, let alone protests ...
The next day, the police made up for lost time, as another one of my contacts said. They sent a video of police encroaching on a peaceful demonstration by the detention centre. After refusing to move back, there was tear gas applied and crowds moved back. My contact lived across the street, and her film showed a journalist coming into her house at the request of a police officer that warned her about the tear gas, that it can go through windows, go through doors. She went inside, closed all the windows and doors, and let the journalist come in as well, until it blew over.
There were many more arrests during the day. Some people reported being street blocked, another term I never heard before, where police would trap a group of people into a very small area and force them to stay, as one of their officers goes through to conduct searches, and arrests others. They employed buses to send people on, and according to my contacts, many of these people weren't even demonstrators. They were subsequently shipped off to the temporary detention centre to be processed, and only when somebody came for them, some were released without bail (on officer in charge), while others were held for bail hearings. Four courts opened their doors on Sunday in order to process about five hundred people, some of whom were let go and others were released on a couple of thousand dollars in bail. Some had court dates, others had their charges dropped.
Nevertheless, this was a terrifying intervention into the human rights of many of these people, some of whom were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Others were arrested simply because they "should know they should not be behind a police line". Others were searched randomly. Suddenly the purchase of a gas mask becomes a crime. Many did this because they anticipated if they had to get through some of these protest areas, they did not want to get caught in the blast. Lawyers from the Movement Defence Committee were organizing bail hearings, releases, sureties, etc. Some high profile individuals were also caught in the snag too.
Police did this overtime on Sunday, supposedly to make up for what critics said they did not do on Saturday. No, nobody died from any of these interventions, but it was certainly terrifying and possibly traumatizing for some. Raking them all in and letting the courts figure it out is not necessarily the best approach, but this is the approach the police eventually took. Perhaps to show the public that these billions were being spent in visible ways?
Another of my contacts told me that twenty people came from her city, half of whom were of native descent. She told me earlier this evening that virtually all the natives continued to be in hold, while the others (non-natives) were released. Another one of my contacts viewed the mayhem from a Wheel-Trans van, which liberally took her throughout the protest zone, as well as the riot zone, and she took pictures and put them on youtube.
It is said over 900 people were arrested, although many were released without charge. There is a call for an inquiry into this G20 Hop! Some want a complete audit by Auditor General Sheila Fraser of all the summit and post-summit costs Others want to see a review of how civil liberties were dealt with, and whether or not this was actually legal. Businesses and individual residents affected by this path of destruction want somebody to pay, notably the federal government for choosing this location for their billion dollar picnic.
I don't know what the outcome of this should be, although I am uncomfortable with the way so many arrests have been carried out without any apparent provocation. I recall my training and how people react when given the uniform and the authority to do things, unchecked. Stanley Milgram did a number of experiments, where up to 68% of his subjects knowingly "tortured" a group of a confederates in the other room by moving an electrical shock device up to its maximum. Zimbardo had led a number of experiments, where subjects were placed as prison guards and were permitted to discipline the confederate prisoners, and it appeared that abuses and breaches of authority were something also that came in with the donning of the uniform.
At the same time, if you were a police officer, what would you do? Whatever you do, you are going to be attacked either way. You will be attacked for being too soft if you don't do something, too hard if you go too far ... there is no happy medium, and this is an awful position to be put in.
Maybe we will throw all these issues in and let the courts figure it out.
All I hear about is how some "Black bloc" riots started in the streets of Toronto, after breaking away from a massive peaceful demonstration organized by others, such as labour groups, women's organizations, anti-poverty groups and development organizations (like World Vision).
Unfortunately, the media missed the massive demonstration and the messages were lost. I am in contact with literally hundreds of folks who either were part of the protests, or who just happened to be in Toronto at the time of the "riot". What appeared to happen was "surreal", as described by one of my contacts.
Between 10,000 - 20,000 people arrived on the streets of Toronto early in the day, some bussed in the night before, some arriving that morning and others who live in the Toronto area. I watched wearily from the couch as the all-news stations gave blow by blow videos of the events.
For some time, there appeared to be large gatherings of people and even larger gathering of police, many on bikes, others in riot gear. For the most part, the police were there to keep an eye on things. Many of the organizers of peaceful protests were actually working with the police and included them as parade marshals to ensure no nonsense prevails.
However, at some point in the mid-afternoon, individuals previously hiding among the legitimate protesters grab themselves and relocate elsewhere to get changed into black clothing. The black clothing is par for the course for this method of rioting - a way to remain anonymous and organized for a short period of time and then vanish back into thin air. So, as the stories were told, about 100 of these people all black clad ran ahead of the others and began to do destructive things, smashing windows, throwing projectiles at police and eventually torching police cars. Many also spray painted various themes on other buildings and vehicles, mainly "No to G20". It was interesting to watch, as these people were on film.
They did not actually vanish, as the media did portray several of them changing clothes by Queen's Park, trying to hide behind legitimate protesters. What was interesting was, did anybody else notice somebody who first came in their street clothes, and then suddenly returning to the sidelines to change back into them? A media cameraman noticed this, and inquired about their change of clothes and one of them attempted to block the camera so as to hide who they were protecting. One would wonder how stupid these people are to do this openly in front of multiple cameras, and likely undercover police officers and other hired hands taking pictures of the events.
The television then showed several police cruisers going up in smoke, and there were strangely no police around for some time. There were lots of witnesses, as well as probably the people that started this arson. It was hard to tell who was who, as people naturally being curious creatures, many would creep in there to take pictures or simply stand on the sidelines to watch the action. Some reported that a few people cheered as the cruisers went up in flames. I can't confirm or deny this.
Eventually it appeared that arrests were being made. As protesters were headed back to Queen's Park, police using video tapes and photographs of the scenes and watching as people changed, they managed to grab a few of them, cuff them and bring them to a temporary detention centre set up for this event. I heard it was even worse than this. There was cause for criticism and concern.
Prior to the G20, or the G21, as I called it, coming into town, all sorts of stories entered the media, and new words or phrases were added to our collective vocabulary: perimeter, security, integrated security unit, public works protection act, etc. Most lawyers interviewed for these stories hardly heard of the Public Works Protection Act, although government advocates cited this as being in effect since 1937. However, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms came in later and has precedence over all of this, or so we thought.
Anyways, people were told that if they walked within five meters of this "red zone", which was within the perimeter protecting the world leaders, one would be forced to show identification and explain why they are there. Normally, one does not even need to speak to a police officer, let alone show identification (except in lawful circumstances, or if done so voluntarily). Well, if you were also carrying a purse, a book bag or back pack, the police would automatically assume the right to search as well. They were allegedly looking for bricks, rocks, home-made bombs, weapons or even sharp objects. However, news of this new law was not made clear to most people walking their dogs, taking a stroll or going for their morning jog ...
I was told that not everybody was questioned. For example, if I showed up by the perimeter, I don't think I would get the same treatment that a young man would get, particularly if the young man was also of colour, or of a south Asian descent. I am in my late forties and look it, and in general, when I am in Toronto, I dress well, so the police would assume I have nothing to do with the protesters or any "Black bloc", so they did target certain groups. I know this because colleagues of mine in Toronto told me they were never bothered, while many young and racialized persons were hauled in for questioning.
However, after the "Black bloc" incident, the police were under severe criticism. The federal government promised about $1 billion worth of security, although this tab kept going up and up as time progressed. As this tally increased, the amount of criticism from armchair protesters like myself went up. Armchair protesters are people that write about protesting and criticize governments without actually physically showing up. Some of these people also include reporters and editors in our favourite newspapers, among those that remained inside. Others did go out and report on the external "events", while others were allowed in to report on the actual G20 discussions.
There were questions about how much security dollars were being used for this international gabfest among the twenty richest nations of the world, and prior to that the eight largest countries. The G8 was held in Huntsville, at Deerhurst Lodge and despite some protesters showing up, this event ran swimmingly. Things just began to turn bad when the G8 became the G20. Helicopters, motorcades, police cruisers (mostly RCMP), were traveling on closed highways or in the sky into the city, and somehow, they got into the Metropolitan Toronto Convention Centre. Some leaders brought hundreds of staff, others only brought a few. Hotel rooms were completely booked across the downtown.
Anyways, many of the demonstrators wanted to approach the perimeter. I always think this would have been a good tactic, but not to do anything violent. Once there, all of them would sit or stand purposely with their signs and chants, but no violence, no rocks, no Molotov cocktails, or even any attempts to get beyond the fence ... but police were too wise on this. They not only wanted to keep demonstrators out of the perimeter, they wanted to keep them completely out of the whole area around Front Street, University Avenue, etc.
But it was the lack of police presence when the Black bloc went wild ... we are spending over a billion dollars and we couldn't even get a few police officer to put an end to this rampage on time. As a result, many businesses were destroyed, vehicles defaced and the whole streets looking more like Afghanistan than Toronto. Toronto Police Chief Blair did a press conference later on, some questions answered, some he refused to, and some he genuinely didn't know ... he cut the conference short, not wanting to make this G20 gabfest an international embarrassment to the world. Police continued to work through the night, rounding up anybody they thought could be connected to these crimes, although many of these people weren't even protesters, and there were considerable complaints - hence, our Charter of Rights and Freedoms vanished by Order in Council by Cabinet on June 2, 2010?
Demonstrators then moved their protest to the temporary detention centre where they demanded the release of various detainees. Apparently, it was not pleasant in there. People were denied phone calls, being asked to use buckets for toilets, and not being fed for hours, and when fed, maybe a cheese sandwich. How true all of this was, will best be left to an inquiry, but these conditions did not even seem to meet the Geneva Convention for Prisoners of War, let alone protests ...
The next day, the police made up for lost time, as another one of my contacts said. They sent a video of police encroaching on a peaceful demonstration by the detention centre. After refusing to move back, there was tear gas applied and crowds moved back. My contact lived across the street, and her film showed a journalist coming into her house at the request of a police officer that warned her about the tear gas, that it can go through windows, go through doors. She went inside, closed all the windows and doors, and let the journalist come in as well, until it blew over.
There were many more arrests during the day. Some people reported being street blocked, another term I never heard before, where police would trap a group of people into a very small area and force them to stay, as one of their officers goes through to conduct searches, and arrests others. They employed buses to send people on, and according to my contacts, many of these people weren't even demonstrators. They were subsequently shipped off to the temporary detention centre to be processed, and only when somebody came for them, some were released without bail (on officer in charge), while others were held for bail hearings. Four courts opened their doors on Sunday in order to process about five hundred people, some of whom were let go and others were released on a couple of thousand dollars in bail. Some had court dates, others had their charges dropped.
Nevertheless, this was a terrifying intervention into the human rights of many of these people, some of whom were simply at the wrong place at the wrong time. Others were arrested simply because they "should know they should not be behind a police line". Others were searched randomly. Suddenly the purchase of a gas mask becomes a crime. Many did this because they anticipated if they had to get through some of these protest areas, they did not want to get caught in the blast. Lawyers from the Movement Defence Committee were organizing bail hearings, releases, sureties, etc. Some high profile individuals were also caught in the snag too.
Police did this overtime on Sunday, supposedly to make up for what critics said they did not do on Saturday. No, nobody died from any of these interventions, but it was certainly terrifying and possibly traumatizing for some. Raking them all in and letting the courts figure it out is not necessarily the best approach, but this is the approach the police eventually took. Perhaps to show the public that these billions were being spent in visible ways?
Another of my contacts told me that twenty people came from her city, half of whom were of native descent. She told me earlier this evening that virtually all the natives continued to be in hold, while the others (non-natives) were released. Another one of my contacts viewed the mayhem from a Wheel-Trans van, which liberally took her throughout the protest zone, as well as the riot zone, and she took pictures and put them on youtube.
It is said over 900 people were arrested, although many were released without charge. There is a call for an inquiry into this G20 Hop! Some want a complete audit by Auditor General Sheila Fraser of all the summit and post-summit costs Others want to see a review of how civil liberties were dealt with, and whether or not this was actually legal. Businesses and individual residents affected by this path of destruction want somebody to pay, notably the federal government for choosing this location for their billion dollar picnic.
I don't know what the outcome of this should be, although I am uncomfortable with the way so many arrests have been carried out without any apparent provocation. I recall my training and how people react when given the uniform and the authority to do things, unchecked. Stanley Milgram did a number of experiments, where up to 68% of his subjects knowingly "tortured" a group of a confederates in the other room by moving an electrical shock device up to its maximum. Zimbardo had led a number of experiments, where subjects were placed as prison guards and were permitted to discipline the confederate prisoners, and it appeared that abuses and breaches of authority were something also that came in with the donning of the uniform.
At the same time, if you were a police officer, what would you do? Whatever you do, you are going to be attacked either way. You will be attacked for being too soft if you don't do something, too hard if you go too far ... there is no happy medium, and this is an awful position to be put in.
Maybe we will throw all these issues in and let the courts figure it out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
