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.

A PEDAGOGY OF PRIVILEGE

Some of the people who read my blogs try to allege assumptions about my political views, or my background, or what I am doing or not doing to "help others help themselves", put in a kinder context. Die hard conservatives, or at least people who have convinced themselves that they must support this ideology or be considered a "fringe group", accuse me of being a left-winger. I don't consider myself a left-winger, as many of my friends on the left accuse me of being a conservative of sorts. In the history of blogs here, I have opposed unions, opposed public housing, queried about the accountability of so many government hand-outs, opposed the bailouts of big business, opposed the HST, as well as questioned many facets about the social work and poverty-based industries.

On the other hand, accepting a hard-right ideology to me is no different than accepting a hard-left ideology. I've met and spoke to people who label themselves conservative that cannot engage in an intellectual debate about the topics they claim to oppose my opinions on. One in particular tried to claim climate change was a hoax, but could not claim knowledge or familiarity of a single peer-reviewed study that states this as fact. The person instead insisted that the one individual who brought the issue up was responsible for doing the "homework", not him. To me, this just indicated that this individual actually knows quite little about this topic, but his chosen ideology dictates to him what position he takes.

In turn, they personalize every statement their opponents make, and make assumptions about where they are coming from, as opposed to responding with like arguments that support their own position. I am in the legal profession, and in order to work in this field, I better know how to raise both fact and law to back any argument I make or expect to lose. In other words, to many of these right wing ideologues, anybody that does not agree with them are "socialists" or in the US, "liberals". Those on the left broadly label those on the right as being "greedy". I consider myself a radical centrist, because I believe that politics is the art of compromise, and that public policy should be based on expert review and evaluation, as opposed to political persuasion. Unfortunately, most people base their votes and opinions on stereotypes and when it feels good to put others lesser than themselves down, in order to make themselves feel better.

However, apart from those on the two extremes, there are heuristic reasons why some people tend to make assumptions about others, or blame others for their own misfortunes. In my experience, the very wealthy and even self-made wealthy tend to be more liberal and broad-minded in their vision as a whole, than many in the upper middle class and/or unionized working classes. Individuals who are very wealthy can self-exclude themselves from elements of society they find distasteful or bothersome, and in their own small way, many of them try to make things better for those in difficult circumstances. Foundations bear many of their names, as well as several I know that own companies take specific people under their wing to develop them as persons, increase their skills and eventually hire them. People with this kind of wealth have choices, and for the most part, they realize that.

However, those in the middle and upper-middle classes, have a differential view of how little their personal choices took them to where they are, versus circumstances. Very wealthy people also tend to be well-educated, and growing up, are almost constantly reminded about how "lucky" they are. The kinds of problems that develop in wealthy families tend to come out differently and impact people involved in a different way than the same types of problems for those in middle and upper-middle income families. For the most part, wealth is shared, either through inheritance, through family ties and through cultural connections, such as association with others in the same country clubs, associations, university alumni, etc. The sense of belonging among the wealthier parts of the country does not rely on what one's neighbours think, or what charities they support ... The problems arise in wealthy families are when love is bought with money, and the support does not go with it ...

However, in the middle class and upper middle classes, there is a lot of control, albeit usually as a benevolent dictatorship over the lives of their offspring. Those in the middle and upper middle classes want to emulate the wealthy because they want to be there someday themselves, even though their chances of making it there aren't large. In families, there is programming on the basis of gender, friendships, morality and values, and cultural leanings. While this "benevolent dictatorship" is in effect, offspring in these families also benefit from a large amount of support: cultural, social, emotional and financial. There is a lot said about older kids nowadays not leaving home until they are well into their twenties, and sometimes early thirties ... the offspring witnesses what their parents have been able to take from the world and benefit from, while they themselves fear not being able to do this for themselves. Yet at the same time, there are more parents than there were in the past that have funded or helped fund their child's post-secondary education, helped them purchase their first house, or even paid for a honeymoon when they get married ...

I know this through my own observations of ten and a half years floating through the post-secondary education system. During my time, there were students relying largely on OSAP, but over time, these numbers have dropped, as parents were more able to provide this support. New financial instruments made it possible for middle income parents to provide this type of support. Further, parents of older children often have more than one vehicle in the yard, and encourage their children to learn to drive shortly after they are legally able to. Vehicle ownership and use is as much of a cultural inheritance, as is one's cultural assumptions of what a parent owes their children with respect to post-secondary education. There is a perception among the middle and upper-middle income families that vehicle ownership, purchasing a home, and graduating from university, is a way to "make it".

However, with these new cultural norms, develops a new form of cultural privilege. If you grew up in a family like this, it is difficult for you to picture what it is like for somebody that did not. Some families have the means, but refuse to assist their children into adulthood; others simply cannot afford it and those offspring often have to resort to the public system to obtain what they need, and from past experience, I know this to be a crap shoot. Unfortunately, there are more people who are privileged in a middle to upper middle class type of way, than those who are not, which has led to this biased heuristic.

For example, a child from a low income or working class family knows that they are different from the time they enter the school system. The school system is set up to replicate the values and mores of those that appear to comprise the majority of parents in their catchment area. Those that run for the school board, and those that serve in high level staff positions at the school board also have the same cultural background and privilege as most parents. Those parents of minority situations, poverty, disability and other "differences" are only active or heard from when it comes to special needs children, because that is where the run of the mill educational system neglects people in the most overt way.

It is not that teachers and principals haven't heard of poverty, as you can probably ask any of them and they will relate stories to you about the girl that wore summer shoes to school in the winter or the boy that never had a good winter coat. They don't see these cases as being in the majority of their classes, but these people are noticed. Unfortunately, most teachers and principals alike tend to buy into the same ideology that if someone "works hard", they should be able to escape poverty. Maybe, because their parents worked hard and paid for their education, and they were then able to take advantage of their family's backing and purchase a home, keep family in the loop, and enjoy these types of relationships that not everybody has. To many of them, they think they can do good for the impoverished students by buying a pair of boots for the girl or a coat for the boy, and pretending this will make the school experience for these children better. Unfortunately, more often than not, it doesn't improve things ... the new coat or the new boots might be appreciated (or not), but the family these children come from are not given one added opportunity, one route of escape from poverty or one smidgen of hope.

While the middle or upper middle class teacher does not view it this way (that an act of charity can actually hurt the self-esteem of a child or family), they do not understand what happens in the cultural context that the child lives in. Let me give you an example: e. g. this was a situation I personally witnessed. I visited the home of a new employee I hired at a business I managed about fifteen years ago. Her son who was about eight or nine years old at the time, came home from school with a new pair of boots and a gift voucher for a nearby grocery store. He told his mother that his teacher gave these items to him, after they noticed he wasn't wearing any boots that particularly difficult winter. The boy appeared angry and embarrassed, and the mother who was also my new employee, took the boy to another room to talk privately to him (and not in front of me). I learned later that she and her husband have been struggling to pay bills on Ontario Works for a year or so, and did not even want to tell me about that.

I explained to her that she will not need to worry about that anymore because her job will definitely take them off welfare for good, and that I hired her for her skills and abilities, not for some picky criteria that many employers today use. The long and short end of this was that she made the best employee I ever hired, in any of the places I ever managed or operated. For those naysayers that say that those who work hard will avoid poverty, this woman was an example of somebody that worked hard almost everyday of her life, raising two special needs children, and trying to work around their needs, while making only enough to supplement, not get her family off assistance. She later told me that she felt honored to be working in the organization that I hired her for, and that she found it hard to believe that I actually accommodated her with respect to her health conditions she had at the time, as well as issues concerning one of her young children.

This is something I felt I had to do as an employer, not for her or for anybody in particular, but in order to keep that office running, and have good people working there. I had an obligation as an employer to do this. I was never one to go out to buy a pair of boots for a kid, or give them my daughter's old winter coat, as an act of charity. I was always more interested in what I can do to address the issue to begin with, and do it with dignity. But then again, I was not somebody that was raised in a stable, two-parent, loving household either ... While I am sure both of my parents loved me in their own way, their own mistakes, personal lives and other issues, took precedence over their concern over my welfare as a child. On my own since my teens, I realize what a value a stable household gives to individuals and ensures almost a poverty-proof life for that child, esp when emotional, social, cultural and financial support are all combined.

I was always somebody who would make sure that anybody working for me would include their costs, mileage, parking and other expenses, so they knew they were supported in the work they were doing for my office. I did this for others, despite others never doing this for me. In another office I managed, I sought funding specifically addressing the skills of two individuals in the office I knew were the lowest paid, so I can increase their hours and total pay, without as much as asking for increase in my own salary. These things all took place in the 1990's, during a time of so-called retrenchment in social programming. It is sad, however, when the administration was taken over by somebody else, with a completely different philosophy as to what constituted qualifications, work ethics and results. This individual was really no different than many of the employers I find around here, believing there are no human variables, just a right to exclusionary practices.

Many people find it hard to believe over thirty percent of Niagara residents do not have a driver's license, or lost it for whatever reason. I bump into these people all the time, those who were unable to get around to get their licenses, those who lost them due to a medical problem, or were never able to get it. Virtually none of them are working for much, if at all. Those that have grown up with the kind of supports I describe above, actually believe that the men that don't drive must have got there for a reason, e.g. drug abuse, not paying child support. For the women, it is assumed they have a husband or some other sugar daddy that makes the big bucks, so all they are looking for is minimum wage work. These same people, after saying something like that, are embarrassed after I tell them why I don't drive ... not feeling bad for what they said, but being caught with their words. I am sure I might have educated a few of them over time, but this does not push people out of their comfort zone.

There are middle class folks worrying about losing their jobs, marriages falling apart and people getting into serious accident and illnesses, making them worry about their future all the time. There are folks that conduct a lot of research for example to reassure this sector of the middle class to convince them that they will never become homeless, because they want to make it look like those that DO become homeless are mentally ill, substance abusers or ex-inmates of psychiatric facilities - make these people in worse circumstances appear to be authors of their misfortune in some way, or at least so much "out there" that the same thing will not happen to them. Well, if one has never been involved with any of those things, they're safe, right? At least, that is what the political agenda of this type of research is about ... when in fact, none of these people are safe. I am a witness of this, watching a man who worked for a factory for twenty-eight years end up on the street, another man lose his home after a messy marriage break-up and he lived in his car, and so on ... these stories are not that uncommon, and none of them have mental illness or alcoholism to push them there.

These same middle class folks get reassured that if they "work hard", they will make it. At the same time, other privileged folks, perhaps secure (for now) in their jobs, tell the public under an assumed name of course, how people on welfare don't want to work, and how there are plenty of Tim Horton's jobs available, and everything. If I took this one woman that I referred to earlier that I hired in a fairly well-paid position to a Tim Horton's, she would never be hired - she had two university degrees, a special needs child, and a propensity for migraine headaches, which would throw any normal employer off base ... but she delivered fine for me, because unlike others she apparently worked for, I accommodated her. And even if Timmy's weren't so picky, there will have to be at least 800,000 new openings in places like this in order to get everybody off welfare ... but one can dream, right?

The same people who argue these points claim themselves as charitable and how they would help a deserving person, which is nice to hear, but neither he, nor I, nor even 100,000 people like he or I will be able to help everybody who needs help on an individual self-selective basis like this. In fact, the most needy will be left out, which is why the state took these functions over. Remember the story of Dorothea Dix, who fought to take the ill, the poor, the dying from run-down poor houses into state-run facilities, where they would receive the care and help they needed. And when these institutions became overcrowded and inhumane, people like Claire Hinks, and others fought for their right to live in the community.

Today I am doing something like this. I am continuing to fight for people's right to not only live in the community, among us, but to contribute what they can ... and be given respect and opportunities to do the same. I don't have a background of privilege, whether that be cultural, social, financial or familial ... but I do in fact believe in people, and because people of privilege exist ... I don't feel I need to assist them, as they have this support already. Why do they need me to push and advocate on their behalf, when they already have the resources they need? I am there to provide this to those that truly need the help, ask for it, and provide this assistance in a dignified manner ... so these folks will for once, or once again, feel that they belong - something that no charity, now matter how well intended, can ever do for them.

Your thoughts?

THINKING FOR A LIVING ...

The last entry in the blog about rights, obligations and privilege drew a lot of blood from my followers. For many, they find my blogs intellectual and heavy on the intellect; others read them and assume meaning and ramifications that are nowhere in it. However, for followers of Kant, Rawls and even classic Locke, people seem to get how my comparisons work. This is the respect for the integrity of the person, regardless of what position they are in society. It bestows both rights and responsibilities on all citizens, and as such doesn't differ because somebody has a million dollar mansion, and the other is on welfare. As equal citizens, we all reap what we sow, and deserve full integrity of our person as we make choices. I critique society's view of the poor and disabled, and separated them into a context of how some see a split between a "deserving" sect and an "undeserving" sect, which always befuddled me, as this context cannot be reasonably decided by an outsider who is not in the shoes of the other. How come something as easy for me to understand is so difficult for some others to wrap their heads around?

In the context of my professional life, I learned to accept and acknowledge all kinds of people, their behaviours, cultures and attitudes. When I first began to work independently in private practice, many things people would say to me bothered me, or shocked my senses. At times, I thought the walls had ears in my old office, as many of the words of the people who have come to see me over the years are reflected in the aging process, and the ghosts and creak of the old building I was in. Over the years, the personification of my environment is such that I learned to find it easier to tolerate and understand, rather than to judge and criticize. I met people in all walks of life, all persuasions, all orientations, all attitudes, and many who have done some terrible things, or have had terrible things done to them. Many have come to me to rant, often loudly, about the injustices and idiocy of the legal system, the very system where I make my living. I can only nod my head, the customer is always right ... the system is what a person perceives it to be, I have tried to fight a lot of fights, which many clients sometimes believe we should have won, but there are no guarantees. I walked into the courtroom many times believing we had a solid case, only to lose, as well as other times, walking in believing our chances were sketchy at best, but we surprisingly win!

My friends ask me how do I deal with the stress of it all. I don't. I sometimes have to walk away. It is not good to carry that much sorrow inside, and then try to understand why this much pain is possible. An instant distraction is what is needed, or I do not do well with continuing what it was I started. Like many of you, I walk the streets of my community, and I see people fast asleep on the benches around the market square, or in the doorways of business buildings on the main streets of downtown. During the day, these same people and others are making their rounds asking for change. To me, these people are no more welcome than the solicitors for some charity standing on the street corner, accosting as many passers by as they can, only to try to part you with your money. This is not the problem; it is merely a symptom. A society that is working well would not have the charities soliciting people on street corners and disparaged people trying to knock up other people for "spare change".

My downtown can be a beautiful place, and in fact, I love it in the spring when the buskers make their way and do an impromptu act across the old courtyard, or by the market, as throngs of people make their way inside to shop for produce and other foodstuff from our local farmers. My downtown can be as informal as my walking into Tim Horton's, meeting various colleagues seeking a coffee after court, or a friend seeking to speak to me about the latest on anything. I walk downtown during the day if I suffer from information overload at the office, only to get it from a different angle in the streets. A true sign of spring is when the city workers begin to water the plants in their holders all along St. Paul Street ... the water dripping from the hose down to the sidewalk below contrasts directly with the beaming sunlight beating down from above. Crowds of people on patios, casually chatting over expresso and iced coffee, as others cycle by ... the relaxed nature of a downtown attracts the positive nature of people.

After I return to the office, I continue on my exciting, and sometimes, dreadful journeys. I preside over some devastating issues, where regardless of which way a party moves, somebody gets hurt. My role is to minimize the damage. I work on litigation cases, which I gather information, conduct a search of parties, draft a claim, assemble it, issue it and file it, and then figure out a way to serve it on the unsuspecting parties these papers are going to. Other times, I write and seek information, and provide feedback to a person as to which way they move their pieces on this ever emerging chessboard. It is just when there are too many chessboards, or too many pieces missing, when I become frazzled. To me, things need to fit together, and resemble calm. My job is to find out where these pieces fit, because they always fit somewhere, just not always where you think they should.

I live a life that some tell me they envy, where I encounter, work with, engage with and partake with, all ranks of life, including the millionaires, the paupers, the persons with disabilities, the legal professionals, the artisans and the poets. Each day, taking a dose of each adds a different something to my world. I have had jobs where I have directly worked with senior government officials, including Cabinet Ministers, whereas the next day, I am assisting somebody who had been evicted from their home to find another. I have been in the worst hovels of this region, even remembering many of their addresses, and have been in the fanciest million dollar homes and private enclaves of the wealthy. I've been in the non-profit sector, where I fondly remember publishing the newsletter, and presenting our position to Parliamentary committees. I still do a lot of that, except today, I share my knowledge and experience with coalitions that are doing their damnedest to change so much of what is wrong.

Being self-employed, some believe I can do and say as I wish, but this is not necessarily the whole truth. In fact, most of the time, I am buried in work, and it is also my role to protect myself from being submerged in minute details, anxiety about what I am to do next week, and the week thereafter. Some tell me I am courageous to take on the region with respect to bringing transit to everybody, but this is something that has pestered me, and it would certainly pester me more, if I sat on my hands like the others did, and just hoped something will happen. As a protagonist, I need to make things happen. I can't sit on my hands when things are so wrong. I knew how to tell as a young child when something around me was wrong, or when somebody was treating me in a way that was improper. I always felt things physically, and in many respects, I can only describe the pain in physical matter. It comes down to that personal integrity thing again; part of my personal integrity involves being and belonging, as well as practicing citizenship rights, and where others do or do not do something that prevents me from fully exercising the same is when my world needs to be shifted right. Things need to change.

It is a falsehood to assume that all people are created equal on this planet ... inequality certainly cuts in a predictable fashion, with some people deemed to be "hard working" and thus "deserving", while others are not so deserving ... but few ever question why the "deserving" seem to be over-represented by individuals in groups that are not traditionally disadvantaged. More whites than blacks curiously end up in the "deserving" pile; more able-bodied than persons with disabilities end up in the "deserving" pile. More men than women end up there as well. This is no accident. One might argue that women, persons with disabilities and blacks do not "work hard" or all come from "bad seed" that seems to keep them back, but we know that as a society, we tend to individualize traits, as opposed to trying to analyze them from a broader world perspective. This is reminiscent of Kelly's attribution theory, where the worst of a situation makes it more the fault of the person it happened to ... almost upstaged from concrete operational thinking, Jean Piaget's analysis for children in their developmental stages. For the most part, those in the "undeserving" category face barriers to their success. This is not the fault of the people with advantage, but it is the fault of those that put policies and programs in place, and distribute wealth and income, or who make hiring decisions.

As I stated earlier, if such policy makers, employers, government officials and others in power, were to learn how to put their feet into the shoes of the other, and govern as though they do not know where they will end up once the rule, policy or law is passed. They may be a pauper, a millionaire, a storekeeper, a student, or a person with a disability. Regardless, the universality of the policy would apply, and unfortunately, we cannot train our rulers to think this way. Our rulers are only concerned with how to retain their jobs as rulers, and not how to truly govern and lead. As long as problems and despair only belong to other people, the rulers of today are not sufficiently dismayed as to find ways to relief them of such. They apply the band-aid, or they apply the punishment, whatever way the wind is blowing at the time. Not a nice way to intellectually determine the world ...

But, as part of my profession, I often have to guide people to make decisions, sometimes decisions that are very difficult, and no matter how we decide, somebody can get hurt. As a leader, I try to balance it the best I can. The result is usually the best result we will get, although I know somebody is hurt. I was once told by a judge that we know a mediation has been successful when both parties walk away with their lower lips dragging across the floor. That means each party takes something from it, as well as gives something up. Much of this is the art of compromise, the skill of making people retain connections, the ability to enable others to figure out how to solve their own problems, not something that is valued highly these days.

I don't know what day or year I will ever hang my hat, or if this is ever going to happen, but I want to leave the world I live in with a set of rich memories, rich understandings, and a philosophy and belief on how to lead, how to change and how to know when it is time to fight.

Your thoughts?

RIGHTS, OBLIGATIONS AND SOCIETAL PREJUDICES

This is not a good year to be poor, nor is it a good year to be disabled.

Personally, I don't know if there ever was a good year to be poor or disabled, but 2010 seems to be representative of a retrenchment or backward movement on any minor achievements we might have achieved in years prior. This time, ignorant Joe Taxpayer is getting his way in his spiteful attacks on the poor and disabled, considering that "his" money is supposedly being "wasted" on the same ... I suppose Joe Taxpayer will also win when the number of indigent funerals go up in every municipality in Ontario as a result of Joe Taxpayers uneducated and unsophisticated understanding of our obligations as a community ... while I would love to be a fly on the wall when Joe Taxpayers' taxes go way up after our health care costs, correctional costs, educational costs, and everything else goes up in the face of society's backwards flowing attitudes, this is not the topic of this particular entry.

This entry is about rights, obligations and privileges. This is being framed from the lens of a human rights perspective. Let us define our terms first: (a) Rights are variously construed as legal, social, or moral freedoms to act or refrain from acting, or entitlements to be acted upon or not acted upon. While the concept is fundamental to civilized societies, there is considerable disagreement about what is meant precisely by the term rights. It has been used by different groups and thinkers for different purposes, with different and sometimes opposing definitions, and the precise definition of the concept, beyond having something to do with normative rules of some sort or another, is controversial. Nevertheless, the concept of rights is of vital importance in such disciplines as law and ethics, especially theories of justice and deontology. (cited from Wikipedia).

Rights can be further divided into "natural rights" and "legal rights". Natural rights are rights that exist regardless of law and are constitutional in nature, and cannot be taken away from anybody. Everybody has these rights, whether they are black, white, rich, poor, male, female, gay, straight, etc. After many years and many forms of government, countries got together in 1948 and formed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Although most countries are signatory to this document, thus agreeing in principal as to what natural rights all persons have, the actual document is not necessarily enforceable but forms the basis of each signatory's own constitutional and quasi-constitutional approach to human rights. In Canada, we brought this document into our Constitution in the form of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in 1985, three years after the rest of the Charter was signed, the equality provisions under s. 15 were passed, thus entrenching existing Human Rights Codes and making them broader and more inclusive in terms of the definition of equality under the Charter.

Natural rights supercede any legislation. No government is allowed to take rights away from persons who are resident in countries that have signed on, and who have ratified these rights. For example, our Canadian government cannot suddenly declare a police state, where people's homes, cars, vehicles and other personal space, can be searched and anything and everything within being taken and used against us, without due process of law. "Due process" over the years has gradually meant something and provided various guidelines to police services and the courts, but in light of it, people have this natural right and it must be upheld.

Legal rights are rights that are granted to citizens as a matter of law. These are sometimes granted to certain citizens that qualify, such as citizens over the age of 65 being entitled to an Old Age Security pension, or persons who have legal residency, citizenship or a special work visa, to take a job in this country. These rights are doled out by legislation, which when passed must also meet constitutional standard as well. In other words, rights passed by legislation cannot be contrary to what the rights in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms say, except in certain circumstances (but these over-ride sections are not the topic of this entry). These rights can often be tested and reviewed by the courts, and once a decision of the higher courts is made, it becomes binding on all lower courts. Many of our legal rights are also privileges, such as the privilege of driving. In no province of Canada, does anybody have a right to drive a vehicle. However, the law states how any person can become eligible to be granted driving privileges, and how they can be revoked.

Another sub-topic of rights is positive rights and negative rights. Natural rights, as deemed under our Charter include both kinds of rights, as do rights deemed under legislation. Positive rights are rights to a benefit, a service or a privilege of sorts. For example, legislation might spell out under what conditions a person has a right to receive welfare. Natural rights have been ruled in many regards in respect of accommodation issues, such as the Eldridge decision and the Tranchemontagne decision. Both decisions here, as well as others, prescribe certain obligations on the part of government to provide certain types of accommodations and entitlement to persons. Negative rights are the rights to avoid or to have officials refrain from doing something to you, such as search your person without any lawful reason, or to detain you without any lawful purpose. These are the most common rights that most of us recognize, especially if we watch too much American television. While many of these same rights apply in Canada, they are not the same design and scope as those in the United States. For example, some people think we have unfettered freedom of expression, which is a natural right and included in our Charter, but there are more limitations on that right in Canada than there is in the United States. Even our libel and slander laws differ in terms of our absolute and qualitative defenses as well between the two countries.

An obligation is sort of the other side of the rights coin. This is what the rights-holder's responsibilities are as a citizen. An obligation is a requirement to take some course of action, whether legal or moral. There are also obligations in other normative contexts, such as obligations of etiquette, social obligations, and possibly in terms of politics, where obligations are requirements which must be fulfilled. These are generally legal obligations, which can incur a penalty for unfulfillment, although certain people are obliged to carry out certain actions for other reasons as well, whether as a tradition or for social reasons. Obligations vary from person to person: for example, a person holding a political office will generally have far more obligations than an average adult citizen, who themselves will have more obligations than a child.[citation needed] Obligations are generally granted in return for an increase in an individual’s rights or power, also cited from Wikipedia.

In general obligations are legal obligations, often set out by legislation and would include any duty or responsibility a person has, usually in exchange for certain rights, such as the right to vote or own land. Such obligations might include payment of taxes prescribed by law, as well as maintaining one's property in accordance to city ordinances. In terms of natural law, one might think of mores or normative conventions any society would hold, such as an obligation not to commit murder, steal anything that doesn't belong to you or to infringe upon another person's bodily integrity (e.g. don't rape another person). Normative conventions and mores are usually prescribed in law, but in terms of social convention, they tend to be followed by most people. When those few fail to adhere to these norms, every society has a way of dealing with the offenders, whether by specific or general deterrence, and how this applies to any specific society is usually prescribed by legislation. Again, models for punishment must also meet standards set out by our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, as any punishment a state can mete out to an offending individual must not run afoul of the Charter. The Charter also prescribes how a person can be heard, represented and even appeal to the courts when they feel their punishment or conviction of an offense was unfair.

This is a very general picture of how rights and obligations are actually set out in law. However, societal prejudices continue to exist against the poor and persons with disabilities. With regards to persons with disabilities, the citizenship model has not been ratified by the general public yet. Members of the general public fall into two main spheres of thought about persons with disabilities: the charitable model, and the punitive model. In general, the public does not understand the difference between the "welfare poor" and the "disabled poor"; henceforth, those that do tend to lean more on the charitable model. I will explain each model as each lies with respect to natural rights, legal rights and obligations.

Under the charitable model, societal proponents view the individuals as "deserving" of entitlements. They understand there is some obligation on the part of society to provide limited entitlements to those they deem "deserving". Different spheres of the charitable model provide certain indices as to how much of this obligation should be on the "state" and how much should be on the "community" (meaning volunteers and family). In my view, those proponents have been moving slowly away from state obligation to charitable obligations, while continuing to fail to understand there are still natural laws to which apply to either situation. For example, our federal Conservatives provide no direct benefit to persons with disabilities, other than the Canada Pension Plan (Disability), which is limited only to those who have paid sufficiently into the program, and even then, the allowance is insufficient to pay for subsistence. The assumption that is made with the Conservatives by its unspoken nature of this program is that "family and friends" would make up the difference. The Conservative proponents have all grown up in kind, middle class upbringings and have "family and friends" who are not only willing, but are also capable of providing a top up should the need arise. This is based on an ethic that all families and friends help one another in times of need, a fantasy for most persons with disabilities that I know.

To further this, and the Conservatives clearly understand there is not a forever component to "family and friends", so they invent the Disability Tax Credit and its tie to the Registered Disability Savings Plan. They have been convinced by some family groups such as the Canadian Association for Community Living and Schizophrenia Society of Canada, that some provisions must be made available to their kin should the disabled kin survive them. This is based on the assumption that the person with the disability is unable to do anything for themselves, or to become independent. Again, this is not a citizenship model, but a model based on charity. With the closure of institutions, families do have some reason to be concerned, and even those like myself that reject the charitable model do understand there is a need for transition. Families now have a way of setting up a Registered Disability Support Program (RDSP) for their siblings or kin who have "severe" disabilities. Again, this also implies a dichotomy between persons with disabilities that are "severe" (meaning they can't do anything for themselves) and other persons with disabilities (who are now moving towards the sphere of the "undeserving").

This is seen with regards to the eligibility criteria for the Disability Tax Credit, which must be applied for and approved prior to setting up an RDSP. It is easy to understand why somebody with a physical disability can qualify. Sam, aged 40, is the CEO of a financial consulting company. Ten years ago, he got severely injured in a skiing accident and now relies on a power wheelchair for basic mobility. Sam had modifications done to his vehicle, and is able to transport himself to most places, but does require the assistance of attendants for basic personal care, such as feeding, toileting and shaving. After Sam's rehabilitation, he moved slowly back to his position by gradually taking on more responsibility after he re-learned his functional tasks, and has been able to resume his high-paying job as the CEO of a financial consulting company. Because Sam has high disability related costs, and will continue to rely on personal attendants for the rest of his life, he qualifies for the Disability Tax Credit. This Tax Credit is worth thousands of dollars of non-refundable tax deductions that Sam really could use to help offset his expenses. Further, Sam is able to set up an RDSP, which would benefit him substantially should he ever become disabled enough to have to leave his job. His retirement income is intact, as he is eligible for at least three "marked restrictions" outlined in the application. If his income drops below a certain amount, the federal government will also add contributions until he turns 49 years of age.

On the other hand, Jean, 35, has bipolar affective disorder and is a chartered accountant. She can function most of the time, but does have periods of time that she has to take off from work to either go into hospital or to adjust to new medications. She works at a private accounting firm as an associate and at the present time, has been attempting to move up the ladder to "make partner". Jean does not qualify for the Disability Tax Credit, because if she did, she would have to at least 90% of the time, be "markedly restricted in performing mental functions necessary for everyday life". This is defined as:

Mental functions necessary for everyday life include:
Adaptive functioning (for example, abilities related to self-care, health and safety, social skills and common, simple transactions);
Memory (for example, the ability to remember simple instructions, basic personal information such as name and address, or material of importance and interest); and
Problem-solving, goal-setting, and judgment, taken together (for example, the ability to solve problems, set and keep goals, and make appropriate decisions and judgments).
Important – a restriction in problem-solving, goal-setting, or judgment that markedly restricts adaptive functioning, all or substantially all the time, would qualify. Examples of markedly restricted in the mental functions necessary for everyday life (examples are not exhaustive):
Your patient is unable to leave the house, all or substantially all the time, due to anxiety, despite medication and therapy.
Your patient is independent in some aspects of everyday living. However, despite medication and therapy, your patient needs daily support and supervision due to an inability to accurately interpret his or her environment.
Your patient is incapable of making a common, simple transaction without assistance, all or substantially all the time.
Your patient experiences psychotic episodes several times a year. Given the unpredictability of the psychotic episodes and the other defining symptoms of his or her impairment (for example, avolition, disorganized behaviour and speech), your patient continues to require daily supervision.
Your four-year-old patient cannot play interactively with peers or understand simple requests.

According to this definition, even if Jean was only capable of holding a job at McDonald's, she would not be eligible! If Jean tried to apply for this benefit and qualify, her peers and her professional association would certainly try to force her to attend a "fitness to practice" hearing to see if she was even capable of acting in her profession. Yet, even though Jean functions in her profession, she spends thousands of dollars a year on medications (because the firm does not have a good drug plan for its employees) and spends other monies on psychotherapy, alternative medicine, Tai Chi and other therapies that help Jean keep balanced and able to do her job. Because she is not able to qualify for the Disability Tax Credit, she has excessive disability-related costs that would only be covered in part by other provincial plans (such as Trillium Drug Program). Because Jean is unable to keep as much net income as her peers, despite earning it (and having to put more into her care costs), she is unable to put much away for her own retirement. Therefore, she would not benefit from the RDSP either, and would probably retire much like many of us do ... or not retire at all.

But this is a charitable approach, because it implies the family and friends once again can and will contribute to the person's RDSP, and if that person were on provincial government assistance or some other income where they would not benefit from tax reductions, these tax reductions can be transferred to their "caregiver". Sorry, Mr. Harper, some of us do not want or need "caregivers" and while we are capable of caring for ourselves, we do need help with the expenses - something that is not available to persons who, for disability-based reasons, are not able to drive, or who require other types of services. The cost of living for non-drivers in a region like mine are at least 30 - 40% greater than for those that have access to their own vehicle. The Conservative types would endorse "volunteer drivers" to drive persons with disabilities to medical appointments, but certainly not to work-related appointments or to the office, as required. Again, this assumes the person is completely unable to contribute. If they are, they are edging towards not being among the "deserving".

This means that in the language of rights and obligations, the person with a disability under the charitable model has few, if any, obligations, and "special rights" which are different than citizenship rights in many ways. "Special rights" means they become a Timmy or a Tammy to their family and are worthy of pity and charitable consideration only, but are not expected to think for, or act for themselves. This translates essentially into somebody else making key decisions for them, such as medical decisions, residential decisions and possibly even handling their money. This would be particularly key for those that actually manage to qualify for the Disability Tax Credit under any type of invisible disability, and a bit less so, if the disability is purely physical (although there are charitable aspects to the treatment of these persons too, particularly in their portrayal as not being whole persons).

Monies for hiring or retraining persons with disabilities have diminished over the past few years. At one point, the federal government was making lots of efforts to reach out to the disability community and hire qualified persons from within its ranks, under the assumption that persons with disabilities were citizens like everybody else, but who just required adjustments in their job descriptions to ensure they can fulfill the essential duties. Monies for Opportunities Fund, for example, have been pared back over the years, no longer providing start-up costs for self-employment proposals, or substantial amounts for a college or university level education. Even some of the Canada Study Grants and other federal bursaries for persons with disabilities have become more restricted in their applications. If a person with a disability cannot do it "like an able bodied person", they don't get to do it at all. Provincially, the employment supports programs for persons with disabilities exclude training altogether and rely on a person's employer to cover these costs, where possible. The model for funding was found to be most applicable to those seeking low-wage, entry level positions, and not necessarily those that would qualify for higher paid, professional work. As one person told a forum I manage online, "the job of ODSP is to keep people on ODSP". This would keep the essential dichotomy between "severe" (deserving) persons with disabilities and soon-to-be "undeserving" persons with disabilities. Issues of retrenchment have been reported by the Council of Canadians for Disabilities.

Further retrenchment has been noted at the provincial level, where persons with disabilities are continuously being swung between the charitable model and punitive model (which will be explained below). Its primary income support program, Ontario Disability Support Program, remains thousands of dollars below any known poverty line and is impossible to maintain a modicum of dignity by living solely on it. Its shelter allotments imply that all recipients should and must go to live in subsidized housing, something which I commented earlier on in this blog - and is not necessarily an empowering environment. ODSP, of course, provides for up to $6000 a year in "charity" or "gifts" from family and friends, yet they ruthlessly claw back earnings from employment sources. Again, Ontario wants to present persons with disabilities as Timmy and Tammy for the "family and friends" part of the community that have pity on them. In tune with the federal government, the provincial government has exempted all assets in an RDSP, yet will not allow one to keep an RRSP, or even start one without major clawbacks. In a recent Toronto Star article that focused on a private members' bill by Toby Barrett, a Progressive Conservative MPP, that would allow ODSP recipients to keep up to $700 a month clear before clawbacks, increase their allowable assets, exempt RRSPs, as well as several other positive moves, Madeleine Meilleur said she could act only on welfare rules concerning gifts, shared accommodation, financial windfalls and suspensions. The council’s other proposed changes – including asset and earnings exemptions—would be too costly for a province facing a $21.3 billion deficit, she said. It is cheaper to treat us all like charity cases, but too expensive to allow people to move towards independence and live in dignity.

Further on this same budget, Madeleine Meilleur has cut what was known as the Special Diet Allowances (SDA) that was given as a "top up" to both Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program cheques from the budget. This "top up" helped persons with serious medical conditions to pay for proper foods so that their health conditions would not become worse. She called this move appropriate because it was "unsustainable", given that the program cost $6 million in 2003, and in 2009, cost over $200. Contrary to what the Minister says was the cause for the increase, it was not fraud that increased its cost, but awareness (simply as a result of the provincial government keeping this program under wraps for years before it was "discovered"). This retrenchment is more deeper than this, which will be discussed further in the "punitive" section of this rights and obligations discussion. However, to be "charitable", Meilleur proudly announced that the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care will be offering a "nutritional supplementation" program that she had stated on several radio and news articles will be much more narrow than the existing SDA program.

The Ministry of Health in Ontario has not been known for demedicalization, community living and promotion of independence of persons within the health care system. Persons who have fought for community-based mental health programming have noted that over the past several years, less funding and not more has been given to this portfolio, again assuming those with mental health problems are either completely incompetent and need to be in hospital or are well enough to do without any care at all. Given my knowledge obtained through ten hard years of lobbying in that industry myself, I do not see this "nutritional supplement" being given to those who are living independently or in any way as a health promotion or prevention initiative. By cutting this special diet, I can assure you that there will be increased demands on hospitals, nursing homes (yes ... younger people on ODSP are frequently sent there when they are unable to eat well in the community ... I have had clients this happened to), and psychiatric hospitals. The move is away from independent living and demedicalization whatsoever. Retrenchment also removes the right to make choices. I wouldn't be surprised if some people (with mental health problems) will some day have to show up for their needle in order to continue to collect their ODSP cheques, which is the case in many U.S. jurisdictions.

The next set of problems fall under the other perspective that Jean and Joe Public share besides the "charitable" model. This is the punitive model. More and more people in Ontario are prepared to write anonymous comments in newspapers, letters to the editor and in blogs about how "the majority of people on disability aren't really eligible", and how people on ODSP are really just lazy and tried to qualify for ODSP because "it pays more". This article and subsequent comments is just one example of how Jean and Joe Public think. According to Robert J. Lifton's analysis in his book, Nazi Doctors, when the German government under Hitler began to experiment and then euthanize persons with disabilities as "life unworthy of life" and "useless eaters", there wasn't a major groundswell of public objection over that either, so I'm really not surprised. At least with the charitable model, disability is not seen as your fault. Under the punitive model, it is.

Under this discussion on rights and obligations, persons with disabilities under the punitive model have a whole array of obligations that other citizens do not have, but very few rights. Jean and Joe Public believe they should have the right to police the spending of everybody on social assistance. They should not have the right to cable TV, a telephone, new clothes, a car, a beer now and then, or even the right to order a pizza. "People in need", according to Jean and Joe Public are supposed to have it as rough as prisoners under house arrest do. They should have a right to a roof over their head, but just that ... maybe a room for single people, and small apartments for families. If they are pushed into living among drug addicts, criminals and so forth, so be it. People "living off the system" do not deserve to choose where they live. They are not entitled to cable TV, Internet, a cell phone, etc. They are literally supposed to remain a prisoner in their own home, in order to be considered legitimate in Jean and Joe Public's eyes. On top of this, those getting "social assistance" have to look for work and accept ANY job, no matter how poorly paid, how insecure, how abusive or how unsafe ... if other Canadians do not want to take these jobs, so be it ... people on the system should be forced to. While Jean and Joe Public can demand and wait for jobs that meet their middle class needs and qualifications, the lousy jobs they don't want to take and will never take themselves should be reserved only for those on the system.

The ironic thing is Jean and Joe Public say people "on the system" should be working by picking up litter for the city, cleaning toilets at bus terminals and doing whatever nobody else will do, but yet if they do, how come any "employer" that agrees to take such persons to do these things is not asked in turn to pay them the same union scale wages that Jean and Joe Public would expect? When the question of workfare is raised, one must ask about what the MUTUAL obligations of employer and employee are in these circumstances ... if one is obligated to find work, an employer should be in turn obligated to hire and pay decent wages. If Jean and Joe Public won't work for low wages, why should anybody else? Unfortunately, people like Jean and Joe Public do not see the connection here, and what are mutual obligations, as in their mind, the only party that has any obligation is the one "on the system". In law, this is impossible, as these conditions cannot even form the basis of a legal contract, let alone any kind of fulfillment of any obligation on either side.

Further, because Jean and Joe Public reserve the right to judge, proscribe and stigmatize those "on the system", what impact does this have on the natural rights of the person being judged, proscribed and stigmatized? Remember, in our earlier discussion, I pointed out that natural rights cannot be taken away by anyone, even the police without due process. This includes the right to privacy. Do I as a nosy and rambunctious writer have the right to enter into Jean and Joe Public's home and during their dinner time, tell them they should not be smoking because I have to pay taxes to cover their health bills, or they should not be drinking any wine, because I might have to later pay for addiction treatments, and so forth? Maybe I should have the right to give Jean and Joe Public a drug test every once in awhile to make sure they are not "using"? Of course not! Joe and Jean Public would object to this being done to themselves, because they have a right to privacy. Yet, I am paying for their choices, so why can't I have a say about them? Why does this not work both ways? If it is good enough for somebody on social assistance to be held in literal house arrest, and having to give in to drug tests whenever somebody else wants to be nosy, why isn't this good enough for Jean and Joe Public? Justice works both ways.

The same thing applies to Jean and Joe Public's delusions that driving is "free" and covered entirely by their own pockets. This delusion holds no further weight than bus riders believing they are paying the full freight whenever they drop a few dollars in the fare box. Let us put this into the perspective of charity and rights, and see how drivers would accept this. Drivers take driving for granted so much that they actually believe they should not be paying for public transit "because we never use it". That is fine, if again it worked both ways. These same people may agree that some charity like the Lion's Club should be fund-raising and paying for buses and drivers for "disability" transit, but that's all ... of course, people with disabilities are all charity cases, remember?

How about the proposition that I bring forward that we ask the Lion's Club and other charities to start raising money to pay for roads, highways, pothole filling, parking lots, and other things that drivers take for granted? Drivers would say, no way, because we pay for the privilege of driving! Well, researchers like Todd Littman and the federal Department of Transportation disagree with Jean and Joe Public. Yes, drivers pay for gas, insurance, car loans, etc., but they do not pay for ALL of what they use ... in fact, non-drivers like ME are paying for all of this as well, to the tune of over $6,000 per driver!!! Maybe all of us that do not drive should withhold our taxes, and then demand that Jean and Joe Public fulfill their obligations in paying their own way in driving, by paying the full freight, in much the same way they expect the poor and disabled to do.

Don't worry, Jean and Joe Public, if you can't afford it, we can get fundraisers to cover the cost of roads, parking and other infrastructure that you cannot personally pay for ... after all, you are a "deserving" couple, aren't you? Even then, you understand, Jean and Joe there will be times you will not be able to use the roads after 7:00 p.m., take any routes out of town, or travel down your own boulevard, simply because we couldn't raise enough funds in order to allow you to do so. There is a huge provincial deficit, you know, so we all have to practice restraint. If you are reading this, and have any ounce of intelligence, the price of restraint is usually borne by the poor and lower working classes.

As bizarre an example as this, this is exactly what people in the public want to do to persons with disabilities and the poor. To Hell with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. To Hell with orders from Human Rights Tribunal. To Hell with what is right, and to Hell with what is true justice in passing policies ... As I once stated here about the philosophy of Immanual Kant, the categorical imperative, in order for a policy to be just, it must be universal. If I make a law or a rule, I cannot always assume that I will end up to be in the position of the rule-maker, and as such, I should expect myself to be in any position whatsoever, and be as subservient to such a rule as any other. As such, if I have natural rights under the law, and nobody can take them away from me, why is it that some people feel there should be only obligations and no rights or only "special rights" to classes of people that they themselves distinguish themselves from, or feel they will never be a part of?

My own opinion through hard experience with this whole special diet thing is simple. The government knew they would lose the case entitled Ball, et al v Minister of Community and Social Services, even before it started getting heard. This is part of why they hired these $3,000 a day consultants to advise them of what to do. It wasn't all E-Health; these consultants had other jobs throughout the business of government. Part of this job was to help the government dig itself out of this embarrassing decision (before it happened, of course), draft the rote correspondence that would be received by anybody who queries the Minister about the special diet that was about to be cut, and to decide the next move. The government of course timed the Auditor General report carefully, and provided the materials to the Auditor General upon which he relied, it was planned ... the Auditor General is usually more careful about his homework, and would check with people for definitions of "over-payments", policies on "special diets", etc. and would not be commenting on things that are not law, such as how many people spend more than a certain amount of time on welfare. I know this discussion is next. I would not be surprised if this government's next step is to put a stopwatch on the amount of time people can allegedly spend receiving financial assistance ... or else what? Life in the streets? Death akin to the way Kimberley Rogers died?

The government knows that when a bombastic report that is riddled with errors and misconceptions comes out to the public, that brings very small numbers into seemingly large numbers, pasting every single person on assistance and most on the special diet as "frauds" and that somehow a very substantial group of people are all collecting $250 per month from this "special diet", the uneducated, unsophisticated and pardon the prejudice, readers ... the very stupid members of the public respond like Pavlov's dogs did to those bells ... they salivate at the thought of making other people suffer. Of course the government knows a large contingent of the public will believe these fairy tales, and will support this move to make the poor pay once again for the sins of the deficit. The decision by the Human Rights Tribunal is handed down. There is a 90-day period of case management by the Tribunal for the lead cases to see how the government reacts, so cuts will not be made during this period of time. After? A different story altogether!

The Ministry of Health has its program already designed. Nobody is going to convince me in a million years that there will be an equivalent or better program through this Ministry, when I know there are very limited measures that Ministry can "envelope" its funds. There are transfer agencies (e.g. hospitals, health centres, agencies, nursing homes, etc.), OHIP fees (e.g. doctors, nurse practitioners) and drug benefits. Funding requests are measured in number of beds, full-time equivalents, consulting fees (e.g. psychiatrists). There is no set up for individual transfers in this Ministry whatsoever, unless you are a direct consultant to the Ministry of Health and employed on a contract basis (e.g. such as one of those alleged $3,000 a day types). The Ministry will not be cutting cheques to individuals for "special diets" or even nutrition supplements, as the case may be. They will be providing these "supplements" through their transfer agencies to people in long term care, in dialysis, cancer wards, homes for special care, as well as persons requiring CCAC (e.g. people with feeding tubes) and to some extent, some people may get Ensure supplements and the like by special prescription only.

The government wants to wait until diabetics go blind, lose a limb, have a heart attack, lose their kidneys, etc. before they will offer a single penny in supplementation. This is the same for any other condition, unless the condition is marked weight loss. Obesity will get no support, as the public thinks these people have enough to eat anyways, because most people have absolutely no knowledge that cases of obesity are just as much about malnutrition as those with severe weight loss. As few as 10% of those that currently receive the SDA now will get it when the program changes Ministries. The cost of health care in this province will certainly rise, so the McGuinty government can then tell Jean and Joe Public that its government is spending more on health care ... is this not a great thing for something most Canadians value?

What makes me laugh is the implication that there will be several months to "allow for transition" for those currently in receipt of this program until the new program is in place. What are the other people (who will be cut off) supposed to do? Save up from their measly, paltry cheques for the future needs of their nutrition? Please don't even humour me. This is the same excuse the Minister gave after she cut the Winter Clothing and Back to School Allowances from ODSP and OW families, by saying the new Ontario Child Benefit will be more money overall allowing these families to "save up" for these things ... I laughed so hard then, I fell off my chair then because I also knew most of the OCB was also being clawed back from OW and ODSP benefits, so there was very little gain compared to families that did not get social assistance. The problem now is I am not laughing, because I know certain politicians do not understand the history behind what they are doing and are bound to repeat it.

Yes, work at Tim Horton's and never get out of poverty. God will bless your soul.

RATIFICATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS TREATY: WHAT DOES IT MEAN FOR PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES?

The Federal Government proudly announced that it was the 84th nation to ratify the International Covenant on Human Rights for Persons with Disabilities. In the same breath, they pat themselves on the back to announce how much of a leader Canada is in implementing equality provisions as cited in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and administratively through our Human Rights Codes. While political commentators, including this one, are pleased this was done, the plight of persons with disabilities is far from improved. In fact, many uninformed bigots continue to try to attack what few rights we have, as cited in a recent letter of mine in the local newspaper. Carol Goar acknowledges that we still have a very long way to go before people with disabilities have equal citizenship rights.

What is telling in particular are the comments that readers are allowed to contribute to any article, editorial or news items of interest to my local paper. In this paper, probably like most online newspapers, the same few seem to contribute. An individual identifying himself as "seekthetruth" and another individual that are both white males, espousing a Christian view and somehow feel that Christians are somehow under attack by human rights commissions. This is far from the truth as I am aware of Christian issues being raised in workplaces, and the rulings favouring the worker that was discriminated against due to their beliefs (such as a Jehovah's Witness' right to refuse to participate in decorating a store with Christmas decorations, and in another case, an employee denied the Holy Day off from his job to partake in his worship). As another poster stated, it is people like "seekthetruth" and people like him why we need human rights commissions. Both individuals were well-employed and never personally experienced discrimination, and at least one is enjoying a healthy retirement income. The myth that people are hired on the basis of merit has been quashed awhile back, while all the intolerant were asleep.

People with disabilities are drummed out of the workplace in many ways, which white males who are secure in their jobs, do not see or understand. Injured workers get refused a modified work position. Some are ultimately put out of a job because the worker is deemed unable to perform the essential duties of their job, so instead of trying to find alternative work for them, the person is "separated" from their job instead. They end up on welfare or if they are really lucky, Ontario Disability Support benefits, and denied even the basic tenets of the dignity of a decent job. It is not all white males that are like this, as I have represented many white males before the Human Rights Tribunal for various reasons, e.g. disability discrimination, age, sexual harassment by a female boss.

Connection to a full-time decent paying job is too often the only key to social and community participation for people. Once separated from the job, the person's self-esteem and their overall health is impacted. People with disabilities do not want to be on social assistance any more than anybody else does. Many are over-educated and well-qualified to take on work that seems to be available only to "relatives" of the boss, or to able-bodied persons that are screened in through seemingly innocuous criteria, such as a valid driver's license and a vehicle, and other potential criteria that persons with different types of disabilities cannot manage. These screening mechanisms serve to keep people out of jobs, not put them in. Then, folks question why more than half of persons with disabilities are "out of the paid labour force", or unemployed. Regardless of education level, a person with a disability does not enjoy equality to their non-disabled peers. The Canadian Association of Professional with Disabilities has formed for the purpose of promoting their members into getting into jobs they are qualified for instead of being steered by employment counselors to low-wage call centre and retail jobs.

I know many well-educated persons with disabilities who are stuck on ODSP: social workers, lawyers, former civil servants, a librarian, a forensic accountant, among many others, that employers claim they need, but refuse to look beyond their nose to seek people who may speak, move or communicate differently to join their staff and offer their many varied talents. Last summer, I sat in a circle around a food stand downtown, where I regularly met with people with disabilities: one in a wheelchair who taught martial arts as well as is a licensed social worker, another attending school for forensic psychology, and another one who was an engineer in his day ... all of whom on welfare or ODSP. Somebody needs to look at these things and take responsibility for this great loss to society.

I read an article today about older drivers. Competing interests include safety and the right to live independently. I reviewed the article in depth, and it does not say how many younger people are subject to the same removal provisions for their driver's license. It is not only a senior's issue. To me, it is fine to take somebody off the road, but you need to provide alternative transportation so the person can continue to live out their lives with relative independence. As a non-driver in Niagara, apart from work related travel, which is hugely expensive, I am house-bound. I would love to travel to my in-laws, to the beach, to Fort George, to Niagara Falls, and just hop in a car and go ... but these things taken for granted by people who drive, is another area where ignorance also plays a major role in keeping people with disabilities down.

On a group that I help run called odspfireside, I have heard from persons living on ODSP who are forcibly single because if they as much enter into a relationship with somebody else, that other person is forcibly included on ODSP, without choice. The "spouse" ends up having to work enough to support both of them, even if it means they have to work two or three jobs to keep things afloat, until the benefit unit ends up with two disabled persons, instead of just one. ODSP recipients are put under scrutiny, and treated as non-citizens through various fraud prevention initiatives, which has only led to fear and loss of integrity on the part of those entangled with what was called the "800 rules". While the focus of the report is Ontario Works, ODSP is just as much part of the suspicious trap people are placed in.

In recent days we had a positive decision concerning special diets by the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, stating that the 2005 amendments to it were unfair and discriminatory in many cases. In the legislature, Minister Madeleine Meilleur, who has among her different portfolios, social assistance, persons with disabilities and AODA, had mused about how expensive the program is, and has not quelled any of the rumour that the government is about to scrap it so it can cut the deficit.

Because the case came through the Human Rights Code, it is likely that many of us may attempt to press the reprisal provisions of the Code if the government considers this tactic, but these things are barely scraping the surface of all the discrimination persons with disabilities encounter, simply because they have the same desires and interests everybody else has. I found myself, if I chose to sit at home and do nothing, I am left alone, but when I wanted something, whether that be an education, a job beyond Mickey D's, transportation, the right to participate fully in the community, etc., then it was like asking for a constitutional amendment just to get what others don't even have to beg for.

I also encounter persons with disabilities that actually believe they should just play the game, accept the 800 rules of abuse, and just let things go. They would rather not fight, as they fear losing what little they have. Unfortunately, this is they attitude that they want us to have. It is easier for those doing the discriminating to continue to do so without as much of a whimper from most of the people they are attacking. It only makes it easier to push for even more cuts, perhaps even a change in the definition of disability and cuts to other benefits, as those not fighting back are allowing this to happen.

How did the gays and lesbians do it? How did the blacks do it? How did the women do it when they wanted to have the right to vote? They organized and made it bloody hard for politicians and others to continue to do business as they always have, and they cannot not notice what people with disabilities are doing ... we have to move away from the charity model to the entitlement and rights-based model, where persons with disabilities have entitlements and rights, and are equal with respect to their right to citizenship ... hell, many of us don't even vote! I fail to see how that is helpful. It is time we wake up with a more definitive and radical strategy to build out rights to the point of not only recognition, but obligation on the part of others ... the same way others and the media will not print negative things about gays, Jews, blacks, and so forth ... we need to have this discussion. We need to move ahead.

Your thoughts?

CAPITALISM: A LOVE STORY - LESSONS LEARNED

Last weekend, I finally had the opportunity to pick up my own copy of Michael Moore's latest movie Capitalism: A Love Story. I watched it three times since, and others in my family enjoyed it too! My favourite part was when it showed Moore wrapping several buildings in New York's financial district with crime scene tape, and as people go by it, others crawl under it, others smile and wave at him, until finally, he takes his bullhorn and shouts out, "I'm making a citizen's arrest. Please come out of the building now. I hear federal prison is a nice place."

The movie is about how the stock market crashed in the U.S. and how the banking system collapsed, all as a result of deregulation and watchdogs becoming lapdogs. Many different items were covered ranging from the Dead Peasants insurance, which many people did not know about, probably until this was exposed. This is an insurance policy taken out by your employer and when you die, your employer gets paid off hundreds of thousands of dollars as its "beneficiary". Deregulation made it easy for banks to hike interest rates, then throw people out of their homes. Employers would close up shop, leaving their employees with nothing. It is an interesting watch - something people need to be aware of when we leave too much up to politicians who are beholden to large corporations. In the case of the executive branch under George Bush, several of the top people were from finance companies like Goldman Sachs; naturally, certain companies were favoured when the banks were bailed out over there.

What was good about this is that it also showed American citizens fighting back. When a couple dozen top staffers of AIG got million dollars bonuses after they were bailed out by taxpayers, thousands of people hit the streets and protested. When companies were going to close their doors and kick their workers out with nothing, workers instead occupied the plant and refused to leave until the company finally gave in and paid what was owed. When families were being evicted, hundreds of their neighbours would gather around as the evicted family literally refused to leave, and squatted in their own home. People camped out until the bankers and sheriff gave up trying to move the family. This was in the spirit of community, the spirit of "we the people" as found in the American constitution.

The American economy is starting to turn around some, but at a glacial pace. Our Canadian economy is very inter-twined with the American economy. However, we are still infected by politicians that remain smug about this recession thinking that as Canadians, we "are better off" than the Americans. They smugly tell people in the city of Welland, shortly after John Deere issued all of its workers pink slips, that the economy in that community is doing very well. As PM Harper traveled through that community, he commented that one of his election goals was to eliminate chocolate flavoured cigarettes because they were too tempting for young people. The city of Welland is even sadder than it was at that time, whereby two of my favourite restaurants I used to go to after court are now closed. There are many more boarded up businesses, and on the Main Street is the office of a psychiatrist that among his services, provides medical evaluations for people seeking to go on disability.

Friends of mine in Welland that are landlords are having trouble renting their properties at even the very low rates they were charging because nobody can afford to rent there. Another gentleman was afraid that he would not be able to find a tenant because he literally could not afford to rent his upstairs unit for less than he did, or he would not be paying the mortgage. He was on EI himself, and was very cognizant that the clock was ticking. Others live in Welland and have found low cost housing, but can't travel anywhere because of poor transit service - often relying on friends and family, which anybody that doesn't own a car knows, is not the most reliable way to get around. Another friend of mine has been trying to sell his building, but fears he will have to sell it at a loss. He is in business but cannot survive in Welland, so he is moving to Toronto where he believes he will have a greater chance of success. The last time I was in Welland attending court, I walked down the street and it was suddenly strange I could not even find a single place close by to purchase a newspaper. On my way to search for such a place, there were drug addled strangers making deals with other drug addled strangers, while others simply turned their heads and moved on.

My own community of St. Catharines, which is supposed to be the "capital" of Niagara Region, or in accordance to the Places to Grow Act, is the administrative center of the region. St. Catharines council is fighting with Niagara Falls City council over where to re-locate the police headquarters, while the Niagara Regional Police Service threatens a multi-million dollar trip to Ontario Civilian Commission on Policing Services (OCCOPS). Well, Niagara Falls got their conference center, their two casinos and other developments, and St. Catharines is promised the Performing Arts Center and the new parking garage ... both are fighting to see who is more "deserving" of the headquarters. My main concern with this is that those who do not drive will likely have to quit their job at the administrative office, if it moves to Niagara Falls. Transit service remains very poor or non-existent in most places of Niagara, unless you have all the time in the world or are on ODSP and only plan to see doctors as a way to spend your day.

While Niagara Region is not what I would call purist capitalist like the financial centers of New York that were accused by Michael Moore, there is a different kind of elitism that dominates its thinking. Parochialism is as much a sport in Niagara, as hockey is the national sport in Canada. Niagara Region will never get its act together on transit because many of its smaller communities don't want it; that is, they don't want to pay for it. Yet they don't mind doling out millions and millions of dollars on automobile infrastructure that essential subsidizes people who drive, while the only people who pay full freight are those that don't -- if they want to get around at all. Further, the municipalities of Niagara are suing one another and the region, and the province is apparently suing the region for disobeying its own official plan and over-estimating its own growth estimates. I always knew Niagara over-estimated its growth estimates, because I truly believe the population here will at best remain the same with an ever aging demographic, while younger people leave by the dozens and do their procreating in communities that offer more.

I met a man that walks from Niagara-on-the-Lake to try to find housing in this city, as there is no way for him to get to Niagara-on-the-Lake and back, as this town does not believe in public transit. This man has epilepsy so a driver's license is out of the question. I had another meeting a few weeks ago, where about thirty people of all ages were present, averaging at about forty to fifty years old. Among those present, six identified themselves as having a medical condition that restricted their right to drive. Why does it not surprise me that virtually none of these people are working? One has a master's degree, and another is a trained nurse. To me, employers couldn't be too serious about rectifying their so-called skills shortage if they continue to fail to tap into the talents of many people who are currently sidelined for various reasons from the labour force.

This reflects much of what goes on in Ontario as well. Our lovely Minister in charge of issues for persons with disabilities, or Madeleine Meilleur, is also the Minister of Community and Social Services. She, like many other politicians, particularly on the political right, actually try to delude themselves and delude the public that employers are eager to hire people with disabilities. One does have to credit Minister Meilleur for attempting to push for the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act; nevertheless, her staff is still reviewing the standards developed by the committees set up to deal with transportation, employment, information and communications, and built environment. Her challenge is to ensure that what comes out does not lower requirements for employers than what is required under the Human Rights Code. It would certainly look bad if employers can comply with the set standards, but still run afoul of the Code. This also applies to transportation and the other standards.

At the same time, there are too many instances where Madeleine Meilleur has sparked the rumour mill, or at least hasn't stopped it, by not denying that the government plans to make deep cuts to Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program benefits this coming budget. She has never been viewed as a fan of the special diet benefit, which is given to people who have medical conditions that require them to follow a more expensive eating regimen that cannot be met by simply following the Canada's Food Guide. This only assumes that anybody on OW or ODSP can afford a diet that even half way complies with the Canada Food Guide, but that's another story. After controversial changes were made in 2005, the provincial government was sued through the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario, and recently a decision was made in favour of enhancing the special diet for many persons, where it can be proven that a disability warrants it.

The Minister has refused to dispel that the government plans to scrap it. Even worse, there are intolerant rednecks putting a huge amount of pressure on the government to scrap the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario altogether. This type of thinking is being found in terms of the government's hesitancy in re-appointing Andre Marin, an excellent and reputable Ombudsman that has forced the government to make many positive changes in its administration, and Gord Miller, the Environmental Commissioner. Our fear is that our government does not want critics and watchdogs; it wants "yes men" and lapdogs. Does this sound familiar?

As both the federal and provincial government continue to throw money at our banks, insurance companies and auto manufacturers, hoping for what former U.S. President Ronald Reagan's ultimate theory of a "trickle down" effect (which nobody ever seen happen), perhaps I can also foresee a form of workfare in the future for people on ODSP -- throw them in the low paying jobs that able-bodied will not take. Disregard their skills, education and achievements and aim low, as usual. If anybody complains, there won't be any more watchdogs to go to, given the desires and apparent direction this government wants to go. All I am right now is fed up with paying for it, and watching the inevitable disasters that will follow.

I would love to see good natured taxpayers to suddenly withhold the amount of money that we have paid to the banks, auto manufacturers, insurance companies, automobile infrastructure and so forth ... and tell the government to make these entities self-supporting, the same way the poor, the sick and unemployed are supposed to be self-supporting with less and less help from anybody. This will only happen when we act. Just as Michael Moore said at the end of his movie, he can no longer do this alone. All Canadians, regardless of political stripe or station in life, need to stop and listen. Reality here is when it happens to you. It is not a question of "if", but a question of "when", and I would expect reciprocal treatment likewise.

I just hope people will understand why I say I don't care about how GM fares; unfortunately, it never had to stand on its two feet like we expect our most vulnerable of our community to do.