POVERTY -- THE LAST ACCEPTED PREJUDICE

When Mike Harris was elected to power in 1995, he promised to cut welfare payments by 21.6% and cut provincial income taxes by 30%. Thus, the class war began in Ontario. It became acceptable through the actions of our leaders to attack the most vulnerable among us. It became acceptable to lord your social class over somebody who is less fortunate and tell them to buck up; after all, just thinking makes it so.

Soon, it became popular for members of the public to believe that if only the poor "got a job", their circumstances would vastly improve. Employers needed to fill their minimum wage, unstable workforce, while taxpayers wanted to pay less taxes and invest in more mutual funds and overseas vacations. The homes of the wealthy got bigger, while many of the poor had no homes at all, and this was acceptable. After all, isn't wealth earned and deserved?

Since Mike Harris and Harris wannabes got into power across Canada, including Gordon Campbell of BC, among others, it has become fact that the wealthiest sector of our population became much better off than they ever were, while our poor folks continued to lose ground. Even after the Liberals got swept into power in 2003, under the leadership of Dalton McGuinty, old attitudes played hard. While they were a kinder, gentler version than Mike Harris, nevertheless, little has changed under their leadership as to how the very poor are dealt with.

Last year, a group of downtown residents identifying themselves as the "real taxpayers" lobbied city hall and the region about the so-called concentration of social services in the downtown of St. Catharines. They pointed out that the welfare office, a few methadone clinics, Start Me Up Niagara, among other organizations were crowded in the downtown core to such an extent that nobody wanted to do business up there. Horsefeathers! I sat for eleven varied periods in the vicinity of the one methadone clinic uptown to see if people entering and exiting the clinic proceeded to "hang out" or urinate in the laneways, etc. as some people believed. Not once during any of my travails have I noted any problems emanating from that clinic. Nor have I witnessed the same coming from the welfare office, which was for a time centrally located and accessible by transit ...

After the same NIMBY-ites continued their bantering at all levels by writing letters to the paper, appearing at meetings of city council and making genuine asses of themselves, the social services office moved over to the far east side of the city, inaccessible to many people without a car or bus fare. Of course, they justify it by saying many of their clients are living at the east side, but then again, many also live downtown, the west side, etc. The city is going to Hell in a handbasket and it has little to do with what services are located where. It has more to do with poor planning and not listening to the people they should be listening to.

One example is our judicial system in Niagara. In Niagara, we have the peculiar arrangement of three different courthouses for provincial offences, and two different judicial districts whereby some cases must be heard in Welland and others must be heard in St. Catharines. The option to have hearings in Niagara Falls has been obliterated with the exception of traffic court cases, which tend to have heavy caseloads at all the locations. The Niagara South judicial district is headed in Welland, where nobody without a car can travel to or from. If you live in Niagara Falls, or an incident occured in Niagara South, the hearing is turned over to Welland. This is a minor matter for most middle class people who can easily hop in their cars and drive anywhere; however, if you live in Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Wainfleet, Wellandport, Port Colborne, etc. it becomes tricky. Because I don't drive, I am forced to pay $63 PER TRIP to a cab company to get me to that court and back, something I think no matter how high gas prices are, nobody that drives ever has to pay. This also applies to clients of mine ... many of whom I have to arrange transport from Niagara Falls, Fort Erie, Wainfleet, Wellandport or Port Colborne, so they can attend their hearing ... also at a cost of between $63 to $85 per round trip for them.

One can always say they don't have to file their case, but many times, these cases are filed against THEM and they have no choice but to defend themselves in a court that is inaccessible to them. The thinking in setting up the two judicial districts in Niagara Region was obviously done by somebody who drives and never had a disadvantage in that way, nor have they obviously consulted the legal or business community to determine the best way to handle Niagara-based cases.

Unfortunately, the same thinking is permeating the Niagara Health System. Several years ago, six of Niagara's hospitals were amalgamated under some scheme that was put forth by the former Conservative Government under the assumption that one level of bureaucracy to run all of the six hospitals was better than having six separate administrations. Unfortunately, several other hospitals, such as Grimsby and Hotel Dieu-Shaver, have been left out of the amalgamation for various reasons. So, anyways, the Niagara Health System gets its wrists slapped for having a $17.5 million deficit and they were ordered to submit a health care system redesign this month, after pseudo-consultation with the public. I wrote my comments in, as I am sure others did.

In the consultation itself, much was said about what they had already planned anyways. Unfortunately, they are moving towards a multi-site, centre of excellence model, which would work well for Toronto or some other location where reliable, affordable transportation is available to members of the public. However, when the announcement was finally made as to what their intentions were, it didn't surprise me whatsoever. It once again was set up similar to the way our judicial system is set up ... dividing up Niagara's hospitals into specialized areas; St. Catharines being where the babies are born from throughout Niagara, as well as the centre for cancer care and childhood ear-nose-throat surgery and cardiac care ... Niagara Falls for orthopedic surgery, adult ENT surgery and many day therapies ... Welland for dialysis, etc.

Okay, if somebody starts getting contractions at three in the morning, will the NHS pay their cab fare from Fort Erie to St. Catharines? If somebody has to leave their community to go to Niagara Falls for example and their family is in Welland, will the NHS pay their cab fare to go visit their hospitalized family member getting orthopedic surgery following a car accident, for example? How about mental health care? This is going to be centred in St. Catharines, so if you have a mental breakdown but live in Port Colborne, I suppose the NHS is going to provide cab fare to get to St. Catharines. This also applies to family members that do not have cars, but want to visit. The rich have social support and family companionship, the poor get isolated. Isn't that always the case? It is obvious that whoever thought up this hare-brained scheme drives and everybody in their family drives ... and nobody bothered considering the 1/3 of adults in Niagara Region who either have no license or access to a car.

Instead, some propose asking "charities" to provide rides to people. Poor people do not want charity. Poor people simply want access, the same access taken for granted by others in the community. Those without cars are fed up with hearing those with cars complaining about the price of gas, when those living in poverty are lucky to eat and have a place to stay in the same month. People that do not drive are looked down upon here, like they are some kind of "damaged goods". They are not offered jobs, they are offered charity. They are not considered equally skilled to the "mobile" population, but deemed only skilled enough for minimum wage. It seems alright for these folks to live perpetually on social assistance, while others with the exact same or even less qualifications can climb the corporate ladder and retire in relative comfort someday ... while the poor find the idea of retirement to be merely a dream.

Then the Ontario Government comes up with this other hare-brained scheme called the Ontario Child Benefit, which they say will be given to all low-income families, whether working or on assistance. However, they don't mention that this is simply another clawback to replace the alleged clawback for the National Child Benefit Supplement. OW/ ODSP families will be getting anywhere from 10% - 30% less on their cheques in exchange for an insulting Ontario Child Benefit to "take their children off welfare". Yeah, right. Once the shell games stop, it only becomes clear that OW/ ODSP people actually LOSE in the end. No more back to school. No more winter clothing. Hey, they can now "save" their money from their meagre OW/ ODSP cheques to pay for these items ... yeah, the last I knew, many families had to unfortunately use this money to pay a hydro bill or to re-connect their telephone. If this is the cornerstone of Ontario's poverty-reduction strategy, I am very disappointed.

There are still a lot of prejudices out there, that low-income people cannot manage their money so they need a "trustee" to handle it for them, or that poor people spend all their money on booze and cigarettes and they somehow should be not permitted to do so ... like, what are they going to do? Hire an army of investigators to go through the cupboards of poor families to ensure they didn't buy any booze or anything like that? There are others that actually believe low-income women in particular keep getting pregnant and having more and more kids so they can get more money, which is another myth that is not supported by data. Yet when members of the public are asked how much they believe people actually get on welfare, the figures they give are grossly higher than they actually are ... and then they wonder why poor people hide their heads in shame and many do not even bother asking for help. They too are fed up with being seen as "damaged goods".

I personally am not going to wait for a time in the undetermined future when people are supposed to become more enlightened and compassionate and will not consider the source of your income or the fact you have a disability or a child with special needs an anomaly that must be punished. I think that TODAY we have to tell our governments to stop speaking out of both sides of their mouth ... saying they want to eliminate child poverty on one hand, but on the other, create much more of it ... this world is so full of inequality and in particular, kids from low income families are tired of having it rubbed in their faces how inferior they feel. It is time that low-income people have access to the same goods and services others do without having to resort to charities or to "cry poor" everywhere they go, just so they can get half a slice of day old bread.

Ontario is not a third world country ... we are not led by a despot that has taken all the gold and lives in fifteen palaces and uses weapons of mass destruction against his own people. We supposedly live in a democracy and a rich one, thank you very much ... and to me, ALL Ontarians, not just the so-called middle and upper classes, should have equal access to all that Ontario offers as a matter of course. Why am I stuck in a region that is light years behind many others, even places like Kitchener-Waterloo that have decisively put together an inter-municipal transit service and are looking into light rail now has the second lowest poverty rate across Ontario?

Your thoughts?

CLASS AND POPULAR CULTURE

As expressed repetitively here, the two last taboos in our society are classism and ableism. Classism really comes to light when policy discussions around poverty take place. On mainstream chatlines, we hear about how 90% of those collecting "disability pensions" are not really disabled, how "welfare fraud" is so rampant and how people on social assistance shouldn't be allowed to smoke, own pets or have an occasional beer. Successive governments since the 1980's made it okay to pick on the poor. Well, shouldn't they all just "get a job"?

In addition to hearing these comments, low-income people do not see themselves in popular culture. Low-income people are not the heroes or heroines in the movies, nor are they the positive protagonists in popular novels. If poor people are portrayed, they are depicted as dirty, unhygienic and leaches at best; criminals at worst. The hit television series Trailer Park Boys, though portraying its main characters in many ways as lovable and sometimes deserving of our sympathies, they are also portrayed as small time criminals and irresponsible. "Ricky" is seen as a high school drop-out, a petty thief, a marijuana user and irresponsible, living full time in an old beat up vehicle. "Bubbles", bearing Coke-bottle glasses, lives in a make-shift shack built out of plywood among dozens of cats. "Julian" is portrayed as the smarter one, who has a real home in Sunnyvale Trailer Park, but nevertheless, gets involved in Ricky's schemes and he too, is a small time criminal.

Years ago, a comedy series called Good Times portrayed a black family living in the ghetto. MAD Magazine had no trouble producing a spoof of the series by poking fun at the poverty of this family. One example given was when the kids asked their mother what was for breakfast, she responded "a box of Corn Flakes". The kids then pointed out to her that there were no corn flakes in the box, then she repeated, "That's what I said, the box of corn flakes!" Poor families in movies were always portrayed as families with too many children, most of which were never properly dressed or fed, usually clinging to a stay-at-home mother that collects a big welfare cheque. These stereotypes have borne well over time and have translated into social policy with limits on how many children a family can receive welfare for, almost implying that the first thing a woman does when she qualifies is to go have more kids.

What about the news media? While there appears to be a lot more discussion on poverty in certain print media, such as the Toronto Star, low-income people are still portrayed as somebody to be pitied, usually under-educated, poor English, or if homeless, riddled with addictions. Those that give to charities, especially 'band aid' organizations like food banks, are portrayed as heroes and given positive press coverage, while those that must rely on food banks are either portrayed pitifully or somehow incapable of competing in our "fair society". However, in these same newpapers, even in the same editions where stories about poverty are published, three full sections of the paper depict luxury cars, while another depicts travel to faraway places and around the end of February, numerous articles about investments are published. If low-income readers are still reading the paper, they certainly do not find themselves in it.

This is only part of the onslaught that low-income families face on a regular basis from the mass media. Low-income families are said to spend more time watching television than middle and upper income families, because outside activities are out of reach for many of them. However, the television only serves as yet another reminder that they do not belong. Actors portray roles in sit-coms, movies and documentaries that perpetuate the myth that everybody's "middle class". Actors always seem to have fancy late model vehicles, or live in spacious homes. During the 1970's, the Brady Bunch, while trying to introduce the concept of a blended family, only served to 'normalize' middle class privilege. Despite this "intact" family having six children to support, Mike Brady (the father) was a sole earner and was able to afford a spacious family home, regular family vacations and keep "Alice", their maid, on the household's payroll. Later versions like The Cosbys, Married with Children, Family Ties, and even Friends (though this is about young urban professionals) and Sex and the City adhere to a middle to upper-middle class standard as the 'norm'. Even with Sex and the City making itself a movie hit on the big screen, popular fashion and jewellery associated with the characters in the show are now becoming a "fad". Yeah, must be nice.

Though many people do not watch television commercials that are supposed to give us a break from this steady diet from this salacious consumerism and class-biased assumptions, commercials apparently do sell to many people ... how often do you watch late night shows only to be bombarded with zoom, zoom, zoom (Mazda commercials), encouraging you to "discover Ireland" or to invest with Fidelity. Low-income people don't care about these commercials and don't have the resources to purchase these products, yet they are bombarded all the time with the culture-think that "everybody else" can buy these things. Regardless of how true that is, low-income people continue to not see themselves in these commercials. The poor are isolated, have no voice.

Once in awhile, however, a commercial for a public service or charitable organization comes online whereas we see children running around bone thin with fat stomachs and tons of flies around them, as we are persuaded to give a monthly donation to a "child like ____________". These 'sponsor a child' advertisements thwart the middle class perception of what poverty is about in their own backyard. Poverty in developing countries, while certainly an international disgrace, that is certainly a planned misadventure on the part of irresponsible governments and greedy world organizations that act as "lenders", cannot overshadow the poverty that is amongst us. We cannot become a country of hypocrites, although this is what we seem to want to be. We can't cry to the press about how we got to give more and more money and resources to "children in Africa", while our neighbours continue to go without and suffer irreparably as a result of constant financial pressures and food insecurity. We can't as businesses give huge charitable donations to food banks, while we pay our employees low wages, which only set them up to go to the food banks the boss just wrote a big cheque to.

We have to stop keeping our own poverty as an invisible vice of our society. Instead of going to demonstrations and throwing water bombs at politicians, it might be an avenue for some creative organizations to develop cultural initiatives that include people living in poverty, to give them a voice. Musicians can write songs that include what life is like for low-income people. Tracy Chapman, Bruce Springsteen, Eddie Grant, among others, already have ... make culture accessible to people on low-incomes, make it include them and who they are. Commercials may wish to include low-income people using a relatively inexpensive cleaning product, saving a LOT of money at a sale at Wal-Mart or using a no-charge banking service. Bank of America ran a few ads a few years ago that included people with disabilities and how the bank has made its services accessible. These persons were not portrayed as "pathetic" persons, but as ordinary people living ordinary lives who at some point needed to visit a bank. Inclusive design in cultural initiatives is going to be a tough go, but it is not impossible.

Movies showing a low-income protagonist living an ordinary life, somebody who is not illiterate, not a criminal and not a "mental patient" would also be nice to watch. The movie doesn't have to be about poverty issues, but it can show that the protagonist is informed, self-aware and capable of being something more. They do not need to run off with a handsome prince in the end, but a message can be shown that low-income people have some capacity and can be fully participating citizens. Perhaps, the protagonist does not have a car, but it shows her walk her children to school and watch them in their school plays. Perhaps, the protagonist does not live in a spacious house, but has a small, but clean apartment. The message is not only in the struggle, but in the possibilities. Perhaps, a story about a single parent on welfare struggling for custody of her disabled child against all odds, but in the end, love wins out. The movie I am Sam kind of mixed both the poverty and the disability issues quite well, leaving the protagonist somebody that anybody can love.

The movie 8 Mile also portrayed a character raised on the 'other side of the tracks' in Detroit, Michigan. He was white, lived with his mother who was hooked up with an alcoholic man who apparently abused her. His growing intolerance of the situation at home grew as his ambition developed into becoming a white rap artist that won the hearts and souls of Detroit's black community. This movie, starring Eminem himself, portrays the part of "rabbit", whose life played along pretty much like his did. Amazingly at the end, those watching saw how talented this man actually became. The most poignant part came at the end after he won a hip-hop contest against a group of blacks, his friend who encouraged him to join asked him to come back and play, as doesn't he want to see everybody look up to him? "Rabbit" turned around and told him, "I have to go to work. I'm probably going to do it my own way". Nevertheless, Eminem became quite wealthy with hit records, his own line of clothing and many appearances. While I am not a big hip-hop fan, I listened and learned that this man does have considerable talent.

Popular culture needs to show more of these types of movies, not only portraying the rags to riches story of Eminem, the fabled Matthew Mathers from the ghettos of Detroit, but low-income people just living out their lives, earning the little victories. The movie Nobody's Child, based on the life story of Marie Balter was such a story ... her life as a youngster, severely "mentally ill" and institutionalized as schizophrenic and highly phobic, ends the movie by speaking at a meeting held by the very institution she was in. She started her speech by telling everybody there, many of the same doctors and nurses who were there when she was hospitalized, that, "When I left this place, many of you shook your head and said to me that I'll be back. Well, today I am back" (she was appointed to an executive position at this same facility many years later).

Using popular culture as a way to "educate" the public is an effective tool. I once met a man when I went to college who used to meet up with my husband and I, who were then attending different courses at the same college, for lunch. He often joked around about how problems can be solved, make a movie about it ... to some extent, this is a very strong part of what I believe in regarding the way popular culture can be developed as a tool of sorts, in addition to all the other work we do. When we see people with mental health issues that do not end taking a saw and hacking people to death, or a Middle-Eastern man that does not board planes and hijack them, we begin to learn that people with differences are more like us than different from us. This is especially true if we have a chance to "meet" their families, their children and follow them through their day ... but, unfortunately, popular culture still promotes many stereotypes that do not help our work.

Part of the exclusion people in low-income communities feel is because they do not see themselves portrayed in popular culture in a positive way. As a human community, we tend to relate to many of the characters we see on TV or those that sing about their sorrows on the radio. We all want to be liked. We all want to have friends. We all want to belong. Portrayal of poverty under its stereotypes or not at all makes it feel like one doesn't belong; promoting products and services during evening hours on television that only upper middle class can afford makes the low-income feel they don't belong; and certainly, writing about poverty by giving admiration and adulation to those that give thousands of dollars to the charities that should be put out of necessity (as opposed to becoming a growth industry) makes those that rely on those charities feel like a burden, and many also tend to view themselves in the same ways that mainstream Internet chat groups do: that they are not working hard enough, that they are not giving enough to their children, that they are not a good parent, that they are not a good provider, etc. Let's start lifting the burden and empowering them to help themselves and to portray themselves as yet another colourful part of our multicultural social fabric.

By normalizing their experiences, people will feel less bad about what they are going through, as well as develop a sense of hope for the future. By further portraying realistic figures into popular culture, perhaps less people will be so eager to bash the poor and understand that deep inside, we are all the same.