THE CONTINUING DARK AGE OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

These days, there is so much that is spoken about race, gender and creed in the news and how people in minority groups are under attack.  In my region of Niagara, there was recently a rally that included several hundred people at city hall to watch a number of people speak to devote their time and respect to the people of Charlottesville, Virginia, after an alleged white supremacist rally took place.  Groups of people started to protest when it was known that officials were going to remove statues and other symbols of Confederacy from the landscape, while carrying torches and Confederate flags ... In response, groups of people opposing racism, sexism and this type of violence counter-protested.  The protests became violent until such point, somebody drove his vehicle into the counter-protesting crowd and killed a young woman, while injuring many more. The year before, a lone gunman walked into a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and shot and killed forty-nine persons, injuring fifty-eight others. There was a similar honoring ceremony that followed here in Niagara, as members of the LGBTQ community gathered with their supporters to recognize this senseless crime for what it was. While it is interesting to be part of peaceful public gatherings like this (and how positive a society can be when it respects the rights of persons regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation), it still chills me to the bone that the rights of persons with disabilities still don't matter.  As a person with an invisible disability, I often feel overwhelmed by the public silence about this issue.

For example, while persons with disabilities are supposed to be protected before and under the law under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there are so many areas of living where they do not matter and where the law and our own government continue to abuse and diminish the quality of life most persons with disabilities can live.  For example, the employment rate of persons with disabilities is less than half of what it is for the general population, and even among those who are employed - persons with disabilities are over-represented among workers in low-wage, unstable and precarious jobs.  Further, persons with disabilities disproportionately make up the population of persons forced to live, or more accurately, barely exist on our society's loosely termed safety net.  Even the safety net in question with its rules and regulations arbitrarily create a different set of laws and further disadvantages for persons with disabilities.  In fact, these very programs and so-called supports that are supposed to protect persons with disabilities in fact actually cloak them with a cloud of stigma, forcing many into silence, thus preventing members of the public from realizing how we continue to hurt them and shut them outside of our society.  These issues are those that people without disabilities or disadvantages, in general, take for granted:  the right to earn an income, the right to personal privacy, the right to mobility and choice, and the right to engage in a partnership with a significant other (and build their lives together).

First, the right to earn an income is an issue.  People naively assume that people with disabilities are "taken care of", or have social benefits to support them and pay for a semi-reasonable lifestyle.  We might have heard about specific programs of the government geared to finding employment for persons with disabilities, or more rarely - entrepreneurship initiatives.  We assume that persons with disabilities can all partake in these programs and that they "work" to their benefit.  In return for a reasonable effort, persons in these programs "should" be able to achieve equality in the workforce.  Unfortunately, in a Statistics Canada survey, about 12% of those surveyed felt they had been denied a job because of their disability.  The reality is that discrimination in the workplace against persons with disabilities exists, although it is rarely as explicit as a complete refusal to hire.  One glaring example I personally have experienced is being shut out of most jobs due to not being able to drive, even if the job did not involve travel.  While this is technically only supposed to be required if the job included travel as a bona fide requirement (e.g. courier, delivery, bus driver), employers outside of major metropolitan areas well served by public transit almost always "require" this.  Other times, jobs are deliberately located outside the areas served by transit, or shift work is "required" whereby one would be scheduled even when transit isn't operating.  This is just one example of discrimination.  If you always drove, this issue is invisible to you.  This does not mean you might not have other barriers to employment due to disability, but this is a clear example of how ableism pervades society.  Assumptions in other areas, such as management positions (seen as too "stressful" for someone with mental illness), writing jobs being not for blind or visually impaired persons, customer service jobs being too difficult for those with cognitive or certain physical impairments, or seizures being a risk in most workplaces.  As a result of discrimination, lack of willingness to accommodate persons with disabilities and occasionally, the disability itself, many are forced to live in abject poverty through our so-called social safety net.

People with disabilities are no less eager to work than those without disabilities.  In fact, many who have been kept out of the workforce for the above reasons are often desperate to work, because today's social programs rarely provide enough for people to survive, let alone live with any dignity. For example, it is not uncommon for persons deemed to be severely disabled to try working, if only to escape the deep poverty they are forced in.  In fact, I recall one of my clients a few years back getting twenty-three jobs in less than a year, only to lose them due to his disability issues.  Failing to find work or stay working has left too many people with disabilities in abject poverty, poorly housed and living lives of low quality.  It is past the time where a guaranteed annual income for persons with disabilities is put into place that does not have the rules, complexities and abysmal rates that typical welfare programs have.  Those with disabilities that can and want to work that manage to find work are also under attack.  We hear about how our wealthy people complain about how paying more taxes will dampen their interest or "incentive" to invest, grow their companies or even start businesses in the first place.  However, our provincial government in an unpublished report on marginal effective tax rates on those working and receiving ODSP benefits, cites that for many of those that make more than a small amount of money are losing approximately 70 - 87% of every dollar earned, of course not counting the further impact of any outside income on one's subsidized housing or how one is expected to cover the expenses of actually having work.  If high taxes "hurt" wealthy billionaires, how does clawing back income from persons with disabilities at even a higher rate than that paid by these same whining billionaires make this an incentive for them?  I once quipped with a Cabinet Minister and their staff about taking this same proposal to the private clubs they often raise funds at to tell their wealthy donors that the province will not tax the first $200 each month they earn or receive from investments, but for every dollar above that the province will tax it back at fifty percent?  What do you think the chances of a government like that are for getting re-elected?  If this is good enough for persons with disabilities, it is good for the billionaires too!

Secondly, one of the cases I am working on involves privacy and persons receiving public disability support.  At one of my hearings, I asked the case worker involved if I have the right to know not only where she lives, but also the right to knock on her neighbours' doors to ask questions like: (a) who she lives with; (b) if she appears to be working; or (c) how she spends her money.  She was offended by the question, but she did not understand that she seems to take the liberty to do the same to those individuals on her caseload.  In fact, these intrusions and similar types of policing take up a large proportion of case worker time, taking time away from assisting people they serve in improving their own lives or accessing benefits and services to aid them in maximizing their potential.  These daily intrusions are exactly why people with disabilities are often afraid to take the steps they need to take to improve the quality of their lives.  In another case, I was told that my client who had received a substantial inheritance was required to have a trustee to manage her monies.  This policy in itself implies that the person has limited or no capacity to manage their own affairs or make their own decisions.  The Human Rights Tribunal might take a dim look at something like this, but then again, those making the rules count on people being too beaten down to fight these things. How would the caseworker like it if s/he were required to have a trustee manage his/her pay cheques?  This is no different.  If one makes (or enforces) the rules, then they must live by them as well.

Thirdly, most of you reading this have mobility and at least some choices.  People that do not drive and do not live in a metropolitan community where public transit is deemed a necessary part of its infrastructure, do not have that.  They have limited mobility and often, few choices.  Many of the progressive folks I meet talk about how they will never shop at Walmart or Loblaw's or some other major grocery chain, often times for good reasons.  However, these same people have the option of getting into their cars and voting with their wheels to go elsewhere, such as a farmer's market, an independent grocer or some other less 'oppressive' company.  Have you ever wondered why stores like Walmart and so forth tend to locate near poor neighbourhoods?  Low income persons with disabilities, or those that do not drive and therefore do not have the freedom of choosing where to go, cannot vote with their dollars like those that can drive and have the funds to pay a little more for locally grown produce, for example.  Until we have self-driving cars or start to value effective and reliable forms of public transportation as a matter of right for all citizens, this will be the case.

Even for those of us that can get to the larger discount chains, those of us with disabilities continue to remain invisible.  The place where I shop has a very large and spacious parking lot, along with close by parking for people attending the smaller stores in this "outdoor mall".  Those of us that do not drive do not routinely stop by the grocery store on the way home from work to grab a few groceries to cook up for dinner that night.  We have to make a day of it and get enough to last a couple of weeks or so. Because this is too much to carry on a bus, we need to transport by taxi.  Many times, we need to wait for a considerable period of time for a taxi, which means we need somewhere to sit down.  The store where I shop removed the benches in the front for no good reason.  I presume they think nobody needs them or uses them because EVERYBODY simply takes their groceries to their cars and drives away, so there is no need for this.  It doesn't matter anyways, as people with disabilities and their needs are invisible to these types of organizations.  It is not like I have much of an option to "drive" off to another store that might serve us better.

Finally, most of you who are reading this are living with a partner (other than those of you who are recently divorced or who are choosing single life for now).  Your partner could be your legal spouse, your common law partner, your same sex partner or partner of a second marriage, etc.  The face of Canada is changing with the popularity of marriage itself declining with the uptick in the number of common law partners, many of whom live together in the same manner as those in a long marriage.  About 27% of households are people living alone. For most of you with life partners, you likely did not have to think about the risk to your paltry entitlements or health benefits once you moved in with your partner.   In most cases, both partners contribute financially to the relationship, as well as in other areas and these arrangements are set by the people involved.  However, if you were disabled and forced to live on public disability benefits - you do not have the same rights.  ODSP Statistics are published monthly by family type: single, couples and lone support parents, versus all family types.  I calculated percentages at the back of a paper napkin to determine that the ODSP caseload consists of 78.6% of households where there is only one person, 12.7% of households where there is a couple (married, common law) and 8.7% of households that are led by a single parent.  Something is definitely wrong when only 27% of the general population lives alone, while 87.3% of households on the ODSP caseload are single or a single parent.  A closer look at the statistics show that the raw number of couples tend to vary dynamically each month, suggesting that partnerships in receipt of ODSP tend not to last long and can go through cycles where they are split up and again, together.

It is about time that the elephant in room is pointed out and eloquently deciphered.  The ODSP Action Coalition has published broadly that most recipients are afraid to get involved in relationships, fearing they would then become part of a "benefit unit" and whoever it is that gets together with them will have both their income and assets counted against them, thus putting them at risk of losing most or all of the benefits.  Ironically, because of more liberal attitudes to granting "equal rights" to same sex partners, even those engaging in non-conjugal roommate situations are hesitant to get involved as almost everybody who "lives with" another adult can risk being deemed a "spouse" by ODSP officials, and therefore, liable to be forced to almost solely support the person with the disability.  For those already involved in relationships, the albatross weighs heavily because if the relationship ends, the one receiving ODSP will be forced to seek support from the "ex-partner" (regardless of what the Family Law Act of Ontario requires). For those that remain together, the disabled partner loses most of their independence and this can't be healthy for anybody.  The one who tells it like it is writes a blog, but there are many others coming forward today.  In fact, there are legal professionals taking this up as a cause to change.  As Eric Letts states on his site in his video, this rule may in fact be in direct violation of human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When I have raised this issue in the past, I have received very questionable responses.  Remember: those who make the rules should be made to live by them.  We would see swift change in this if everybody in relationships were treated like this.  Not very long ago, women who were married were considered the property of their husbands.  They were not allowed to sue and be sued, not allowed their own income, not allowed to vote, not allowed to do anything apart from their husband.  People with disabilities are almost in this position today.  If it was unacceptable for women to not have their own identities, their own incomes, their own bank accounts, their own legal status, etc. (as it is stated clearly under the Family Law Act), why is it okay to treat persons with disabilities like this?  It states, as follows:

PART VI 
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMON LAW

Unity of legal personality abolished

64 (1) For all purposes of the law of Ontario, a married person has a legal personality that is independent, separate and distinct from that of his or her spouse.  R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 64 (1).

Capacity of married person

(2) A married person has and shall be accorded legal capacity for all purposes and in all respects as if he or she were an unmarried person and, in particular, has the same right of action in tort against his or her spouse as if they were not married.  R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 64 (2).

Purpose of subss. (1, 2)

(3) The purpose of subsections (1) and (2) is to make the same law apply, and apply equally, to married men and married women and to remove any difference in it resulting from any common law rule or doctrine.  R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 64 (3).

ODSP unfortunately retains some of the unity of legal personality with respect to married couples where one or both are receiving benefits.  In a regular marriage, where one of the spouses can run up a credit card and max themselves far into debt, they can no longer bind the other spouse (unless the spouse is signed on or is a guarantor of sorts).  However, when ODSP has "overpayments", regardless of how they arose, both spouses are deemed by the Crown to be liable for it (e.g. if they split up, they will go after both spouses for the same overpayment).  This brings us back to the early days when women were not permitted to have their own credit lines.  Couples not involved with ODSP have a lot more freedom in determining their relationships.  If one of the spouses works and earns $100,000 a year, for example, and the other has chosen to stay home to raise the children, the working spouse is under no legal obligation to hand over fifty percent of their income to the stay-at-home spouse.  The working spouse can provide a bit of an "allowance" or pay for expenses, but there is no law that they ought to.  While ODSP couples are still together and not separating, the disabled spouse loses over fifty percent of their benefits and the more the other spouse makes, the less they get (and the higher the clawback or marginal effective tax rate).  This can be cut off at relatively low levels.  It is quite possible that a spouse might be only earning poverty level wages where the other might lose most of their income support.  This is what forces many of these relationships to end, or in worse cases, keeps the vulnerable person trapped in an abusive situation.  A couple of years ago, I fought a case that desperately needed to go further, although I did make movement on this issue ... exemplifies the very difficult bind this puts people into.  At one point, I had three different clients at the same time in a women's shelter because of an abusive relationship they were in (and they were on ODSP).  All three went right back to their alleged abusers because they did not have the financial resources to get out.

Attempts are being made to address this issue at the human rights level.  It is being chiseled away at the Social Benefits Tribunal and HRTO, but not chiseled down enough where both spouses are independent legal entities with rights and entitlements of their own.  In particular, this is repugnant because a person with a disability that cannot work or cannot financially contribute to a relationship is now forced to either live alone or risk losing everything, whereas a spouse in a relationship where both are merely unemployed, their situation is temporary and their legal status is intact once they both work again.  In effect, it is the disability that is the impugned variable that leads to the gross inequity of this situation, as this person is not going to suddenly get a job and start contributing.

These above facts are not well known by members of the public that are reading this and many assume that if this were changed and disabled persons were able to get benefits in their own right, that suddenly they would get married to millionaires, this is silly.  First, the types of people who are likely to become eligible for ODSP in the first place do not regularly attend the same places that the so-called millionaires attend.  I've never met too many people on ODSP who are regular members of the St. Catharines Golf & Country Club, or the St. Catharines Club.  Most of them have virtually exhausted all of their resources and have nothing left to spend on these pursuits.  Besides, people tend to get into relationships with people who are more like them than not like themselves.  Teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses and so forth tend to marry people who are in similar occupations.  How many times have we noticed the so-called "power couples" on the front pages of newspapers or magazines or online?  They certainly do not have a lot of ODSP recipients in their wider circle of friends.  Even if there is the one off case where somebody earning good money does marry a recipient ... so what?  The time for slavery, peonage and people-as-chattels has ended for most people, except for people with disabilities.

I am seeking out people who have read this and are getting angry and/or motivated by this post to get in contact with me to start something.  A stone in the water starts a ripple; several stones can cause a wave ... and we need to turn this tide before too many more people get hurt.  Your thoughts?

HOW SIMPLE ACCOMMODATIONS CAN MEAN SO MUCH ...

It is easy to pick up emotions when one has a tendency to empathy.  Having this, one can realize when not to strike and when not to attack.  Accommodation for people is a very important act that addresses the needs of people, whether in a workplace or in housing or some other situation.  It is not enough to know about one's identity, one's label, culture or handicap, to understand how to approach them.  I posted something on Facebook recently about the topic of anxiety.  I have a close friend who suffers major anxiety, and I currently have three claims going through the legal system on behalf of people whose anxiety has created such major problems for themselves, that others have infringed upon their rights in some way, either by doing something or failing to do something.  I have been told by others that such people should just stop worrying and pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Sadly, it is attitudes like this that keep these folks hamstrung by their disability.

Back in the nineties, I was involved in many different kinds of organizations, particularly a few where I was in a position to employ others.  During the early nineties, it was not necessarily a big thing to accommodate people with disabilities, although this was the law since the 1960's.  He was a superb performer who I hired to take on responsibility for the various policy initiatives the agency that employed me engaged in.  W accomplished a lot together in a short time.  During that time, I was the type of person that can write excellent proposals and put forth great ideas, utilizing strategies for matching funds, top up funding, project based initiatives and so forth.  My success rate was fairly high and at this time, we created programs that can be utilized across Canada.  We went through the bureaucratic channels of identifying our initiatives, our selected proponents, our objectives, etc.  He and I worked on several of these projects together, occasionally traveling together across Canada to meetings or site visits.

There was then a period of time my spider sense started to bite me about this fellow.  Prior to this, there were no complaints about his work, his ability to relate to others and to complete tasks.  I was never a direct accountability manager, as I always tried to see the many moving parts of a project work together, so that I would coordinate, delegate, observe and encourage others to work as a team.  We made decisions together, even though it was my right to direct otherwise.  I don't know whether this is because I am female, having held different executive type positions in non-profit or public organizations, as well as in my own private sector businesses, and naturally being more empathetic to how people are feeling.  First, I don't deal well with a lot of negative around me.  I can sense it even if nobody else is talking about it, or even appearing to suffer from some type of awkward environment.  When I began to sense this, I would ask how I can help instead of just trying to find who to place the blame for such a travesty on.

My fellow started to come in late a couple times a week, which was troublesome but not to the extreme, because while it is important to have predictability and organization, stipulating specific punctuality on the dot is a bit too much micromanaging for me.  There would be times when he would be at his desk, not appearing productive.  Certain deadlines we set together slipped, and then slipped again.  Many of my colleagues would wonder whether this was drugs, alcohol or plain old laziness.  I was more naturally inclined to get a discussion going about what this person can share with me about their situation at the time and how the workplace can best accommodate them.  Is there something I should be doing that would enhance or perhaps, provide support to this person (as this kind of pattern to me signals a need for support, not disciplinary action).  After I heard the situation and what was needed, I made minor changes in the workplace that would allow him to address his needs.  He told me how shocked he was because prior employers never expressed that concern, but my concern is keeping good people on the job working productively.

What is this script about?  It is about understanding other people.  Everyday, we work with people, many we love and enjoy working with, others we may have difficulties with.  Usually the moving parts work well together as a well oiled machine should, but there are occasional breakdowns, usually enhanced as a result of lack of communication or if communications is being done, it is done in a way that is aggressive or hurtful to the other party.  We are not always aware of how our own communication patterns can affect others.  Even I have fallen victim to this, but I have had to at least convey an apology to the person concerned and learn how not to deal with a situation like that in the future.  However, sometimes others do not.  This builds the toxins in the system, gradually wearing down on the machine that made that place work.  People want to blame.  People want to dump on others.  People want to run.  None of these things are productive.  I sometimes wish there were people who knew how to communicate using the concept of Johari's Window.

A window would have four frames,all of which represents the following items as they concern themselves with communication.  One frame would be the facts within one's own private knowledge and thoughts.  These are the things that are affecting you, or that you are thinking about, or opinions that are being formed, but I don't see them or hear of them.  The other frame is the things that are happening to me, my own thoughts and reactions to them, as well as how I might have felt this morning when I got up out of bed and fell flat on my face.  I am not going to say that to you.

The third window includes the things that are happening that neither you or I know about.  These are things that are outside of my awareness, or as I often say, "things that fly over my head".  These are also outside of your awareness.  Your son might be out at the time and getting into an accident and smashing the car.  Your partner might be preparing a big surprise party for your fiftieth birthday.  The final frame is the frame that includes you and I and what you and I both know, both facts that we share in common as well as knowledge that we know of each other.  I know your favourite colour is blue.  I know you enjoy your coffee black.  I know you and your partner have been having a rough time lately with bills, your teenage son and making arrangements for your mother, who has been getting on in age and needs more care that either of you can provide for her.  You know I just lost both of my parents, have been tied up at work with a major project that is taking on more dimensions that I expected when I first started and that my health has been an issue as well.

I come into your house with seeming a chip on my shoulder.  Perhaps I am impulsive, acting more erratic than I usually do, especially in my style of communications.  You are taken aback by this and wonder what the heck you did to cause me to be angry at you.  However, because I did not tell you about the idiot that cut me off on the highway, the cheque that bounced that was supposed to go to my mortgage, and my neighbours that held a party the night before until three o'clock in the morning.  At the same time, you did not tell me about your son's illness that was just diagnosed yesterday afternoon and a pending series of layoffs at your workplace.  You are naturally anxious and afraid that your job will be affected, but in not telling me that, you are seeing my behaviour as erratic and more aggressive than usual and you wonder if it was your fault.  To you, your world is coloured with fear and anxiety.  You are worried about your son's health.  You are seeing me as the aggressor that is somehow coming down on you or perhaps, being overly critical of things in general.  You begin to get upset, turn away from me and ask me to leave.  That is not your style.  You are usually open and are able to take me in most of my moods and help me laugh it off.  I wonder what is going on with you and what the heck I did to you that is making you indifferent.

So that becomes another jab at my day, now that one of my closest friends wants nothing to do with me.  I go home, wondering, scratching my head, and thinking about the possibility I did something wrong to you.  You are wondering why I was seemingly so irritated with you.  The fact of the matter here is that neither you or I are any different than we were the day before, but circumstances, our own set of facts unknown to the other person, have become a communication barrier.  Sometimes, what needs to be done is to open that damned window and allow the relevant facts to come in.  The facts are put on the table and then I can start to see why you were so indifferent to me, and you can see why I was unusually agitated.  We both know at that point that this whole thing had nothing to do with either of us and that we are still friends.  Life will go on.

It is kind of hard to explain, but that is how I address the people issues I encounter in my career and how I seem to know how to accommodate people when I know the facts behind a person's need.  In the above case scenario, once I learn the facts, I might offer to do something with you that would help bring you and your son closer together.  I would talk to you about strategies to learn more about what is happening in your workplace, while I treat you and your family to a nice dinner and musical or something like that.  I keep an 'open door policy' on things.  In a business relationship, we try to see what can make your work easier, keep you at a productive level and proactive, about what can be done in the near and more distant future.  At the same time, it would be nice for you to know that I am human too, and people having parties next door does not promote good mental health for me.  Because I am likely to be tired, maybe you can offer to drive me to my business meeting in Hamilton later that day instead of me driving myself and risking some other idiot cutting me off.

These principles, although humorous and simplistic as they appear, also apply to more complex situations.  Communication is key.  I know people's complaints, but in what way do they plan to be part of the solution?  If a workplace accommodation is needed, you need to tell me what works and what doesn't.  Just because you get migraines, it doesn't mean that another person I worked with who had migraines needed the same accommodations you need.  We are all individuals, shaped by our various values, experiences and personal objectives.  For me, I need an environment of certainty, to some extent predictability, while at the same time offering me a range of options to choose from to further grow in my career goals, personal goals, or whatever.  I try to offer the same in return, although some people tend to like the unexpected ... I am just not one of them.

Developing the empathy and the skills to do all of this has taken a lot of time for me.  However, doing this has furthered my abilities to grow, gain new experience and meet various people I might never have had an opportunity to know.  This is an important skill for people to have, especially in the business world.  As an employer, you need to be open to ensure that you are not unreasonably limiting your positions to certain people, aka people like you.  This is important in customer service as well, as you do not know who will be coming through your door.  Is your building easy to find?  Is it on a bus route?  Is there reasonable parking nearby?  Can people easily get through your front door? Is your place of business on the level ground, or is there an elevator?  Are your doors wide enough to admit even those in a power chair?  Is there access to quiet space to meet with someone? How is the lighting?  The same thoughts should be in any other area of your life's activities.  

This goes back to my friend with the anxiety disorder.  What this person also needs is certainty, acceptance and open communication.  Sadly, in all of my three cases going through the legal system right now as a result of somebody failing to accommodate somebody's anxiety issues, this simple structure and assurance was lacking for them, which in turn led to more serious problems.  The more cynical in my profession sees these situations as an opportunity to litigate, but the more humane side of me sees these situations as something that could have been handled much better and opening more of the world to these specific people who are involved.  

THE RISE OF THE ANOMIE GENERATION

I walked the full walk for the Coldest Night of the Year 2017 for Start Me Up Niagara.  Start Me Up Niagara's business is booming, but for the wrong reasons.  Sadness and hurt is ubiquitous with personal pain taking priority over social peace.  The organization tries to put into place hands on solutions that produce long term change for people, instead of just feeding an empty belly for a night, or for a few days.  They pursue the concept that all people have value, not just those that are reaping most of society's rewards.

This winter has been rough for me with the death of my mother last fall, only to be followed by the knowledge and helplessness of my father dying before me.  To me, it is though society has been taking a turn in a different direction and we all feel like helpless pawns trying to fight against the forces that try to keep us all down.  Members of my profession are susceptible to mental health issues because people do not approach us when their lives are doing well, when optimism speaks the day. We spend our time receiving, analyzing, outputting and speaking out, filing complaints, approaching people who are less than happy to see us, only to be misunderstood by those for whom we speak at times, as well as our colleagues.

Niagara Region is not a nice place to live and do the type of work that I do, without expecting to have some of it rub on you.  It is part of the compassion of my advocacy and my practice.  I actually give a damn about the people that come in to see us.  I've often considered the work of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ... my people are at all sorts of levels of that ladder, although nobody I know has truly reached the top of personal fulfillment.  At this time of the year, it is so hard to keep going  ... people around me are talking about the spring as though the spring can only bring blessings and freedom from this chronic darkness.  I spoke to the cab driver that took me here who told me as he let me off to keep your stick on the ice.  His eyes seemed to know how I was feeling, though I mentioned none of it ... he did mentioned so many people are hurting and cranky today.

This world is not the world that folks like my mother and father built.  My mother and father lived in a different world, in a different time ... perhaps, when we didn't know so much about the dangers of smoking and other things like that.  Growing up, I always noted people being mostly of an 'average' type, although I tended to thrive among the intellectuals.  We intellectuals would discuss anything, ranging from the eventual usefulness of learning the Pythagorean Theorem, to remembering the name of every bone and muscle in the human body and the periodic table.  At the same time, I watched the world evolve into something that I no longer understand or want more of.  My grandfather who I adored throughout his long life is probably rolling in his grave if he knew what the world has consisted of today.  He always taught me to remain strong, think for myself and keep fighting for justice.

In my working world, it is all computers, cloud technology, server technology and legal rigidity.  It is a controlled environment in some way, where we can give others the gift of a certain amount of peace and control in their lives.  Experiencing things, hearing things, doing things and then writing up memos about all of that becomes the life of law.  I continue to want and need the people around me that I have, as when I am not at work there is less of that, but more raw human emotions and amorphous anger directed at no particular direction.  I walk out of my office tonight.  One fellow is yelling and screaming obscenities down King Street, kicking over every garbage can or other chattel that moves.  Another fellow mumbled words only he knew what they meant, while giving us all the starry eye and that scary grin.  In the housing of the bank machines, people lie down and make themselves at home there.  They tell me they won't go to a shelter.

The world my mother and father were part of was one where everybody worked for a decent wage or produced decent wages for others, while looking forward to a decent retirement where the thought of mere survival and struggle was distant.  During my mother and father's time, people cared for one another, for their neighbours and did not mind having a government that also gave a damn.   My mother would tell me of how she grew up in a time that even rock and roll music was so new, so different and unabashedly rebellious.  Nevertheless, she felt the growth of illicit drug use led to where we are today, but then again, she faced her own comeuppance.  She married the man she thought would take care of her and us for the rest of her life, but that did not turn out right.  My father picked up and left my mother for what he saw were greener pastures, though that did not prove rewarding for him in the long run either.  At one time, there were consequences for one's actions ... or at least some expectation that one would apologize or at least forgive.

The fact that my mother passed away and my father is on his way to his own fate reminds me of the era that both of them lived through and hoped for our next generation passing on as well, and moving to a new ambiguous future where public anger results in the rise of people like Donald Trump and favouring policies like Brexit ... looking for solutions in politicians that create both impossible expectations and unanticipated grief for way too many ... the people want this, so why not they justify their stake into the very heart of society.  Society becomes an unnecessary force, as worship of the individual takes over, the thought that one strong man can make it right, is as scary as it sounds ...  I try to explain to people the elements of contagion theory and a voice of authority quietly condoning violence and hatred of the latest scapegoat group, or even joking about it to a large crowd of angry supporters ... is something that is as dangerous today, as it has always been.  Sometimes our first instincts, our first spark of anger and our desires arising from them are not necessarily the panacea we should be seeking.

In today's unabated community of 'alternative facts' and so-called fake news, society is approaching its pinnacle in its anomie.  The progressive forces of society not only have to fight the tendency of celebrity worship sharing the same old neoliberal concepts to run a government, whilst ignoring the very real consequences of a society going under, but to help people away from harming their own interests.  I tell people close to me what it was like for me to work in the mental health system when our province was headed by Mike Harris, who as his first move when elected slashed welfare rates, fired numerous civil servants and started the downward curve in health care coverage.  This is when I realized that the old era had ended and a new, scary reality was taking shape.  I do truly believe we never truly recovered from that period.  In my darkest moments, I still remember those who have died or have lost everything they owned or even their families or loved ones through Mike the Knife's slash and burn policies.

Those who worked alongside me back then are either dead or still wear their scars.  Occasionally, I meet one of them who appear very surprised to see me owning a legal office and partaking in rights-based litigation these days.   At the same time, I try to provide support and avenues for others to practice and to partake in profit sharing with me.  I also provide ongoing support and mentoring to others in the profession, many of whom just had too much.  Many stopped believing in what they do or what they are worth.  It's about the world and what it has been coming to.  It's about society telling people they are on their own, regardless.  I don't want to see the world turn out like that.  I want to stand up and make a difference where I can.  It is just sometimes so hard to see where I am going with this.  Some tell me it is about the ripple in the water the stone I make creates, as it broadens it scope to cover more ground.  Being a survivor is not all about glory and celebrity; it is grit and hard work, and many times hard feelings.

Click the links throughout this post and you will hear songs/videos replaying elements of the world I am referring herein.  Would be interested in your thoughts.