ON THE MODERN POOR HOUSES AND POVERTY CHARITIES

                                           The Rise of Modern Poor Houses

With the recent trend in electing far right leaning governments, there is an increased reliance on governments to dump their duties on charities and the so-called 'voluntary sector'.  Social assistance rates are deliberately kept low, thereby assuming the 'thousand points of light' in our communities will somehow converge to save those that have fallen on hard times, or the poor will somehow turn to the their families.

This is a serious problem, as we presented here in a number of articles.  Others try to frame the issues as a split philosophy between social justice and charity.  However, to question the work of charity is almost considered anathema to 'fitting in with good society'.  The only group that deliberately went to critique the work of charity in the proper way was Put Food in the Budget, which operated for many years although its purpose had recently refocused with a change of leadership.  I assert that the download to the charities is a deliberate poor shaming, 'othering' process designed to further entrench the poor folks into their disadvantaged positions and keep them there.

Put Food in the Budget published two reports: 'Who Banks on Food Banks?" and 'Survey of Food Bank Users, Non-Users and Donors'.  Even the most liberal researchers cite that only one in five people in need of food banks actually go to them. This is not a moral judgment on who uses them, who chooses not to use them or even on those that run them.  However, serious questions need to be asked of this resource that was only supposed to be temporary when the first food bank opened up in Edmonton in 1981, but has since become a burgeoning industry of its own which in itself has produced well paid executive positions and a parallel food distribution system that creates unnecessary duplication of resources.

I know many executives of these organizations are paid six figures and in my view, if the organization can afford to pay these kinds of salaries, they don't need my money or yours.

These are some notable facts:

1.  Charities claim they are not political, but in fact they are very political.

Because charities are mindful of not speaking out or partaking in partisan politics, they are seen to be out of the political fray.  Sadly, they are indeed right in the middle of the political fray.  Donors to their organizations can reduce the taxes they pay, which always benefits those with higher incomes than those of more modest means.  By being so-called "neutral", these organizations are in fact denying that the source of their necessity is directly set in place by government policies.  Food banks were not always around.  In fact, they only emerged when governments began to retreat on their responsibilities to our population in order to serve their wealthy masters.  There are charts available that show the shift in taxation from the wealthier parts of the population to the middle and working classes and gradual erosion of our social safety net.  Recent governments have been slapped by bond rating agencies for not drawing in enough revenues and not for spending profligately.  When this happens, the government structurally restricts itself from being able to spend on a proper social safety net, such as health care, social assistance and education.

We will never hear these things from charities.  The most we hear from organizations like the Ontario Association of Food Banks is their annual "Hunger Count", which issues statistics of the people that use their food banks.  As disturbing as these statistics are, they do not even give a full picture, as many people will not use food charity for a variety of reasons.  They skip meals, limit portions, etc. instead.  These are the hidden malnourished.

2.  Charities claim to care about their users, but the majority do not move them to self-sufficiency and dignity

This is not to say that charities are treating their people badly, but their efforts to actually get people out of poverty is sadly deficient.  For me, if somebody is not given hope that they will soon get out of poverty and not have to return again to another charity, this is reason enough to fall into despair and discouragement.  Accepting charity is very demeaning.  Our government and policy makers know this, but they do not care.  They want to use shame and humiliation as a tool to force such persons into the lowest paying and deplorable jobs their corporate "friends" have on offer.  People with little choice between this type of humiliation and a very bad job are not likely to unionize and fight for their rights against their corporate employers.  Those that do end up receiving help cope with it in many different ways:  some volunteer at the charity as a way to "give back" (as they are so used to being referred to as non-contributing); others join aligned groups to bring self-help ideas such as community gardens and kitchens, and others just stay away.  

3.  Charities can discriminate and often do so to best utilize their resources

Food banks often find themselves short of resources and will tend to prefer families with children, for example. Others restrict the amount of food you can take from their centers and most are limited to about three days' supply for a household, while many food insecure families spend at least half the month without sufficient nourishment.  Some soup kitchens bar certain patrons because they are found to be "difficult to serve".  Some charities have also been known to discriminate against classes of people for religious reasons.  Others force their users to partake in prayers or religious services before getting any kind of help at all.

4.  Solutions offered by charities are inconsistent, replete with gaps and often lead to a revolving door of the same people to return for help again and again

Iain de Jong, author of Book on Ending Homelessness, recently came to the Niagara Region to talk to people who work in a number of agencies often providing band aid solutions and/others trying to provide more long term solutions.  He was right in stating that the current trend is to simply manage homelessness and not to get people into homes.  The fact is there are more than enough homes for people to live in at any given time.  It is again government policy that allows housing to be commoditized, denied or destroyed to the point where we now have "houses without people and people without houses".  There is no rational reason why anybody should be without a roof over their head these days in a wealthy nation like ours.    

The problem with many homelessness agencies is they want to fix the homeless persons first before offering them housing.  Poor folks are fed up with being "fixed" by well meaning middle class people who think they know what is best for poor folks.  For example, homeless people are somehow supposed to get their mental health stabilized, sober up and clean up their lifestyle before getting housing, which is almost impossible to do without a safe, secure place to call home.  More cynically, I believe this approach has been around for so long because it keep the homelessness industry alive and many of its well paid jobs in place.  There would be no need for homelessness workers if everybody had access to safe, affordable and accessible housing.

5.  Charities do not have the same privacy and access laws as do programs offered by or regulated by the government.

Some charities for the poor ask for more documentation from the applicant than one would be asked when entering Fort Knox.  There is no need to know too much about anybody, other than the fact they do not have the means to feed themselves.  In my view, the fact that the person is there is enough to prove they need help.  Most people who need and qualify for help from these same organizations will not go, so why would somebody go there who truly has enough to take care of themselves?  Occasionally, the media reports on the so-called 'millionaire panhandler' or the 'welfare queen', but these cases are very rare.  

However, what happens to all of this personal data collected on poor folks when they apply for charitable help?  Nobody really knows.  I assume it helps comprise the annual Hunger Count, as well as helps these organizations in their regular applications to the United Way and other funders to continue to pay their staff.  However, I've known of many cases where personal names, case information and other data has been divulged improperly by somebody in the organization.  While most of all of these organizations have a "policy" of confidentiality, this policy does not have the weight of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and suing over a policy breach is usually out of reach for poor folks.

When some wealthy folks complained about the long form census asking them to respond to questions like how many bedrooms they had in their homes (and as a result Harper's government choosing to scrap it), one would wonder how these same wealthy people would respond to the kind of intrusive data collected by many of these charities. I suspect if they were asked such questions, they would strenuously object, but poor folks are given no choice.

If governments even want to send some of its programs to be managed by charities, advocates must be on the alert to ensure that such organizations ensure liability for privacy laws, as well as many other laws, as described below.

6.  If you get sick from food bank food or soup kitchen food or get stolen from at a shelter, the poor folks are told "beggars can't be choosers".

What are the quality controls of these services?  If you were wealthy and went to a sushi restaurant and they accidentally poisoned you, you would certainly have a right to make a legal claim against the establishment.  If you stay at a hotel and become infested by bedbugs, you can also make a legal claim.  If you meet with a financial advisor and they give you bad advice that sank your whole portfolio, you can make a claim against that advisor and their company as well.  However, everyday people get sick from food given to them at food banks or soup kitchens.  This is not deliberate on the part of the organization, but sometimes I do question some of the motives of individual donors, many of whom hate the poor and have openly expressed in social media that they were undeserving of any support. They have also joked around about donating tainted or seriously outdated foods to their local food drives.  Volunteers do not have the time required to screen every item that comes in for tampering, age, etc.

With our governments wanting to cut "red tape", it seems that some believe such organizations should not have the same kind of liability as the former examples and basically, the poor are told to suck it up.  Many people wonder why some people refuse to use homeless shelters.  Most shelters are filled with lice, bedbugs and often people are assaulted, robbed or harassed while there.  It is about time some creative legal folks attempt some type of class action against these types of organizations, especially where these problems appear to be coming from this kind of devaluation of the poor..

                    Ongoing and Ever-Present Dangers

The reason why poor folk get inferior treatment and are not treated with dignity is that they are not looked upon as having the worth as much as somebody else in society who "contributes".  This attitude is very entrenched and unfortunately, is deepening to a point where governments do not feel they have to give enough funds for jobless and disabled folks to have both a roof over their heads and food on the table.  This trend of resurgence to a form of eugenics is disgusting.  Those of less valued classes could be starved away, seemingly, while those of "greater stuff" can be encouraged to have more kids and build a great society.  The governments of right leaning parties are not ignorant of what they are doing and use the excuse of being "broke" to the skeptical (which also isn't true but the subject of other blogs), only to continue to push people to the edge ... lemmings as they all fall off by starvation, suicide and other more grim causes.

I once taught a class on bureaucracy and culture, while focusing on the period before and during the second world war.  I deliberately themed it around how the German government framed its policies, its direction and preferences.  In most healthy and open democracies, we hear about innovation, consultation, pilot projects, opportunities and so forth.  However, under right-leaning governments, we hear about efficiencies, streamlining, monitoring, etc. which never of course impact on the freedoms of the wealthy, but when implemented often further entrench poverty.  I am saying today's austerity governments know this and are deliberately making these policies with the intended result that we are seeing. If you notice more people who are openly homeless, aggressively panhandling or sleeping in public spaces in the warmer months, this is a symptom of this intent.  Other signs are closures of small businesses, boarded up windows, increases in petty crimes and the growth of super stores owned by conglomerates that can afford loss leaders.

In communication with many people, I am told this is "end times" by some (cockamamie), "there is no alternative" (bullshit, this is all policy choices not anything any government is forced to do), or 'people should not be reliant on the state' (if people only knew how much wealthy people benefit from the largess of the state ...).  We need to start having intelligent conversations about the value of all of our people in our communities.  We need to aid folks to become stronger and productive persons or simply living dignified lives in their own right in the community, as opposed to what we are doing today: writing off large swaths of the population to the benefit of the charities and their so called "benefactors" in our society.

As for the charities, they need to change their focus.  If they serve the poor, the elderly, the homeless or whatever, they can speak out now.  Canada Revenue Agency is no longer as much of a threat to your charitable status, so you can't use that as an excuse anymore.  In fact, under Stephen Harper's government who spoke so proudly about freedom of speech, it tried to shut down dozens of charities that lobbied on issues about poverty, the environment and other similar issues (while allowing right wing charities like the Fraser Institute and Canada Constitution Foundation which litigates in the courts to give away our health care system to private interests among other "causes" to continue).  Canada Without Poverty took that government to court and won.  Charities can no longer be audited and harassed solely on their so-called non-partisan political activities.

I once heard an expression about how we are praised when we give food to the poor, but we are called a communist when we start to ask why people are poor.  We need to ask this now and keep asking this until we get an answer and to reject any of the stock answers given above.  If any government sees a large part of its population objecting to how people who are living in poverty are treated, that is when they will be forced to change their ways.  We also have to think of creative legal actions, such as filing quasi criminal charges similar to those filed by folks living in places like Huronia, Southwest Region Centre for the Developmentally Handicapped, etc., the residential schools, etc.  These right wing proponents will try to sell us on choice theory, but the folks that were confined to these institutions had no more choice in being forced into them than the poor folks of today are being forced into their lives of grinding poverty.    

Your thoughts?

THE WAR AT HOME

I once sat at my desk into the evening, only for my phone to ring ... on the other end was a woman who was angry, asking if I was the "human rights tribunal'.  I calmly told her I was not, but we do handle matters before that Tribunal.  

Without listening, the woman immediately went into a rant about how she and her daughter were living at a 'family shelter' and she was being discriminated against.  I ask her how.  She then explains that she had no access to the kitchen during the Ramadan between 8:30 and 9:00 p.m.  I asked her why that was an issue, that Ramadan only went on for a certain period of time and there were 23.5 hours she was able to use the kitchen each day apart from that.  She then hurried on about how she was "kicked out" of the kitchen during those times because she was expressing her "freedom of speech".  I asked her kindly how she would take somebody else using their "freedom of speech" to say what was on their mind about her, perhaps her gender, her disability, her poverty, and so forth, but she did not respond, just that she was so wrought up over these Muslims who were also at the home.

Several weeks later, in my own community, somebody started setting up a business called the Islamic Boutique.  This place was not even an active business, as people can see inside that drywall, electrical work and other preparations were being made to put this business into place.  The following week I found all the windows smashed and the signage for the business removed.  A few days later, I was speaking to somebody downtown at a coffee shop who told me her husband was beat up by somebody in his residential complex because he was a Muslim.  I handed her my card to ask for her husband to give me a call.

I learn in June that a few Pride events were cancelled because there were threats made to the organizers of these events.  At the events that went ahead anyways, many were confronted by members of Yellow Vests Canada, Soldiers of Odin, National Party and other fringe elements that would invite somebody with a bullhorn to shout out Biblical "interpretations" to them and approach members of these events in anticipation of causing a fight.  In fact, many fights did erupt.  This happened at the Eaton's Centre where people from these elements were in attendance on Pride Sunday in Toronto with the intention of causing a fight.

In fact, many people from the LGBTQ community are remembering Stonewall and sadly, the mass shooting at Orlando, Florida.  While I know that most Christians do not think like this, the Internet is dominated by those that do.  We were somehow transported back to the 1950's where people were afraid of being who they were or admitting to anybody who they were.  For those of you that do not or refuse to remember, there were the words of Martin Niemoller:

First they came for the socialists, and I did 

not speak out—because I was not a socialist.

Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did 

not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not 

speak out—because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was 

no one left to speak for me.

This was during the Holocaust of the 1930s and 1940s, which people of the West had said 'never again'.  It is more than a generation later and we have encountered many genocides since, such as in Rawanda, Darfur, Tunisia, etc.  People did not feel much about these things because they happened so far away and believed this could never happen in a western "civilized" society.  What people don't remember is that prior to the second World World War, Germany was one of the most educated, civilized and advanced countries.  There were many daily newspapers and its citizenry were well educated and well-read.  If it can happen there, this can happen anywhere. 

There were signs as the German economy began to fail.  In difficult times, scapegoats become part of the national agenda.  There were significant developments that happened after the election of Hitler and his party, the National Socialist Party.  This was a party that sold itself as the party of the working class German.  It organized and implicitly rose against communists, immigrants, and others that could be targeted for Germany's unemployment at the time.  They decided to abandon the Treaty of Versailles at the time and push for Germany First.

Cultural discourse continued to go on a populist, hateful path, whereas certain statements were commonplace in the Germany of pre-war times.  Laws were passed to limit the rights of its Jewish citizens, as Hitler felt the Jewish people were responsible somehow for their woes.  Many German people just sat on the sidelines and watched this happen.  As we know today, it wasn't only the Jewish people, but immigrants, poor people, disabled people among others who were also scapegoated and rounded up and many were transported to facilities where they were either used as slave labour or killed.  The Aktion T4 Program utilized six facilities and eventually killed over 300,000 persons with disabilities, which technically ended in 1941, but afterwards started up again under a "wild euthanasia" program carried without mandate and only discovered after the Allies invaded Germany and ended the war.  They were exerting dominance of the so-called "Aryan race" and eventually denied rights to other non-Aryan peoples.  

In Canada today, we are hearing frightful stories about anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant hatred and below the surface, Canadians do not realize that many groups, especially aboriginals and many persons with disabilities do not have full citizenship rights that other citizens take for granted.  When such groups try to exert their rights under the charter, the populists try to use the notwithstanding clause to avoid taking responsibility for the abuses they heaped onto various minority groups over the years.  For example, many people do not know until recently many people with disabilities were subject to eugenics policies.  The Alberta Eugenics Board operated until 1973.

A woman named Leilani Muir sued the Alberta government on behalf of a class of plaintiffs who also were sterilized under its eugenics policies.  In 1997, the Alberta's court awarded the plaintiffs millions of dollars, Leilani herself receiving an award of $740,000 in 1996.  However, instead of relenting, the Alberta government used the notwithstanding clause to limit compensation to her and to further plaintiffs seeking their own compensation under the class action .  It was only complaints from the public that shut this down.  Sadly, I don't think we have a public today that would oppose this sort of thing, as once again we have fallen aboard a similar populist bandwagon.

I attend meetings once a month with others who are interested in thinking.  This group of people I meet with include educators, retired business persons, IT consultants, journalists, etc.  These meetings are on hold over the summer, to start again in September.  We talk about a variety of subjects.  The facilitator of the group is a career educator, journalist and presenter.  He explained how society tends to move to different extremes, with today society being swayed to the alt-right.  Most in society do not believe or understand how they are repeating history, but many of us around that table have understood this to be the case.  We talk about how we as individuals can help.

I find thinking a rarity among the general population, because too many people think Dr. Google will diagnose their medical problems, that You Tube saviours will help you prepare for the end of the world and Facebook profiteers push fake news to get you to distrust moderate politicians by getting you to believe almost anything they want you to believe about them, much like Hitler's supporters got the population to buy into the new laws against the Jews.  An example of this is the Pizzagate scandal to get many Americans to believe that Hilary Clinton was behind some kind of pedophile ring.  In Canada, these same people (yes ... these are the same interests that brought Donald Trump into power) are trying to get people convinced the Trudeau wants to turn Canada into an Islamic state.  Both stories are horribly false and not only defamatory, but dangerous for democracy.       

These things are dangerous for democracy.  It has started with Muslims in our country.  Who is next?  Mexicans?  The LGBTQ community? Maybe people will just turn against each other, perhaps start dumping on people with disabilities.  This is already happening even though most readers probably don't know this.  Most people don't realize that people with disabilities that are unable to work or find work enough to support themselves are relegated to an inferior status and forced to abide by laws that nobody else is.  For example, there is no marriage equality for such persons with disabilities.  If they do try to work off the system, they will pay among the highest marginal effective tax rates in an attempt to reach self-sufficiency that no non-disabled person will ever accept.  But like the German people who watched the Nazi regime attack its minorities, today's Canadians are standing by and only thinking about themselves, wanting tax cuts, less immigration, etc. while even if all of these policies were put into effect, these individuals would not be one penny better off.  Yes, even if we spent nothing on other countries, immigrants, refugees, etc., Canadians would not be one penny better off.  Mark my words. This is something I know, but many folks refuse to believe or understand.

This "otherness" trajectory has also followed itself into my own profession, although with less of a working class flare that the anti-Muslim rhetoric plays out.  In our recent elections for the Law Society's board of directors, a slate of candidates ran on a single issue.  This was to StopSOP or to repeal the requirement that the society's licensees create a 'statement of principles' which basically gets each of us to recognize and think about our obligations under the Human Rights Code to other licensees, staff, clients and the public.  Sadly enough, certain members of our profession made a fuss about "forced speech" which it is not.  One of them already took this to court and lost, but is appealing.  To me, "forced speech" is citing the Lord's Prayer at the beginning of each day, even if you are not a Christian.  The Lord's Prayer is not a law or a way for people to consider their obligations under a law, but a belief.  This is in response to members of our profession "knowing" they have obligations under the Code, but don't really believe there is a lot of infringements at a systemic level.  There is, as many people spoke out about this.

However, the StopSOP slate won, every last one of them.  This doesn't mean they are racists, but this single issue campaign has driven away other important discussions that our profession should be having, such as access to justice, the role of the profession in systemic issues and how to deal with the onslaught of technology.  However, one must wonder.  Because the Statement of Principles was founded from a report on challenges faced by racialized licensees, folks supporting the Statement of Principles were quick to notice that twenty of the twenty two people who were part of the slate were white males and none of them were racialized minorities.  I have no problems with white males, but I have problems when a community resists diversity for its own sake.  The victory by the StopSOP may now leave a gap as to how to deal with discrimination issues felt by racialized members, who are now going the other way to express concerns about "what about them" now.

Our communities have done this writ large.  If you are not a white, Canadian born Anglo-Saxon Christian able-bodied person, preferably a male, you have a lot to worry about.  Ford's government is constantly re-iterating how "the best social program is a job", but unless Ford plans to give everybody who wants a job a position with a living wage within their communities, he can't use this.  This is part of why I do not like simple minded people.  Solutions to these issues are not that simple, or they would have resolved long ago.  

What I want to say to people here is that please think about this.  Our society has been through these things for thousands of years where it was always the "other" who was at fault for society's problems, even during the times of the Black Plague, the witches trials, slavery (and attempts to escape it), and so on and so on.  Today, our economy is changing again.  Our governments have been busy in the past few years bombing countries in the Middle East and we do not expect people to show up at our door to ask for shelter and protection?  Maybe we need to re-think our war strategies.  I don't mean to preach on these things, but I am very well educated.  I used to teach this stuff.

Sadly, one of the questions I used to ask my students is coming to fruition.  I asked them if it were possible to have the pre-holocaust killings of persons with disabilities, etc. happen again.  It has been happening in the UK under it's work assessment program, where it is cited in the British Medical Journal that over 120,000 people died or were killed as a result of this.  This excludes the 400% hike in hate crimes against people with disabilities in Great Britain as cited by author Katherine Quarmby in her book Scapegoat.  People in the UK know this is happening, but sadly continue to stand around and assume most of them are "scroungers", just like the Conservative leaders referred to them as, when this program was first implemented.  And sadly, many Ontarians continue to stand around as Doug Ford slashes program after program, thinking it will never affect them ... but then, again, remember Martin Niemoller.  It can and it will happen to you if we don't act now.

FOLKS, IT IS COLD OUTSIDE ... PLEASE DEMAND SOMETHING BETTER!

I heard that more people are dying from drug overdoses in the streets of St. Catharines over the past few years.  One time, I was sitting with friends at a downtown Tim Hortons, only to be witness to yet another fire engine, an ambulance and a police car careening to a stop in front of the old courthouse downtown.  I watched as somebody carried a body on a stretcher into the ambulance, and slowly the small crowd gathering around there disappeared.  Doug Ford's answer to this was to de-fund existing sites, or refuse to fund new supervised injections sites.  This, in favour of the many unsupervised sites that are now inhabited by many of "the people" that Ford does not speak for,  The "people" are dying everyday; occasionally, saved by somebody that will call fire or police to the scene to get naxalone to the person on time.  Many times, we only have minutes.  This goes on while they continue to "study" the issue in the legislature, as the community tries to bring attention to this issue.

Vigil after vigil attempts to explain to the broken people out there that their lives are valuable and for them not to throw it away; however, Ontario's "government for the people" has quietly shown us just whose lives are more valuable than the rest of ours ... Ford's government has decided that cuts to mental health services is the best way to resolve these issues.  Increased funding to the police at the same time appears the way to go with these folks, so that we can further criminalize the poor and the homeless, thinking this will make these problems go away.

Over the past several weeks, the news brought to our doorstep the reality of what goes on in "the people's" lives.  At least two (the ones that were publicized anyways) people jumped over the Burgoyne Bridge and onto the highway below, leaving the roads blocked by police for hours as they investigate what many of us already know: people are taking their lives more often in the past few months.  Calls for a suicide barrier, a fence or netting have made its rounds, but sadly this is another expensive band-aid for that bridge that has already costed taxpayers about $91 million.  To put barriers up, it would be yet another cost, as folks found out in Toronto when they wanted to stop people from jumping the Bloor Viaduct.  Millions of dollars went into the construction of the so-called "luminous veil", but the suicide rates in Toronto did not go down.  As somebody I knew told me at the time, if somebody really wanted to die, they will simply find another way.

In the meantime, many folks on the front line are literally walking on tenterhooks, worried about what Doug Ford has planned for the most vulnerable people on November 8, 2018, particularly those that rely on Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program.  While many receiving OW can work, there are still too many that fell into that system who are waiting to be placed on ODSP.  To make people on OW suffer, this means it is okay to make many people with disabilities suffer ... Again, these are still part of "the people" of Ontario; henceforth, with lives that are not nearly as valued as the well heeled that will be needlessly rewarded with cuts to their taxes, as less revenue is generation to provide vital health and services other "people" need.  

Some of us believe that Ford is planning to create a crisis of sorts. He followed former Premier Mike Harris' playbook by cutting deep, acting fast and blocking as much opposition before it can be formed, even daring to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to force a mid-election change in the number of Toronto council seats.  The news adds a type of contagion in the community that puts a black cloud over the heads of every person who works with those folks in the community, on the streets and in the mental health "system" (if we can call it that).  Some of this is certainly playing in the minds of at least few who have taken their lives, while most anticipate a bigger spike after November 8, 2018, if all that is being predicted with Ford's new 'social assistance system' rears its ugly head, as believed.  Those of us who were around back in the days of Harris know about the inquests, public inquiries and contempt for the public, while a number of people who died under Harris' iron fist.  We try to tell people who refuse to remember history, that they are bound to repeat it.  Sadly, many of us believe this may be too late, at least as far as Ford is concerned.

Poverty costs us a lot of money.  It costs more on a per capita basis to keep any individual poor, than it would to get that same person out of poverty.  Some say it can cost up to $100,000 a year or more to keep one person living on the streets, as opposed to putting them into safe, affordable housing.  Poverty costs us as well in terms of safety in our communities as well, both real and perceived.  It is also easy to understand that minor thefts and property crimes also go up dramatically in response to community impoverishment.  How do we know that poverty is costing us?  The signs would include hearing about how funds appear to be added to the police budget, when everything else is cut.  There appears to be louder cries for harder, tougher sentences for anybody caught on the wrong side of the law.  These things also cost us money, yet do nothing to stop the crime.

At the current time, the UK Government has been internationally criticized and monitored by human rights groups for its deep cuts it made to people with disabilities.  There has been a report of over 120,000 people dying as a direct or indirect result of these cuts over the past few years.  Reports such as this should get the International Criminal Court and groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch interested, as it was not that long ago in the 1930's that the Nazis saw fit to directly kill approximately 300,000 persons with disabilities (others say over 400,000), given that such persons were seen as non-productive and of no value.  In fact, it was reported that at one of the six facilities involved, after staff cremated their 10,000th body, they celebrated with beer.

While it would be certainly unacceptable today to take people with disabilities to gas chambers or to take them behind the woodshed to shoot them, our modern governments have created new ways to control this population.  That is through denial of basic needs, cutting necessary services for survival and attempting to force them into their definition of what passes for "productive".  This is what is happening in the UK today and leading to a disproportionate number of deaths among people with disabilities.

The whole concept of valuing human lives comes with its own irony.  Many of those in the anti-abortion movement press for laws that would protect the unborn from a mother that seeks to terminate her pregnancy.  They argue that the unborn child has "rights" and that one of those "rights" is the right to be born and to live.  However, many of these same people in the anti-abortion movement also support political parties that promote deep cuts to welfare, health care programs, supports to single mothers and mental health services.  It is almost as though that a "right to life" exists upon conception, but disappears shortly after birth, especially if that child is born into a family that is poor, disabled or of an ethnic minority in certain culturally homogeneous countries.

Our times are changing rapidly, which means many people do not understand the political and socio-cultural changes developing around them.  Most people seem to notice "more homeless people", "more food banks" and some people feel bothered by panhandlers seeking pocket change.  Many of us turn to social media, which often turns us to hateful sites or to posts that serve to denigrate these parts of our community that most need our support.  The concept of dignity and human rights is poorly understood by most.  These principles do not comes with money or celebrity.  They come naturally with any human being that lives.

I've noticed more bullying of homeless people, as well as facilities attempting to push homeless people away.  Banks are routinely locking up their ATM's at night, fences and spike coverings are placed in laneways where homeless often seek to lie down, and panhandlers are chased away from businesses and told to "move along".  They are often unwelcome in coffee shops and enclosed malls due to their appearance.  The idea of "homeless" is too often linked to "mental illness", when it is known that only a portion of those without a home suffer from such disability.  Further, it can be argued that how we treat people who are homeless can often lead to depression, anxiety and a tenuous grip on one's will to survive.

It is these trends that I am fearing, often for good reason.  My own community has had three random shootings this year.  These are the incidents where the shooter aims at anybody at random, and not specific to gang violence as we know it.  There has been a rash of stabbings downtown.  Some people are afraid to walk the street alone at night, especially in some of the seedier areas of the city.  My community has been identified as having at least the second highest rate of opioid deaths in the province.  With Doug Ford turning his attention away from this issue, it indicates to me that this form of genocide is policy.  I have also heard many of his supporters post on social media to say that allowing these people to die or commit suicide will save us all money over the long run, which again sadly reminds me of the Nazi's pre-holocaust extermination of people with disabilities.

For those of you reading this, we need change.  We need to change the attitudes of people in the community to start valuing all of its members, as everybody has a story to tell, something to offer.  We need to move away from the idea that "cutting the bums off welfare" will save us money, but understanding that once this is done, the so-called "bums" are not going to disappear.  We need to call out hate crimes against the vulnerable and hold those that perpetrate them accountable, even if some of them happen to be members of our so-called elected governments.  Lastly, we will leave you with this sad video that has opened my eyes in many ways over the years, and led me to develop an understanding of the word "dignity".

See video.  We are not claiming any rights to this video, but I recommend people watch it after they read this blog, so they can understand what is happening to people today.

Thoughts?