RIDING ON THE FOURTH WAVE ... A TOTALLY PREVENTABLE TRANSMISSION

Now that many people have received their COVID-19 vaccines, we are continuing to see sabotage by parties that are eagerly and aggressively trying to keep the world in this pandemic.  I almost wonder if the pandemic did mysteriously end, what the next topic of their attention would be, or would they simply run  out of conspiracies to picket the rest of us about?  They claim to be against lockdowns and similar measures which they claim cause financial grief, among other things, especially for small business owners.  Yet, almost all of what they do contributes to the spread and disinformation about COVID-19, where others may be encouraged to take up similarly risky practices.  In turn, this contributes to more people getting ill, going to hospitals and locking up too many beds, up to a point where governments reluctantly have to impose yet another lockdown.

It seems that whenever any attempt is made to mitigate the spread of the virus, a growing minority of the public will attempt to sabotage all efforts on the part of public officials in the name of their "individual freedoms".  They claim the measures are all part of an unproven global conspiracy designed to enact a "communist" regime on everybody, where nobody will be allowed to own anything, be forced into poverty, etc.  When the vaccines came out, we began to notice on a global basis on how effective the vaccines were in preventing severe cases and deaths.

However, the group of naysayers want to claim that the vaccines were made of aborted fetuses and are neurotoxins which will kill.  They point to a website that shows a list of reported injuries as evidence that the vaccines are dangerous, which is not even evidence as these reports have not been proven to be caused by the vaccines.  One guy from one of the online groups claimed to be an "authority" on wrongful death issues when his bio even for the same website stated no degrees apart from documentary/film maker.  This website does not even have vaccine as its focus; most of the issues arise from other causes of "wrongful death".  It is quite dismaying that anybody with an Internet account can claim expertise in this area, despite the fact that it may be contributing to many deaths and illness.

Over the past year, over five million died around the world of this COVID-19, while tens of millions of others are suffering from long COVID-19, a disabling condition that nobody knows much about, but is associated with getting the condition and then, never quite recovering even though they may no longer be transmissible.  I see people losing their businesses, their employability as well as their quality of life, because of the continuation of this pandemic, and the utmost refusal a selfish minority of people that refuse to abide by reasonable public health guidelines.  Long COVID-19 is alleged to found among 10 to 30% of survivors.  They try to cope amidst crippling fatigue, headaches, weakness and other health conditions.  Some can continue to work, but many cannot.

So far, disability insurers are rejecting claims of long COVID-19, although at some point, they will have to accept them, as they did in the past for fibromyalgia, regional sympathetic dystrophy, myasthenia gravis, Lyme Disease, myeloencephalopathy syndrome, amongst other conditions and illnesses we researched over the years to assist our clients in qualifying for disability benefits.  We currently have a few that are suffering from long COVID-19 and have no more money to their name.  Unlike these protesters out there that seem to be drowning in funds to pay legal bills, full page ads, carpooling and various organization strategies to get to the current federal election campaign, particularly Trudeau..

Throughout the pandemic, I have become more disgusted by the level of antipathy and ableism that the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers have been showing to the people with real disabilities.  This is not to say that there may be some people out there that cannot take a vaccine, or use a mask, but their numbers are certainly not as high as the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers are exemplifying.  As a person with a disability, I sometimes would love to see these people have to live with a real disability that challenges them from their privileged perch in life, such as not being able to drive, not being able to work, or not being able to function in a day to day way, or requiring care from other people. 

Virtually all of them at these protests are walking fine, talking fine, often carrying signs or other props to register their anger, as well as being able to shout in concert with the other sheep they hang around with, citing the same disinformation that any other of their ilk would cite to anybody that asks.  They claim to have an independent mind, but none that question the veracity of their own experts, most of whom have no credentials to say what they have said, or the wrong ones.  These people are usually quite privileged, as many of them have funds to pay for full page ads, legal fees, videos, full colour flyers, filled to the brim with their lies and outrage.  If they were worried about where their next meal is coming from, I am almost certain they would be protesting about that, but they are not.

In exploring the origins of their claims, the Centre for Countering Digital Hate found that over 65% of the fake information about the vaccines, COVID-19, etc, have come from the Disinformation Dozen.  These individuals are named, identified and all of them, except for perhaps Robert F. Kennedy, have their hands into the alt-right.  Members of the alt-right only care about rights as they pertain to themselves only.  They do not care about the rights of others, or the rights of one's community to be free of certain menaces.  Most want unabated free speech, where even yelling Fire! at the back of a movie theatre would be acceptable.  They want the right to express their hateful feelings for members of excluded groups or racial minorities.  They want the right to teach or publish these thoughts onto others, so that others will adopt their cruel ways of thinking. In many ways they already are and we are seeing the harm that this is causing.

These ideas of freedom are shared by the alt-right, the same people who do not want to pay any taxes or follow any laws set down by any government that are only in place for safety reasons.  Many of them are gun nuts, flagrantly racist, anti-immigration and against any kind of social safety net the state may offer or provide to those less fortunate than themselves. Many of us watched them live on television when they tried to stage a coup at the White House on January 6. When one asks them if they wear seat belts when they drive, many say they do, but are unable to explain why.  The actions of these people in different parts of the democratic world have brought back the likes of polio, whooping cough, measles and to some extent, tuberculosis.  These diseases will in turn become endemic and usually become a killer only for those who are very poor or very vulnerable.  The same groups of people the alt-right hates, and desires the world to be rid of.

These people claim our Charter of Rights and Freedoms disallows these kinds of infringements.  This has not yet been proven, but attempts to take it to various courts so far has proven to be wanting in specifics.  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms also has a s. 1 whereby any act or omission on the part of government that can be deemed as unconstitutional can be deemed justifiable in a free and democratic society, or what some might refer to as the "public interest".  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not about ".me, me, me", as these folks seem to believe.  It is about balancing the interests of individuals against that of the public interest, which is very much at stake here when people are dying, hospitals are getting crowded, people are getting long COVID, etc.  

Many claim religion is a protected right.  It is, but the right to gather in person when there is a global pandemic amidst public health orders is not necessarily a protected right.  The Justices in this decision did say 'this assertion is greatly overstated', as there are many ways a religious organization can deliver services to its parishioners, citing examples such as online services, drive-in services, private prayer, and so on.  Travel restrictions imposed on travelers returning to Canada before the widespread availability of vaccinations were also found to meet the "justifiable limits" clause. When I posted this to a discussion group, many responded to say this would be overturned on appeal.  This is highly doubtful at this point, as courts really do not want to be in the business of restricting people's rights.  Our common law situation seems to trend to least restrictive settings.  I agree there are more cases out there being tested and as they move up the ladder to the Supreme Court, I am confident our laws would be upheld for many reasons.

To me, the people who are challenging these laws are people with a lot of money behind them, as they obviously are not committed to changing many of the laws that are unfairly and permanently impairing the rights of others, such as poor folks, people with real disabilities, racialized people.  Many of these fights for narrow interests are usually taken up by such right wing litigation groups like the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.  One of my friends approached that group recently to see if they would take up the cause of equal marriage for people with disabilities, but of course, this does not fall within their mandate.  We have rights to refuse a vaccine, but we do not have positive rights to enjoy the same fruits of our labour that other people do, or to engage in the same and equal marriages that other parties have without losing most or all of one's benefits.  We can die with our rights on, is what they are saying, because we do not have the financial backing that the alt-right has.

Actions have been taken by anti-maskers to harass businesses and local governments.  The mistake they put in the provincial law called the Reopening Ontario Act implied businesses were supposed to serve any person who walks in their door without a mask who claims to be exempt.  We are not allowed to ask for proof, or what makes them exempt.  Totally open to abuse.  Those I know claiming that exemption walk, talk, breathe and act fine and healthy.  In fact, I do know a couple of people who could claim exemptions that put on a mask anyways, because they are afraid not to.  The anti-maskers ruined it for them.  If they want to further their case to a human rights tribunal, they would likely lose, if they have no documented reason for exemption.  If claiming a breach of human rights, one needs to prove there is a disability or a legitimate creed (that opposes masks, for example).  Sadly, some have abused this "right to not disclose" to almost extort some businesses.

I am absolutely dismayed that these fringe elements have the right to do this, knowing that what they are doing is destroying some of our social fabric that keeps Canada together.  They are also potentially forcing us into another lockdown.  Governments are trying to avoid another lockdown by setting up vaccine passports of like, so that if people seek to attend non-essential businesses like restaurants, night clubs, bars, gyms and the like, they would have to show a QR code or something to prove they have been fully vaccinated.  Instead of showing their support of something like this, the anti-vax crowd went bananas, because they want absolutely no public health restrictions at all and to let many people die, not caring who becomes collateral damage from their rage.  They are two year old children taking a fit because once again, they are not getting their way.  To many of us, if they want lockdowns, let them enjoy the effect of lockdowns without dragging the rest of us with them.

Of course, Ontario is not making their plans effective until after the federal election.  The federal election will be reviewed in a companion piece later.  I have become less of a participant in elections lately, as it seems this is so scripted and how the so-called democracy we have has been decimated.

The ERA of Fake News, Clickbait and Hyper-Partisanism

Since the present pandemic began, or even a bit preceding this, the idea of Fake News became popular.  This was popular among interests that wanted to get their readers to believe certain lies in the community.  The anti-vaxxers tell unwitting parents that the normal childhood array of vaccines cause autism and indirectly, try to discourage their parents from vaccinating their kids.  The anti-maskers try to lie about the efficacy of mask wearing and how somehow, being required to do so in the midst of a global pandemic, is an infringement of our Charter rights.  The travel requirements posed by our federal government to limit the spread of the variant COVID-19 virus are now aligned with sending people to the gulag.  The reason they had to step up on this was because local resources set out to enforce in-home quarantines were not successful, with roughly half of these cases breaking the quarantine.

Those leading the fight to defeat these restrictions only care about the rights to infect others, to go wherever and whenever one pleases during a pandemic and to life all restrictions at a time, when some restrictions may be necessary.  Every country around the world was affected by the pandemic and they all imposed restrictions, except for some time under Donald Trump who just believed at first that the virus was a hoax, or was like the flu and it would just "go away", as deaths began to mount in that country.  The US did, in fact, become number 1, after all in this pandemic: the most cases, the most deaths, the highest transmission rate.  This was because Trump did not set any public health standards and state initiatives were mixed and as a result of inter-state travel, many of these were not as effective as they could be.  

I consider some of these so-called constitutional rights groups that fight for our so-called rights do not consider democracy and the interests of the community as a whole.  To these people, it is perfectly fine to be forced to live under a bridge because you cannot find a job or are too sick to work in one, and be unable to afford to live somewhere, but their rights are on ... they do not have to wear a mask, at least.  And they can attend their wacky religious cult at its building despite very clear public health orders about indoor gatherings. One of these same groups recently took up the cause of trying to diminish the universality of our Canada Health Act and provincial health services (in BC) by fighting on behalf of a BC doctor and two private clinics.  It did not matter to the proponents of that suit that if they won, that health care in Canada would become further balkanized and people with fewer resources would be de facto denied health care due to being unable to pay or afford to carry the right insurance.  Groups like this also go to places like the US and tell them lies about our health care system.  While it is far from perfect, people do get the help they need and emergencies are dealt with promptly.  Unfortunately, that has not been the message given to people in the US, many of whom see Canada's health care as "socialist" - again, a term they do not know the meaning of, or what exactly they are accepting.

Then came Trump.  I would love to know how he dazzled millions of Americans, including those living in a abject poverty.  How they actually believed that Trump would act in their interests, nobody knows. Under the US' former administration, a health care marketplace was put into place, which was a small beginning, but certainly not the completion of Obama's final plans to make health insurance accessible and affordable to everybody.  Under this plan, more Americans received some type of health coverage than they did before this was put into place.  Along came Trump. He then tried to tear down Obamacare under the guise that this was "socialist" and fascist for requiring people to sign up.  Many people would sign up and have the same coverage under Medicaid if finances were an issue.  Insurance companies were no longer allowed to discriminate on the basis of pre-existing condition.  Trump took this away under the guise that nobody should have to sign up, that this was somehow an infringement of people's rights to sign up for health care.

Trump would carry on promising everybody that he would create "great health care" that would be good for all Americans, yet there was not a single step done in that direction.  He lied to everybody, yet his supporters believed him, as many of them lost coverage they might have had under Obamacare.  He campaigned against Hillary Clinton when she ran for the presidency as his opponent, citing some ambiguous scandals or crimes she allegedly committed.  He would hold rallies where his supporters would yell "Hillary for prison 2016".  If there was such evidence, would you not think that she would be charged with some type of crime and tried for it?  Even Martha Stewart and Conrad Black were tried and convicted for offences that were less than that alleged for Clinton.  Of course, when nothing like this is pursued, this is obviously hyperbole.

Then combine this with the social media.  The social media is the worst place to obtain accurate information about anything, even political or community events.  Everybody has an opinion, but nobody has the facts.  The concept of privilege becomes more visible online, as people feel more free to attack minorities, low income people, refugees, among others.  They are safely ensconced behind their computer screens, not paying attention to the impact of their words, nor do they care.  Again, there is a reckless regard for the truth, as well as an unwillingness on the part of the dominant participant to see beyond their own privilege.  In speaking about minorities, etc., those posting or commenting know a "friend of a friend".  This is not factual, nor is this statistical, even if the story about the "friend of a friend" has some truth in it.  However, repeating the story about the "friend of a friend" on social media leads to others with equally privileged lens helps to spread lies and stereotypes about "the other".  This creates one type of "othering" on the Internet.

Another type of "othering" is the social acceptance of division.  On PBS, I watched an episode before the US election, where neighbours in a duplex were supporting different Presidential candidates.  On supported Biden; the other supported Trump.  The Trump supporters only watched Fox News, were suspicious of new ethnic communities joining their neighbourhood and were against entitlement programs, never mind the fact one of them was receiving some type of state disability after being off work for almost a year.  The Biden supporters watched CNN, were not concerned about new people in the neighbourhood and felt that during the pandemic, more support should be given to individuals who had lost their employment.  Even the whole concept of wearing a mask became a political issue, with Biden supporters wearing one, Trump supporters not.  

Online, Trump supporters often used hyperbole to describe their opponents.  Instead of addressing the specific comments their opponents made, they would refer to their opponents as "liberals", "communists", "socialists", etc., of course, not even knowing what the real meaning of these words are.  To me, this is a poor admission that they had lost the argument, although they would never see themselves as losing the argument.  These arguments are usually baseless and not based on firm information; if links or "evidence" is involved, fake news outlets often get cited, or references to somebody's blog or a recent news story is used.  When complicated arguments about the pandemic and what should be done about it are produced, rarely do we see peer reviewed research to back either side of the argument.  If somebody does produce peer reviewed research, they are told it is biased because some organization for "vaccine choice" does not agree with it.  I do not know what this does to further anybody's knowledge of the subject matter.

There are even more "news stories" published on social media from fake news sources than anywhere else.  Just google whatever you want and you will find fake news on at least some of the sources that come up.  I personally do not find it productive to follow a leader like Trump, Scheer, O'Toole or anybody, for that matter, if I do not know or care about their policies.  Policy is what I follow, not politics or partisanship.  Unfortunately, Trump has seemed to attract a number of adherents to cult-like thinking and for some, dangerous conspiracy theories.  I heard them before.  The Second Coming of Christ.  Okay, if the end is near, why are you telling everybody?  Why are you still working?  Why do you even bother to shop for groceries or clothing or whatever?  Why do you even bother to try to convince others of your beliefs?  If this was true, you would just wait to get raptured, because, obviously, this is what you think is going to happen.  You don't need to dress up for it, feed yourself before the rapture or earn money, because the Lord is supposed to take care of all of that ... so just go. Trying to spend all your time on the Internet convincing others the end is near, particularly those that are critical thinkers, is a waste of time.

Other conspiracy types tend to unknowingly side with the "alt-right".  Free-dumb is mistakenly taken for "freedom".  The alt-right have come up with all sorts of terms to describe the "other".  One I get a particular kick out of is "antifa".  I never met anybody who considers themselves part of "antifa", nor is there any such organization.  When you ask one of the alt-right people where one can find the nearest "chapter" of "antifa", and who its president, secretary, treasurer and so on, are, they are baffled.  They have no idea what you are talking about, but then again, you are not the one who is making up words that do not make sense.  Yes, over the summer there was a blast of protests by a movement called "Black Lives Matter".  This was not a violent movement.  In discussing this online, one guy said that Black Lives Matter burned down cities, and when you asked them to name one city they burned down, they cannot do so.  There is always some people that join certain protests to cause trouble, who are actually not even part of the protest.  

During the G20 in 2010, a group of people known as the Black Bloc, were solely responsible for a considerable amount of damage to police cars, buildings, etc., while the main protesters tried to steer away from them.  I do not know if somebody like the Black Bloc came into the couple of protests that did arise in problems with the Black Lives Matter but, violence and destruction in that movement was minimal when you consider this movement erupted all over the world, in many major cities and included people of all races, genders and ages.  Nevertheless, at many of the US protests for these groups, police officers bearing riot gear were ready for them and in some communities, white vans drove by, stopped and picked up some of them to take them somewhere (and in watching the videos, one cannot tell what they did to deserve this.

Nevertheless, when former President Donald Trump and his brethren decided to bring his supporters to the Capitol and encourage them to be strong and take back the election that he kept claiming was "stolen from them", ten to fifteen thousand of them proceeded to the Capitol to carry out acts of destruction, violence and even citing angry words like "Hang Mike Pence".  Some of them had intent to potentially kidnap some of the legislators and push them out.  They were trying to prevent the inevitable from happening, which was the certification of the election results in favour of Joe Biden.  At least five people died that day and several days later, one of the Capitol Police Officers committed suicide.  Unfortunately, members of the alt-right had nothing to say about the destruction, violence and civil disobedience this day brought.  A few tried to blame it on "antifa", whoever they are.

As times goes on, we are realizing this intrusion was planned ahead of time.  Somebody let these people in to the Capitol buildings and directed them down the rabbit warren of offices so they knew where particular people worked, such as Nancy Pelosi (Speaker of the House), Chuck Schumer (now Majority Leader of the Senate) and Mike Pence (former Vice-President).  There were only four hundred police officers on duty for the Capitol that day, while that force is two thousand five hundred strong.  Other police forces were called in for backup, but it took several hours for them to arrive.  It was as if this was planned and orchestrated to maximize the amount of damage this crowd can do.  Among this crowd were members of the Proud Boys, Soldiers of Odin, local militias and Q Anon.  People were witnessed wearing t-shirts showing the words "Six Million was Not Enough" and "Camp Auschwitz".  All of them were white, mostly male although some females were involved as well.

For months, Trump and his gang spread the lie that he actually won the election and the somehow, there was massive fraud in the election process.  There were no less than sixty-two lawsuits filed and presented at various levels of court, including the Trump friendly Supreme Court of the US.  None of them would hear the case because the lawyers, interested in maintaining their law licenses, admitted they did not have any evidence of "massive fraud".  After this, Trump began to contact and effectively threaten state election officials, many of whom were Republican.  They refused to budge, citing that the election process was fair and secure.  He fired his top officials who also told him the same thing.  One such election official, from Georgia, recorded a telephone call made by Trump in an attempt to get him to change the votes.  If this was not clear tampering with an election, what would be?

Some people from Q Anon, a major conspiracy theory group, actually believed that Trump would come back, arrest Biden and then take power again and when this did not happen, they were upset.  I swear that if Trump offered cyanide laden Kool Aid to his followers, most would have happily taken it.  From the minute Trump was running for election, I saw through him and warned others about him.  I was called all sorts of names, which I will not repeat here.  Many of my fellow Canadians are unfortunately stuck in the Trump swamp as well.  Over the years, I lost a few good friends of mine who were once progressive, believed in universal health care and better support for people living on the street, living in poverty and so forth, who got swept up with the Trump virus.  I have nothing to say to them anymore.  I do not want a similar leader here in Canada.

These same people write posts about Trudeau committing treason and admitting known "terrorists" into Canada and so forth.  I ask if they would prefer the CONS that would simply strip us all of universal health care, have to pay out of pocket, remove all safety nets including worker's comp, ODSP and CPP, and none of them seem to care.  They either believe it would not happen to them, or these Conservative leaders were much like the ones heading from Mulroney and backwards who kept social programs as a sacred trust.  These "new" Conservatives are nothing like the older ones.  The "new" ones are usually millionaires, having been born that way and have no idea what it is like to have to pay rent, pay bills or to actually look for a job.  Many have not held any real jobs.  

Justin Trudeau could have been like that (as he was a trust fund baby too), but he chose to work: he taught school, which is a licensed profession.  This is more than what can be said for the majority of our Conservative leaders.  I do not see how any of them would have any understanding or knowledge whatsoever how their policies impact or do not impact on the rest of us.  Under Harper, I tracked how much more money ordinary people around me kept in their pockets as a result of his policies.  After reviewing their tax returns (as a group) and their weekly pay stubs, most actually paid MORE in taxes than prior to Harper's government.  I knew a few that did pay less in taxes, but they earned well over $120,000 a year.  The reason people paid more is because the wealthier set paid less.  Even Doug Ford was trounced upon by Moody's and Dominion Bond Rating Services for not bringing in enough revenue (because he chose to blow billions of dollars at the outset to cut taxes for his wealthy clique).

Yet, many people continue to rant on about how they have proof the end times is near.  They refer to the "Great Re-Set" and Agenda 21, which I read and shows absolutely nothing about what they are saying.  Maybe this pandemic might be an opportunity for some government leaders to re-think how they manage the economy, but I really do not think this is going to happen.  Throughout the pandemic, only outfits like Amazon, WalMart and other big companies made big bucks, while small businesses closed or lost money.  Small businesses need the help, not big oil and gas, or Amazon or anybody else.  The larger companies have access to credit, hold assets that can be leveraged and so forth, while most small businesses do not have that advantage.  Yet it is small business that does the most hiring.  Exactly what does any government, or even supporters of the conservative agenda (which is to subsidize Big Oil and Gas, tax breaks for the wealthy) think is going to happen when 50% of small businesses collapse?

I do not consider myself a left or right political analyst.  I write about what I observe.  I fully support the free market.  Unfortunately, what we had was not the free market, but an oligopoly.  We are becoming more and more like the US, where social class is starting to look like a caste system.  Even my friends that make over $120,000 a year under paid less taxes under Harper have recently expressed concerns about this themselves.  Others I know are willing to pay a little bit more taxes if it meant that we still had a strong health care system, a solid social safety net and help for the homeless.  In the midst of this pandemic, people are losing their homes, their families and their infrastructure.  What we need is a proper discussion as to how to get from here to clear and leave the conspiracy theories and fake news behind.

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.

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?

THE MYTH OF DRIVING AS A PRIVILEGE WHEN ONLY THE PRIVILEGED CAN DRIVE

Often I attend overcrowded Provincial Offences Courts in the Region, where individuals and companies are charged with various offences.  If you can get past the line-ups to the front to speak to the Prosecutor and wait your turn, quite often the Justice of the Peace explodes into a tirade about how driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right.  Reviewing the dockets on these days is an amazing test of stoicism, whereby one sees one person after the other charged with "driving while under suspension", "driving without a policy of insurance", or various other charges, whereby a failure to deal with as such can result in an automatic suspension of your license.  If people plead guilty to driving while under suspension, the Ministry of Transportation assesses a further six months of license suspension on the convicted defendant.  Defences for this charge are rare, as this offence is considered a "strict liability" offence, which means in essence you should have known better.  In theory, all of this makes sense, but in reality this whole concept needs a rethink.

On the other hand, I come across dozens of individuals in my practice who have been diagnosed with medical conditions that have led to an administrative suspension of their licenses on a temporary or permanent basis.  If people think this only happens to older people, they are mistaken.  Virtually all of those I have dealt with were significantly under sixty five, one being a mere twenty-three years old.  Once again, the Ministry is enforcing this whole theory about driving a vehicle being a privilege, again never questioning what happens to the person or their family once that "privilege" is revoked even on a short term basis.  A few of them come to my office and do get a greater than average chance of being placed on the Ontario Disability Support Program, simply because one is now unemployable because they lost their privilege to drive.  One adjudicator here looked me in the eye and asked me to convince her of this, citing there was "plenty of" transit service in the area.  I then readily produced a large package of advertisements copied from the newspaper, Internet or other job posting services, whereby almost all jobs demand of their candidates a valid G driver's license and usually, daily access to their own vehicle.  I then place the rhetorical question as to where this person is supposed to work if they cannot get their license.  If one thinks the state should not provide for these people, then think again.  If you are an employer, will YOU hire them?

In essence, driving is not a privilege here in Niagara, but nevertheless, the privileged are the only ones allowed to drive and thereby obtain all the benefits arising therefrom.  Those that have never experienced the issues above tend to blame the individuals and have in their mind an idea that they are "better than" those who have had their licenses revoked or suspended.  The truth is most license suspensions are not due to driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but instead unpaid fines and medical reasons.  Many of my clients were not aware they were suspended because for whatever reason, they did not receive the letter in the mail.  In an average community, including Niagara Region, thirty percent of its residents over the age of sixteen do not drive.  Many people do not drive because they cannot afford to own and maintain their own vehicle, which means living here in this region will perpetuate that cycle indefinitely because there are no jobs available to those that cannot or choose not to drive. Employers just assume everybody drives, or they want to exclude the riff raff that doesn't, as those discriminatory requirements are in place in almost every job, not just jobs where the bone fide components largely involve driving.  As a result, the majority of people with disabilities, students, older persons and low income persons are trapped into this legislated cycle of poverty, perpetuated by accepted prejudice and legalized discrimination.

It is not just in employment, non-drivers are discriminated against or treated disdainfully by their community.  In order for a driver to remove their lens of privilege, they need to leave their car at home or dispose of it somewhere for more than a month, and then try to carry on their life regardless of not driving.  I would ask them to transport their children to school, drop them off at daycare (which may or may not be close by or at a bus stop), go to work, attend all of one's work meetings or attendances without a vehicle even if this means going to another city for a meeting, and then after work, return to pick up their kids, stop to grab a few groceries and then go home.  In the evening, after dinner (which means privileged workers get to be home by six), there might be time to take in a movie or go for a quick work out at the gym or the YMCA.  Remember, do not use your vehicle, just go to these places anyways ... enjoy the two hour trip there and the two hour trip back, to such a point where you do not want to go there anymore, as it is too much trouble.

As a non driver, you will eventually discover you cannot just do a grocery run on your way back home, as you do not have the time or the bus fare or flexibility in doing so.  You will find you have to take up one of your precious weekend days to do it, if your job or business allows you to have weekends in the first place.  For those without a vehicle, grocery shopping is a bigger chore than it is for those that do drive.  You can only go to the grocery store every week or every two weeks to do this.  You cannot shop at multiple locations.  Tough luck if there's a special in the meat department at one store and a special on produce in the other.  You can't go to both, because once you leave the first store, there is nowhere to put your groceries while you go to the second store to get the balance of them.  Drivers simply put the groceries from the first store into their trunk, but remember if you are leaving your car at home, there is no trunk, so you have to stick to one place.  Research has shown this will cost you at least 15% more even if you normally purchase the same products from two or three locations.  Once you finish the groceries, you need to get them home.  You only have two hands, so taking them on a bus might be impractical, especially if you live a long way from the grocery store.  Many phone a cab.  Cab companies, while charging an arm and a leg for their service, are not reliable transportation for people who work shifts, taking home groceries, or need transport for medical reasons. CT Scams, dialysis and some other non-emergency medical trips are required on a 24-hour basis.  Drunks, however, get instant service, while it is not unheard of for people to wait at a hospital, a grocery store or elsewhere for two or more hours to get a cab if one comes at all.  That is the kind of "service" and respect people that don't drive get in my own region.

I often hear drivers complain about the cost of gas, insurance, maintenance, etc. for their cars; however, it is more than likely that they have been able to secure employment that pays them enough to cover these expenses, while non-drivers have to pay five to ten times the amount drivers pay on a per kilometer basis and struggle financially.  I have no sympathy for vehicle owners, as they pay much less on a month to month basis than I do to get to fewer places.  In effect, our government, likely through the heavy influence of the auto industry, driving has become a necessity, not just for getting around, but for maintaining one's dignity and belonging to the community one lives in.  After all of these years, I have little attachment to the region because I feel I don't belong here.  I wouldn't miss much if I ever had the funds to move elsewhere.  Non drivers do not go to community events because usually these events are held on statutory holidays, where the transit service is non existent or unreliable.  Relying on other people for transportation is not a dignifying alternative in my region. Most drivers consider it a huge sacrifice to help someone else get somewhere, even if it is to go to the same place they are going anyways.  Non drivers don't have the same ability to use many community services, such as going to garage sales, trading on Kijiji or participating in a swap service, as drivers consider that if they are giving an item away for free, the person wanting it should come to get it.  If all of my transportation needs could be met by me driving my own vehicle, I would actually be able to escape poverty.  This is unfortunately never considered in discussions to find solutions to poverty.

It is harder to get somebody to invest in my business, because they think they will be stuck being a "taxi" for me, or having to sacrifice much of the firm's value on alternative transportation services for myself, thus not allowing the firm to make as much net profit as it would otherwise.  Many of my items have been "returned to sender" because I have been unable to take the full afternoon off to go to the Carlton Street location where the post office seems to send my packages, when in fact I have a post office near my office where it should go instead if I was not present when the package was first delivered.  Other times I had to pay over $20 in taxi fares to do so, so that my afternoon would not be wasted waiting for buses, etc.  To me, my whole community disrespects and treats with impunity non drivers because it could.  They want to force everybody to buy a car, yet thirty percent of the community does not drive and eleven percent do not have access to a vehicle or driver in their household.  I have encountered many members of that eleven percent. Very few are gainfully employed and if so, they are substantially under employed.  If they are young enough, they tend to make plans to leave the region to go elsewhere, because they see others older than themselves stuck here.  I am still trying to figure out what I had done to deserve the kind of maltreatment and disrespect that is rained upon me here in Niagara.

To me, if the Ministry of Transportation wants to maintain its right to decide who can and cannot drive a motor vehicle, and to retain this activity under license and privilege, then it has to provide meaningful, effective and reliable alternatives to those that cannot drive, cannot afford to drive, choose not to drive or who have been suspended for any reason, so these people can access most jobs and get around conveniently.  They would also work with the courts, human rights commissions and other enforcement bodies to ensure that denying people access to employment, other than jobs as drivers (e.g. taxi driver), should be made illegal and such companies would be forced to pay out enough funds so that the non driver can comfortably live without a job.  It should cost employers to deny access to jobs in this way.  If they complain and say, well people have to go here and go there, then too bad - find another way for this to work.  Put the onus on the company to ensure all of its staff can do the essential duties of the job.   Municipalities should also enforce the AODA if cab and private transportation companies even want to keep their license to operate.

For cab companies, I am sorry, but drunks are the last priority for pick-up.  If priorities were exercised properly, and medical, community and employment related trips were prioritized in that order, then drunks will only have to wait an extra ten to fifteen minutes.  This is not an undue hardship on either the drunks or the company itself, as they will still get their fares for all of these rides anyways.  They lose no money.  For priority trips, it should provide a ride within twenty minutes or the ride is free - simple as that.  Dispatchers have access to software where all requests are spelled out and priorities can be taken.  It would not be a substantial hardship to put medical, community (getting groceries) and employment at the top of the list for all dispatchers, while the drunks can wait a few extra minutes and will get taken home as well in a reasonable period of time. The later at night it is, there would be less "priority" trips, so it would not be an undue hardship.  Cab companies will complain about how they will now have to organize their fleets this way, but this is THEIR problem, not mine.  I am tired of waiting and waiting and waiting for taxis while my food is going bad, or in the rain, because some drunk needs to get home from some festival I couldn't get to anyways.

As somebody who has been unable to obtain a driver's license for years due a medical condition, and even if that were resolved, going back to the graduated system in place would be impossible for me at my age.  That should apply strictly for people under twenty five, as most of them still have access to parents that would be willing to assist, even though mine never did help me at all when I was that age (but my understanding is that most people's parents have been there for them and mine were in the minority even for my generation).  If the Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ministry of Infrastructure and other Ministries think that upgrading RELIABLE alternative transportation for communities is going to cost too much, then they need to reconsider what it costs for the individuals that are deliberately left behind, especially by the Ministry deciding if somebody can or cannot drive ... with the right to make this decision should come the responsibility for ensuring access to jobs and the community for those ruled out of driving.  I don't give a fig about the cost, especially when I have no way of accessing regular employment and enjoying a life where my stress levels can be kept at a minimum.  What if these people ruled out of driving for whatever reason did not want to be on Ontario Works or ODSP, or unemployed?

Then I would say the onus goes back to the government and our policy makers to make driving indeed a REAL CHOICE, and not deprive people of an income just because they cannot, choose not or cannot afford to drive. In my view, if this position were taken by all communities, there will be less dangerous or risky drivers on the road, so it will be much safer for those that do drive.

I am interested in hearing from folks that have concerns about this issue.