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?

A CRITIC WITH REAL LIVED EXPERIENCE AND THIS ELECTION

Ontario's Premier Kathleen Wynne just produced a budget, tabled it in the legislature and then simply walked down the Hall to the office of Lieutenant Governor David Onley to issue the writs to dissolve the Legislature and hold a general election on June 12, 2014.

I am a cynic when it comes to politics because the kinds of people who get into these decision-making positions don't have a clue as to what their proposals would look like on the ground.  Many of them believe people in their communities are good-hearted and empathetic towards those who are less fortunate, but many people like me have met mostly the exceptions.  This is why I try to communicate with politicians to help them understand why many of their good intentions go wrong when they hit the ground.

This budget that was just handed down produces mixed results for people receiving social assistance and more corporate welfare to the tune of $2.5 billion dollars to favourite companies in the assumption that jobs will be created, although that assumption is being challenged. Corporate welfare just enriches the company's bottom line and certainly does not keep companies in Ontario, as we've seen with Caterpillar, John Deere, U.S. Steel, among many other companies that picked up stakes and left, while paying company executives rich bonuses with OUR money.  All the same while, successive governments have put more and more rules in place to keep people receiving social assistance benefits, or in the case of ODSP -- even being married to somebody on ODSP -- from ever escaping poverty.  These government see no problem with throwing millions of dollars at successful companies to ostensibly create jobs, yet they prohibit somebody trying to start a business while in receipt of ODSP (or being married to somebody on ODSP) from hiring people to help them grow the business ... To me, if a government cared about jobs, they would not care where they are coming from, but then again, they want those trying to start a business instead to be fodder for free or low cost labour for employers that do not seem to want to help their employees get a leg up either.  As a friend of mine once told me, "Somebody has to be poor".  But what if I don't want to be that person?  There is virtually no help for anybody that wants to get out of poverty, but plenty of "support:" to keep people in it.

Included in this budget are tax measures to help promote the donation of food to food banks, among other "incentives" to keep the poverty trap in place.  To me, government should look at itself and find ways to eliminate the need for food banks to begin with, and not just up the ante so that more year old, tainted, rotten and/or sodium enmeshed foodstuffs make it into the diets of already famished and compromised individuals. With all of these convoluted tax breaks, tax cuts to profitable corporations and continued efforts at corporate welfare, in my view, it would be more productive and CHEAPER just to give people the monies they need to go purchase food for themselves and their families the same way other people do, such as at the supermarket by having the means to do so.  However, it seems that our society is so enthralled to maintain the distance and "otherness" between themselves and the poor, that these band aid solutions continue to be the only ones offered, despite their lack of success in achieving any prosperity.

In particular, I am angry at the NDP Party.  I am not angry at the NDP Party for being the Opposition and for trying to do good while they continued to prop up the Liberal minority over the past few years, but I am angry as to why they decided to vote down the budget.  True, some of the reasons given are darn good reasons to vote against the Liberal Party that seems to want to continue with their austerity agenda on the backs of those that can least afford it, but the NDP (or at least this particular member) expressed anger and disappointment that the Lankin and Sheikh dog and pony show was not implemented, despite the fact the Liberals backed down on its more negative recommendations such as merging Ontario Works and ODSP, which would in essence put people with disabilities back on welfare.  I gave up on the Conservatives because they actually not only put a policy paper together to further degrade people on assistance, but actually put forth a private member's bill to merge the two programs.

The reasoning behind the merger, say its proponents is that they believe municipalities are better equipped to know the local labour market and make connections.  Are they really?  In Niagara, I was forced to attend a "participation agreement" meeting a few years ago with one of their workers and all they had on offer were low paying, insecure and no future jobs that required little or no skills.  I have no interest in working on a farm, working in retail, working in janitorial or other similar jobs where they come and they go and there are usually no benefits, or opportunities for advancement.  If I did not have high school or even did not complete all the university or college courses that I did, I might think differently, but this one size fits all approach is a non starter with me.  Maybe they might be willing to reimburse me for all my tuition, opportunity costs of going to further education and so forth, before trying to assume one can work in a job like that. Maybe politicians should work in these jobs, then perhaps, they might start to understand why this is also a non-starter for many of us. If I want a job through the municipality, they can get me on that pays a salary commensurate with the Sunshine List like the jobs I am trained for but cannot get because I do not drive. 

Further, the Conservatives have not given up on the idea of debit cards for people receiving any kind of social assistance, meaning they would only be able to purchase food on them, which means or implies that the "housing portion" would match the maximums that currently exist like $475 for a single person on ODSP to find housing in Ontario, when the average rent is over $800 a month.  Unless the Conservatives have plans to force every landlord in Ontario to charge only the social assistance maximums for rent, then this idea is a non starter.  Then their next challenge is to force all banks that carry mortgages of people on ODSP, as well as utility companies to keep their costs aligned with social assistance maximums.  Further, people should have the right to spend their money as they choose.  To deny them this right, does not teach them anything, other than the idea that they are less of a citizen than others.  I would not hesitate to challenge such a policy under human rights and the Charter if it is ever proposed.

There are no jobs in this economy.  This is a reality that every politician of every stripe seems to be in denial of.  Even when the "good jobs" open up, it is more about who you know than what you know that opens that door for you.  If you don't drive, especially because of a medical condition, almost all jobs where I live are not open.  Self-employment is open, but unfortunately those that are still caught up in the system are denied access to escape poverty in any way possible through self-employment.  Some politicians in my own region believe we don't need transit, for example, between cities, because in their minds, "everybody drives" and they themselves have three or four cars parked in their driveway.  I am now researching all the politicians in this area and will report on who they are to the best extent to what is available in the media, as well as what they can open up about.  I am not saying all politicians are mind numbing and stupid, but if one does wish to run for public office, they should know already how to put themselves into the shoes of the other and make the changes necessary, regardless of what so called "public opinion" looks like (as quite often, especially around social assistance and poverty issues, public opinion is poorly informed).

When I fought for public transit between cities in this region, I received a lot of hate letters from people, almost all of whom I assume drive and will probably drive themselves to their own grave site when they leave this world.  A few political types also chimed in about how "nobody" uses the buses and why don't people just move closer to their jobs?  Hello?  I am self-employed.  I work all over the region, so does that mean I should pick up stakes and move every week or so?  The chime of the ignorant is so common in this region that it makes me go back to the days when All in the Family and Good Times were popular and the popularization of the welfare myths and racial inferiority were acceptable.  This region epitomizes these myths and there is very little out there to challenge them.  I am often very depressed because I need to feel I belong somewhere, and in this region thus far, I have been in difficulty of finding anywhere to belong.

I am too well educated to belong in the so called low income population, who are unfortunately mythologized to be under-educated and lack skills.  I am not visibly impaired to belong comfortably to Niagara's disability population, which comprises mostly of those with physical handicaps.  I am not part of the middle class here in the region that apparently incessantly speak about their next vacation, their son or daughter's graduation and how they will be helping them pay for university or college, or how they intend to put a pool in the backyard of their house or have guests over the following weekend.  I don't feel I belong anywhere ... but is there a program or an agency or anybody in this region that can help people feel they belong or be put into a position where they feel they belong somewhere?  Of course not!  That is why I don't use agencies, because the agencies also do not seem to see beyond the mythologies we are all fed and many of those that work in them are people who have had scant direct and personal experience living in poverty, with a disability or any kind of long-term stigmatizing situation.  They never had to dig themselves up from the bottom.

Politicians do not come to my neighbourhood because only about 15% of eligible voters vote where I live. To me, if people choose not to vote, they DO become part of the problem.  As somebody who usually works the elections, I know by polling area who and how many vote, although we don't know who voted for whom.  Politicians know and receive socioeconomic data, employment data, educational data, age data and so forth, about every single polling district.  This data is comprised in part from the Census and Statistics Canada, as well as through surveys sponsored by the political parties themselves.  In the way, politicians are human and they will sell to those who will actually vote.  If it appears that those in the middle-class and higher are the ones that do most of the voting, then there is no reason whatsoever to cater to those living in poverty or the working class.  I do know that even theoretically if every low income person that is eligible to vote comes out to vote, there would be a major shift in our politicians' thinking, from all political parties ... not just the ones we think are most supportive.  After all, it was Mike Harris and the Conservatives that moved the equality of gays and lesbians most forward during the 1990's in all their legislative initiatives.  Why?  Because the gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans community votes ... in blocks.

At the same time, the poor vote in the fewest numbers.  To further their plight, the poor tend to eat their own. In a group, I can speak to several individuals who identify themselves as being poor.  A few of them will always have somebody, whether they be immigrants, whether they be sex trade workers, or refugees, who have it better than they all do, or they know a "friend of a friend of a friend" who somehow got onto ODSP without having any kind of disability whatsoever, while they themselves struggle on OW and have to fight to get on.  This kind of speech I call trash talk.  That trash talk has to stop.  If the poor community as a whole wants to see their needs met through the political system and their community, they have to stop the trash talk. Hudak attempted to separate unionized and non-unionized workers and public sector and private sector workers by trying to sell us a "right to work" bill that would effectively weaken unions.  Those not in unions supported the bill as they feel people in unions get "too much", while those in unions disliked the bill - and as a result, if this infighting would continue, any effectiveness of a pro-worker movement would be diminished. This is the same effect that occurs when poor people trash talk other poor people.

The third thing that poor people fail to do is organize.  There are too many poor people that are content to let the agencies speak for them.  I have nothing against the agencies, but the agencies do not speak directly for those living in poverty, although they often do have good ideas.  Much of their lobbying especially tough economic times, however, tends to be focused on keeping their agencies alive and funded, which may or may not be helpful for the people they work with.  That does not put another penny in the pocket of someone who is in deep poverty.  Especially anathemic to poor people's movement is the voice of the charitable sector, which hardly ever advocate to ask why people are poor, but to simply solicit more and more donations from the public.  The problem with this is that this detracts from the fight to improve the lot of people who are living in poverty.  Many members of the public stop caring about poverty issues given they have done "what they could" by donating to some food drive or the Salvation Army's Christmas drive.  

The work of these charities is done in good faith, of course ... but it does not lighten the load off the person living in poverty, as they still are not one single step closer to escaping the poverty dragon's jaw. The only solution is to get people to speak for themselves and to facilitate this work.  Agencies can lend people their boardrooms or their community meeting rooms to hold meetings to organize events.  Agencies can help these emerging associations apply for grant monies to pay for special events and leadership forums.  Agencies can become more inclusive, whereby they will examine their own practices and protocols so that barriers to governance and leadership within their own organizations are removed for those that want to join boards or become employed at the agency.  Agencies can also organize volunteers to assist their clients in getting out to vote by arranging for rides to the polls, or by providing them with information about each of the candidates that are running in their area.  If ID is an issue, identification workshops can be held to ensure that people have the proper ID to vote with.  I remember one time working for Elections Canada some of the barriers that owners of residential care homes threw at us to prevent their residents from voting, one of which boldly told us that none of their residents were mentally capable of voting.  I remember phoning the district returning officer who then spoke to the manager involved and they had to let us in to enumerate their residents, most of whom definitely did want to vote and were asking us how they can get to the polls.  Imagine if all poor and vulnerable people were able to get to the polls and vote.  To me, it would make a big difference in terms of political priorities, maybe not right away, but the shift will be felt for years to come.

Your thoughts?