Welcome Back to Civilization, America!

Poor Bashers Tend to Be Hypocrites

I’ve now received this thing for the third time this month. It makes me vomit. Why? Read on…

This was written by a construction worker in Fort MacMurray …he sure makes a lot of sense!

Read on…

I work, they pay me.

I pay my taxes and the government distributes my taxes as it sees fit.

In order to earn that pay cheque, I work on a rig site for a Fort Mac construction project. I am required to pass a random urine test, with which I have no problem.

What I do have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to people who don’t have to pass a urine test.

Shouldn’t one have to pass a urine test to get a welfare cheque because I have to pass one to earn it for them?

Please understand – I have no problem with helping people get back on their feet. I do on the other hand have a problem with helping someone sit on their arse drinking beer and smoking dope.

Could you imagine how much money the provinces would save if people had to pass a urine test to get a public assistance cheque?

Jean Swanson is one of my heros. She works in Vancouver’s poorest neighbourhood and wrote Poor Bashing: The Politics of Exclusion, a book that challenges everyone’s assumptions about the poor, assumptions that usually justify why we won’t re-organize society to keep from continually kicking them.

The below response to the above depressingly common attitude is inspired by her exploration of the same issue in her book.

I’m just quite tired of the “don’t get me wrong, I really think we should help the poor, except if they…”

Another good [if not far better] point is that there are hundreds of millions or billions of dollars in tax cuts that go every year to people in the top 20-40% of income earners in our society who can afford and write off RRSPs, stocks, and capital investments.

We don’t ask them to present their urine or a blood sample or prove they aren’t wife/child beaters, embezzlers, speeders, j-walkers, theists, atheists, supporters of gun control or capital punishment, regular voters, hockey fans, cokeheads, neglectors of children, gamblers, pot smokers, contributors to political parties, beer/wine/spirits drinkers or various social miscreants.

We give value-free tax cuts to the well-off [like me] as long as they meet the legal requirements to get tax refunds.

I too can sure imagine how much we’d save if we did similar morality testing on those earning over $57k, double the Canadian average annual income.

Need Legal Aid? Get Stuffed!

“Brenner said they were wrong and told them to get stuffed.”
- Ian Mulgrew, Vancouver Sun [see below]

Aside from the perverse standards of journalism at the Vancouver Sun, the above indicates that the BC Court of Appeals is not willing to contribute to a humane notion of legal aid for the resource-deprived embroiled in civil cases.

While legal aid for criminal cases was not the issue, after deep cuts across the country to legal aid for victims in civil cases, the Canadian Bar Association wanted the courts to establish a standard of justice that offends the neoliberal budget cutters that are particularly harsh in BC.

People deserving legal aid include those facing unjust eviction, mothers reeling from deadbeat dads ignoring court-ordered financial support and scores of others find themselves unable to afford effective representation in civil matters.

Of course, the rich do quite well since they can afford counsel to pursue their legal issues. Civil legal aid, however, is becoming far less civil than it deserves to be.

And in one sense, it all comes down to freedom. Political philosophers talk about negative and positive freedoms. Negative freedom refers to a way of defining freedom where individuals are free from “needless” meddling by the state, where we are not regulated and impeded in our pursuit of our liberty. Hyper-capitalists, libertarians and neoliberal governments look for ways to keep society from interfering with our god-given right to go about our business, regardless of how many people or watersheds we abuse.

Positive freedom defines freedom as a way of enabling those who are socially disempowered to have access to opportunity to function as well as those who are socially gifted: often groups like white, upper or middle class, English speaking males. Positive freedom efforts include things like affirmative action, or using tax dollars to fund legal aid for those not wealthy enough to pursue civil legal justice.

Obviously these two conceptions of freedom are mutually exclusive in their pure form. They also form a core conflict in our society: deregulate to the point where we have no society or gather together social and financial resources to empower those who are structurally vulnerable, thereby undermining the power of the economic, social and political elites.

The Court of Appeals has chosen to reject this effort to pursue positive freedom. It is not an isolated incident and it allows a neoliberal regime in our province and country to continue gutting social programs that allow people who aren’t white men to have a better shot at success or even meaningful survival.

Legal aid not a right, court rules

B.C. Appeal Court judges quash lawyers’ bid to force government to pay civil legal costs of poor people

Ian Mulgrew

Vancouver Sun

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

The B.C. Court of Appeal has backed B.C. Supreme Court Chief Justice Don Brenner’s decision to kill the Canadian Bar Association’s landmark attempt to force governments to provide adequate civil legal aid to poor people.

In a majority ruling Monday, the court agreed with the province’s senior trial court judge and said he was also quite right to assess costs against the CBA.

Susan McGrath, past president of the bar association, said she was saddened because the decision means access to justice will continue being denied to those least able to help themselves.

“We’re disappointed we continue to confront procedural hurdles trying to bring this case,” the Ontario lawyer said in an interview. “We’re going to have to study the ruling and consider our options. We had hoped the courts would have been more responsive to this novel approach. We’re not giving up the fight.”

The Appeal Court said the association failed to meet even the minimum threshold for launching such an action — a reasonable claim.

“Although the action is intended to assist low-income members of the pubic and its spirit is commendable, I do not consider that the altruistic nature of the action should be afforded much weight until at least the [bar association] has established it can meet the minimal test of disclosing a reasonable claim,” Justice Mary Saunders wrote.

Supported by Justice Peter Lowry, she quoted the Supreme Court of Canada saying there is no fundamental right to access to legal services:

“Access to legal services is fundamentally important in any free and democratic society. In some cases, it has been found essential to due process and a fair trial. But a review of the constitutional text, the jurisprudence and the history of the concept does not support the respondent’s contention that there is a broad general right to legal counsel as an aspect of, or precondition to, the rule of law.”

(Justice Allan Thackray, the third member of the appeal panel, heard arguments in the case but retired in October before the decision and did not participate in the ruling.)

In a clear and well-reasoned judgment, Justice Brenner said the bar association was the wrong group to launch such a lawsuit, and the remedy it sought was far too sweeping. (The Appeal Court didn’t rule on whether the bar association was the proper body to bring such a lawsuit because it found its arguments had been so unpersuasive that that question didn’t need to be answered.)

“Instead of considering a specific statute or a specific administrative act or expenditure for constitutional compliance, this case would ultimately require the court to define a constitutionally valid civil legal aid scheme and order its provision by the [federal and provincial governments],” Justice Brenner wrote.

For almost two decades, legal aid across Canada has been a growing concern because of government cutbacks.

Provinces have curtailed legal aid services, narrowing the types of cases they cover, raising the eligibility criteria, making it harder to qualify.

At the same time, the federal government assumes little responsibility, with the primary exception of serious criminal matters.

People often have no legal assistance even when critical issues are at stake and no government is accountable.

The legal community fears we are creating a system for the rich and stacking the deck against those without resources, yet extensive lobbying has proved useless.

In 2002, the bar association launched this lawsuit. It chose B.C. for the unique test case because of the deep, deep cuts to legal services by the Liberal government when it first took office.

“Our concern has always been access to justice,” McGrath said.

The association filed a statement of claim in June 2005, alleging the provision of civil legal aid in B.C. is inadequate and those inadequacies amount to breaches of the Constitution and international human rights conventions.

It maintained that coverage was limited, that financial eligibility guidelines excluded many poor people, and that the services provided are too restrictive.

As the voice of some 36,000 members of the country’s legal profession, the association said it was the most appropriate party to bring such a suit.

It maintained it was unreasonable to insist that poor individuals — denied legal aid in cases where they are unjustly evicted or when they are threatened about the custody of their children — be required to mount constitutional challenges themselves on a case-by-case basis.

The association wanted court-mandated civil legal aid across Canada with judges deciding what was necessary while taxpayers footed the bill.

Brenner said they were wrong and told them to get stuffed.

He said there are other ways to tackle the problem facing the poor, and like the Supreme Court of Canada, suggested individual litigants could raise their need on a case-by-case basis.

The Appeal Court agreed that this lawsuit as put forward by the association was the wrong way to proceed.

“We knew there would be setbacks,” McGrath said. “But I don’t think people without the financial resources and often without the emotional resources should be expected to mount this type of challenge and argue this case before the court. We’re not giving up.”

imulgrew@png.canwest.com

Putting Race on the Table

It has been a rather busy Saturday for the issue of racial and cultural awareness. Below is a notification of two significant events next month regarding a more progressive cultural awareness in our very white [but not really] community.

When I think about race and politics I look at BC’s legislature and our nation’s House of Parliament and see an unjustifiable abundance of white men.

I think about two StatsCan reports over the last several years that hit the front page of Vancouver’s daily papers describing how in just under 10 years, white people in Canada will dip below 50% of our population. Short of putting racial and gender quotas into our legislatures, I don’t see how that will stop over 50% of our legislators from continuing to be white men…unless, of course, there is an intentional, pro-active cultural dialogue about what representation really means. And we can’t have that unless we put race on the table and not in a tokenist or affirmative action sense.

So as well as the events below, I received by email today this notice from the OECD, that grand promoter of corporate neo-feudalism and neoliberal homogenized globalization. In it we read that the OECD thinks that “OECD governments need to do more to help immigrants integrate and make better use of their skills.” They are, of course, right. They are also, of course, wrong.

While OECD countries are domestically xenophobic about letting “them” exercise “their” vocations “here” because “they” may have learned to become brain surgeons or engineers in dodgy “overseas” “schools,” we who are already running the OECD nations are also eager to shore up our national crises of declining birth rates and the threat of not being able to support the rapidly aging boomers–many of whom are the white men in legislatures who represent the corporate white men who run things around here.

The flip side is that while a generation ago Canadians were worried about the brain drain to the USA as all our “best” professionals and such gravitated to the great Horatio Alger-land of the USA, leaving us unable to perform our needed brain surgery and bridge building. But thanks to neoliberal globalization, Canada has also become a destination for brains to drain to–and that doesn’t even count our strong dollar. Except we don’t always use those brains. There used to be two Croatian engineers who delivered pizza at a nearby pizza restaurant. We’ve all met these folks…or maybe we haven’t all met them, which might be part of the problem.

So many Canadians are really not in a position to interact with the vocationally dispossessed that we lure here. And the sociologists have a myriad of explanations for this, but for now, let’s just say that this is something we need to put on the table–and fast.

And if we can shake our minds out of our heady stupor of the fast approaching Olympics surreal spectacle/corporate greed-fest to truly examine the cultural makeup of “Canada” for the next generation or so, we’ll see that white men in power need to face the very real fact that we aren’t in charge. We can hang on to it and functionally disempower other groups, or we can figure out that narcissistic xenophobia is just fear of emasculation. And a future of Canada with healthy cultural interaction is not really an emasculation threat at all–unless you think you, as a white man, have something personal to be ashamed of. And if that’s the case, maybe you have it coming.

And while the OECD piece goes on about how “the better targeted immigration policies are, the more successful integration will be. This in turn will help reduce the risk of political backlash against immigrants,” the enlightened of us who are now ready to face our cultural inter-subjectivity need to realize that it’s not about marketing and luring the “right” people “here.” It’s about putting it on the table and seeing how a new Canada should be structured based on the reality that we are.

And if you can’t handle that, then it’s you who has the problem.

See you in March!

* mark your calenders for March 1 and March 21 . please forward. *

A series of events to commemorate March 21 International Day for the
Elimination of Racism. March 21 marks the anniversary of the 1960
Sharpeville Massacre in South Africa when police opened fire on hundreds
of South Africans protesting against Apartheid’s passbook laws, killing 67
and wounding 186…

STRUGGLES AGAINST RACISM ARE NOT OVER!

*** March 1st: An evening of film, speakers, spoken word, and more ***

Award winning film CONTINUOUS JOURNEY; opening talk by critically
acclaimed writer and activist LEE MARACLE; spoken word and poetry from
inspiring community members SADHU BINNING, RITA WONG, and RAUL GATICA

——————————
SATURDAY MARCH 1
FOOD @ 4:30 PM
Multipurpose Room (2nd floor), Bonsor Community Centre
6550 Bonsor Avenue (1 block east of Metrotown Skytrain Station)

Pay what you can.
Wheel chair accessible. Bus tickets available
Childcare on site (pls call 604 220 0451 to register)
——————————-

* To mark the 100 YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the racist and exclusionary
Continuous Journey Rule passed in 1908 we are screening the highly
acclaimed and award-winning film “Continuous Journey”.

The Kamagata Maru entered the port of Vancouver in 1914. On board were 376
immigrants, who for two months, lived like prisoners, threatened by famine
and disease as the ship was refused permission to land with scores of
people, media, and government calling for “White Canada Forever.” The
incident marks a dark chapter in Canada’s immigration history and
contributed to the growing anti-colonial sentiment in India. The film,
which required eight years of research, is solidly documented, packed with
archival material, and resonates powerfully with contemporary events.

* Talk by LEE MARACLE: Lee is of Salish and Cree ancestry, and a member of
the Stó:lô Nation. She is a gifted orator and the author of critically
acclaimed “Ravensong”, “I am Woman”, “Bobbi Lee-Indian Rebel”, “Daughters
are Forever” and the poetry collection “Bentbox”. She has been an active
member of the Red Power Movement and Liberation Support Movement and her
writings reflect her efforts against racism, sexism, and white cultural
and colonial domination.

* Poetry by SADHU BINNING (Punjabi, English). Sadhu is at the forefront of
Punjabi/English diasporic writing with dozens of poetry collections, books
of fiction, and plays. He edited a literary monthly Watno Dur; co-edited a
quarterly Watan; and is a a founding member of Vancouver Sath, a theatre
collective. Nearly all his poems reflect on the legacy of the Komagatamaru
and other struggles of Indian immigrants agaist racism and labour
exploitation such as the farmworkers in BC.

* Poetry by RITA WONG. Rita is the author of monkeypuzzle and forage. Her
poems have appeared in anthologies such as Ribsauce: a CD/Anthology of
Words by Women, The Common Sky: Canadian Writers Against the War, and
Shift and Switch: New Canadian Poetry, and more. Her work investigates the
intersections between decolonization, social justice, gender,
racialization, labour, migration, and contemporary poetics. She was a
founding member of Direct Action Against Refugee Exploitation (DARE).

* Poetry by RAUL GATICA (Spanish, English). Raul is a member in exile of
the Consejo Indigena Popular de Oaxaca Ricardo Flores Magon (CIPO-RFM), an
indigenous community organization in Oaxaca, Mexico. His struggles embody
those of indigenous self-determination, against neoliberalism affecting
people of the Global South, and of a refugee to North America.

MARCH AGAINST RACISM!

Join us on March 21, International Day for the Elimination of Racism, to
show our communities collective strength in challenging ongoing racism.
Canadian multiculturalism is not enough!

//////////////////////////////////////
COMMUNITY MARCH
Friday March 21 at 1 pm
(Good Friday Holiday)
Meet at Clark Park on Commercial Drive and 14th
//////////////////////////////////////

==> Bring your children and family.
==> There will be food, water and snacks during the march.
==> Rest vehicles will accompany the march.
==> All welcome!

For centuries, communities have led countless courageous struggles against
racism and the many ways in which it manifests itself in our daily lives.
Although many would like to believe that racism no longer exists, we are
reclaiming the tradition of anti-racist marches to reveal the ugly truth
about the worsening reality of racism both locally and globally. Join us
on March 21 to celebrate the dignity, strength, and resilience of our
communities!

- End individual and institutional racism, racial violence, and racial
profiling!
- Stop the theft of indigenous lands!
- End all racist wars and occupations!
- Stop the deportations now!
- Living wages, healthcare, education, and housing for all!

[[[ Events organized and supported by a community network including No
One Is Illegal, Indigenous Action Movement, Komagata Maru Heritage
Foundation, Canadian Arab Federation, John Graham Support, Siraat
Collective, Association of Chinese Canadians for Equality and Solidarity
Society, DTES Elders Council, SIKLAB - Overseas Filipino Workers
Organization, Anniversaries of Change, International Indigenous Youth
Conference Secretariat, Canadian Muslim Union, Asian Society for the
Intervention of AIDS, Justicia for Migrant Workers, Al-Awda Vancouver,
Salaam Vancouver, Iranian Federation of Refugees, Cafe Rebelde Coalition,
VIRSA, Latin American Connexions, Hogans Alley Memorial Project, Filipino
Nurses Support Group, La Surda Latin American Collective, Indigenous Free
School, Canadian Network for Democratic Nepal, Canada Palestine
Association, Group of Relatives and Friends of Political Prisoners in
Mexico, South Asian Network for Secularism and Democracy, Consejo Indigena
Popular de Oaxaca Ricardo Flores Magon (CIPO-Vancouver), Chetna Dalit
Association, Philippine Women Centre of BC, Coalition of South Asian Women
Against Violence, Vancouver Status of Women, The North Shore Women's
Centre, Battered Women Support Services, Friends of Women in the Middle
East Society, Women Against Violence Against Women, Canadian Union of
Postal Workers, Hospital Employees Union, Industrial Workers of the World,
SFU Teaching Support Staff Union, Vancouver District Labour Council,
Canadian Union of Public Employees - Local 1004, Gallery Gachet, Rhizome
Cafe, New World Theatre, Colouring Book Project, UBC Realities of Race,
SFU Public Interest Research Group, BC Committee for Human Rights in the
Philippines, StopWar.ca, Anti Poverty Committee, Politics Re-Spun,
Building Bridges to Chiapas, Alliance of People's Health, International
Solidarity Movement Vancouver, Vancouver District Labour Council Young
Workers Committee, Filipino-Canadian Youth Alliance ]]]

Canada: "Economic Injustice for the Poor!"[tm]

Just to start off, any country that spends the post-Cold War period eroding its progressive tax system so that the richest 1% of families pay a lower tax rate than the poorest 10% of families is just offensive. And I don’t care about the relative dollar value of tax paid by these two groups. The principle itself is regressive and abhorrent.

Welcome to Canada!

Welcome also to the reality of federal Liberal and Conservative governments. It doesn’t matter which is in, the rich get a windfall and the poor subsidize it.

The latest CCPA study is full of shock and further offense:

• Provincial tax cuts are the key culprit for the increasingly regressive nature of Canada’s tax system but the problem has been exacerbated at the federal level with billions of dollars worth of post-2000 tax cuts.
• The richest one percent of taxpayers saw their tax rate drop by four percentage points between 1990 and 2005.
• Most Canadians saw their tax rate fall by two percentage points of income, but not so for the poorest 20 percent of taxpayers, who pay three to five percentage points more in taxes.
• Middle-income families pay about six percentage points more in total taxes than a family in the top 1 percent.