If the homeless were kittens, Harper would act!
Submitted by Jeremy M on January 25, 2007 - 1:25am.
I caught wind of this in a blog entry by Brett on Homeless Nation.
The Prime Minister's website proudly brags about his participation in the local SPCA's pet fostering program. Apparently Stephen and Laureen "have been foster parents to many cats during the past year."
They even adopted one, named Cheddar seen on the left (click thumbnail for larger image). Isn't that a great photo-op?
I certainly have nothing against protection of animals, and really I think it's great that Harper is promoting it. But I can certainly understand Brett from Homeless Nation's frustration. I bet Harper would never invite a homeless person to stay with his family at 24 Sussex.
Hopefully Harper doesn't eat the kittens.
Jeremy
No votes yet
- Jeremy M's blog
- Login or register to post comments
User login
Upcoming events
- Addiction: the hidden epidemic(Event)(58 minutes)
- The Future of Food: a documentary(Event)(7 days)
- The Living Matrix(Event)(14 days)
- What is the Secret of Japanese Green Teas?(Event)(15 days)
- Attracting Peace(Event)(20 days)
- The De-Stress Effect: Restore Your Physiological Zen(Event)(22 days)
- Youth and Marijuana: is it as harmless as we like to think?(Event)(28 days)
Search
Recent Images
Recent Blogs
Aug 16 2010 - 12:16am
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 38 guests online.
Recent comments
- Check Out PASAN
2 weeks 2 days ago - Also, August 10 was Prisoners' Justice Day
2 weeks 2 days ago - Made me think of this piece
2 weeks 2 days ago - "no violence baiting" is disrespectful to non-violent activists
4 weeks 1 day ago - The Black Bloc is never violent. EVER. Understand?
6 weeks 1 day ago - Some other places where this discussion is playing out
6 weeks 3 days ago - All of the revisions
7 weeks 20 hours ago - Revisions
7 weeks 2 days ago - Not embedded
7 weeks 4 days ago - Quick excerpt from a Star editorial
8 weeks 2 days ago
Random image
Poll
Should the Canadian government be sending a delegation to the World People's Conference on Climate Change?
Yes
67%
No
33%
Undecided
0%
Total votes: 3
- Login or register to post comments
- Older polls
you heard the man
"Meanwhile, when asked about his time with Harper at the National Citizens Coalition, Nicholls said: 'I worked with Stephen Harper for five years and never once did he, in that time, eat a baby.' "
-r.
Gold
I thought that was gold...
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..." -Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Brill
Brilliant. Great point.
|Kate |
Harper's actions: as they should be
Harper's neglect of the homeless and willingness to participate in a charitable program that does not empower humans (specifically, the disenfranchised or homeless) is entirely consistent with Conservative ideology. To conservatives, there's no need to change the current power structures of our society; just donate a few bucks to charity or adopt an animal and everything's cool man. And the homeless? They're just a bunch of lazy bums. They need to get themselves a job and realize that the free-market rules; only then will they truly be "empowered." Kittens, on the other hand....
Harper's actions are reprehensible, but so is voting Conservative. We need to realize that this is the type of government we get when progressives and activists either don't vote or vote for the wrong party (these comments are NOT aimed at any particular poster in this thread). I feel there is a tendency among activists to think that it doesn't matter what type of government is in power - all governments should be expected to respond to protests and demands (in this case, funding for affordable housing and initiatives to help the homeless). This is entirely wrong: Harper was elected by elites and will continue to represent elite interests while neglecting the poor. What's worse, when people like myself say these things, we are viewed as "dogmatic" and "preachy" (nobody likes being told how or why to vote). Governmental change is therefore unlikely to occur, and we can expect more of the same.
So yes, if the homeless were kittens, Harper would likely act. But we should ask ourselves: what, by way of ballot box, are we doing to ensure that progressive interests are not only articulated (protested, made known) but are also government priorities (implemented).
*P.S. I have made a broad, general point here and do not want this thread to turn into a partisan pissing match, like most other political threads.*
Think you are missing some history here
What federal government party was in power when the homeless situation was getting out of control? Whose great idea was it to shut down the mental health institutes, and have patients put on the street to fend for themselves? It wasn't Harper. The ghetto's that have been formed for the mentally ill by the people, who don't know what the hell they are doing, are nothing but a breeding ground for crime and pestilence. You can look at your churches, and social activist for this mess they have helped to create.
some history
I can remember one point in our history, when we were guided by another great thinker from the Conservative tradition. It was called the 'Common Sense Revolution' under the beloved Mike Harris Tories. Their 'slash and burn' tactics attacked our social services and punished the poor and weak, as they brought us on the 'Road to Serfdom'. Why do you try to blame churches and social activists for this situation? And what role do the drug companies play in the state of mental health in our society? Harper didn't creat it, he just wants to expand on the theme.
damn, your quick
beat me to it again...
cheers!
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..." -Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
Shades of Blue
True enough the Harper conservatives weren't in power when Ontario's Mental Healthcare was gutted... But the Harris Conservatives sure were, And I believe in giving credit where credit is due: Health Care, including Mental health care is a provincial responsibility, correct? Along with Social assistance? And if I remember correctly, those all fell victim to Mike Harris' "Common Sense Revolution". So, when I look source of the mess of the "ghetto's that have been formed for the mentally ill by the people, who don't know what the hell they are doing, are nothing but a breeding ground for crime and pestilence." my gaze usually settles on the provincial Conservative party, not the churches and social activists that stepped in to literally bring these venerable populations, who were abandoned by the Conservative Ideology, out of the cold.
And in the spirit of giving credit where credit is due, Let's look at Harper and his Tory government for a moment and look back to August of 2006 when federal funding for initiatives dealing with homelessness had they're budgets slashed. Locally this nearly crippled agencies like My Sister's Place and the AIDS Committee, and dealt a death-blow to the SOLE project...
If there's one thing I've picked up on since I engaged myself in the politics of the world around me roughly seven or eight years ago, it's this: It seems like whenever the Conservative Ideology comes into power, it's the most vulnerable people in the community who pay the price. We saw it here in Ontario under Mike Harris and Ernie Eves, and now we're seeing drastic cuts to badly needed programs under the Harper Conservatives. The Conservative attitude seems to be that since Poor Peoples don't generate income and contribute to the cycle of a consumer economy, they don't deserve a piece of the benefits of that economy. Because they don't have the power to make their voices heard, they can be ignored. And because they are viewed as a drain on tax dollars, they can be scapegoated. I'm just saying... I didn't get myself arrested in front of an Ontario PC convention because the Tories were spending too much money to help the provience's poor...
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..." -Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
I seem to remember when the unions were clapping
It was your beloved unions that kicked Bob Rae's ass to the curb. They put Harris in. I remember they were all clapping and cheering when the cutbacks to welfare were implemented. I also remember when they got all upset when the cutbacks were introduced to the union jobs, all of a sudden Bob Rae started to look quite attractive. The solution of creating ghettos for the disenfranchised by the churches, and social activitist is just doing the bidding of the gatekeepers. How about demanding something better for your fellow man? You get to go home to your ivory tower, after a hard day's work on the streets of Calcutta, they get to stay, and be exploited. That bullshit about community integration of the mentally ill, is just that, bullshit. They are denied housing, because they have a wicked time controlling their illness. I bet my booties, you wouldn't think of taking a street person in as a room-mate.
I am quite sure Sandra Pupetello is a liberal
Have you been missing the news the last couple of years. They are closing more mental health facilities down to intergrate more defenseless people into the ghettos. They are going to be given the best of care, and their needs looked after by someone who volunteers in a shelter, who is suffering from a mother Theresa complex. It is all good according to McGuinty and Pupetello.
political whores
I'm not sure what your point is. There was no clapping here for Harris. The Liberal Party is certainly no better when it comes to concern for the weak. I think that the point is to shift the use of public funds in the social safety net away toward other more corporate friendly things like tax cuts, funding wars, and implementing a larger police/prison system (like the one that works so well south of the border). I wonder what the swipe on shelter volunteers is about? McGuinty and Pupetello are just as much power hungry, elite serving, lie to your face political whores as the Harper crew. More worthy of our wrath than streetwalkers, and good example of why not to put any trust in politicians. In my humble opinion.
Priorities
For starters, who are "they"? I would appreciate if you could clarify. If by "they" you are referring to the McGuinty Liberals or the Harper government, then that is exactly what my post was pointing out: the two corporate, institutional parties who both represent elite interests cannot be counted on to help the homeless, poor, or mentally ill. However, the NDP feels that the federal and provinical governments can play a positive, pro-active role in funding affordable housing, rehabilitative services, co-ops, jobs and skills training, guaranteed income support, child care, and a national child food program, all of which would empower the homeless and underprivileged (as well as many working class Canadians).
If you are going to reply that all of this represents utopian, big government, big spending, pie-in-the-sky ideas, please don't bother. As Anthony has already noted, our neoliberal, big brother governments in Canada and the U.S. have shown that millions and billions can be invested in war, the industrial military complex, maintaining a police state, and subsidizing lucrative multinational corporations. There is nothing to suggest that this money couldn't have been - or still can't be - invested in domestic initiatives that actually benefit citizens. It is a matter of priorities, and that was the point of my post. At the very minimum, governmental change is needed to shift our current priorities as a nation.
With regards to Bob Rae's disastrous tenure during Ontario's RECESSION, I would say only that it is twelve years on and Rae has revealed his true political stripes as of late. Today there is no questioning the sincerity of the NDP in wanting to tackle homelessness; for those who have any doubts, I would defer you to Jack Layton's Homelessness: The Making and Unmaking of a Crisis. As for the Ontario NDP, it is the only party pushing for a liveable wage ($10), affordable housing, and increased funding for public home care.
Ontario is not the center of the universe
This homeless situation did not just happen in Ontario, it happened all over Canada. Blaming one provincial government for it, doesn't stand up.
our universe
Ontario is our universe. While it isn't just a problem here, it was greatly exasperated by the policies of Harris. I mean, come on, it isn't difficult to see that if you take away the funding for social systems that means that people are doing without. It was the public funded programs that benefit the general public the most that were under attack. It doesn't require a genius to see that was the intended purpose of the Harris stance. That stance represents one segment of the opinions of the ruling class. When sentiment turns against such draconian measures, they turn to a softer sounding but still entirely elite friendly platforms. This is repeated over and again through our history, with simular themes elsewhere.
The Ontario Tories are not alone in a vacuum either. These policies have been part of a general campaign to roll back the social gains of the last century. Some folks never got over the New Deal. 'The Road to Serfdom' was a popular read for right wing decision makers who wanted to concentrate power, and pacify the public. They would rather see our tax dollars used for corporate welfare than as a safety net for the weak and poor. The levels of contempt shown in their statements and actions, are telling. From their treatment of the poor, unions, teachers, health care, public water safety, the natives, eventually it becomes clear even to neutral observers who these people serve. It is revealing, as well that the Liberal Party have left many of the nasty products of the Harris government intact, like the punishing Ontario Works policies.
These neo-liberals, from either party, may not have started the problem but they are looking to expand on the theme. Watch as our income gap spreads to the nauseating levels of the British-American model. Then we can blame churches and social activists for the entirely predictable outcomes of it all.
How could you put the poor in the same category as union workers
Come on, the unions don't have it bad. They are part of the problem. I have seen lay-offs, where union workers who didn't get laid off, rack up as many overtime hours as they could. They were real upset about their fellow union members being laid off weren't they? Mention a 30 hour work week to a union member to help solve work shortage for their fellow man, and they will tell you to fuck off.
The whole homeless thing came about by the social activist being bored, and wanting to close the health care facilities for the mentally ill. They had this great idea that the mentally ill could be integrated into the community, not stopping for a moment to think there was no housing, and no one would rent to them. The social activist, not knowing fuck-all about mental illness, didn't realize that most of the mentally ill, need a whack of supervision to ensure they take their meds, and are fed. They were counting on the burnt-out volunteers of the shelters to take this task on. Yeppers, that was quite the Walton mountain idea they had.
can you provide an example?
Can you provide some examples of campaigns to put close mental-health facilities and put mental-health patients on the street without community supports?, and where it was successful in doing so? (in closing mental-health care facilities or putting mental-health patients out on the street, that is, without concern for the outcome as you seem to be asserting)? Are you referring to the movement that aims to reform and humanise Mental Health Care?
To be honest, it seems to me that your relying on some pretty broad (and inaccurate) generalisations and assumptions about activists, their intentions and just what they've been up to. If you believe that social activists are to blame for this mess, then I'm afraid I believe you've been misinformed... Presenting the mental-health crisis as anything other then the result of government budget cut-backs, with were made the aim of 'cutting the fat' from a social safety net and saving money for those who have no stake in it (i.e. business interests, the well-off, and the politicians who pander to these interests...), lacks credibility in my eyes.
I'll concede that the reality in shelters includes many people with mental health issues. Our main goal is to provide them with the safest environment possible, that is, we provide for basic needs and do our best to provide a supportive emotional environment. That does not mean we are delusional about or ability to deal with serious mental health issues, we are very honest and realistic when it comes to our limitations. Rather then try to work miracles, we strive to connect people with more specialised agencies and mental health professionals whenever we can. Unfortunately, due to funding cut-backs to mental health programs, these resources are not always available when needed. We deal with that reality as best we can. But I can assure you, we don't have an interest in, or a goal of becoming the primary treatment and support option for people who need specialise services that we don't provide. We're not out to replace the mental-health system.
We find ourselves in a similar position as the correctional system, which is fast becoming the default caretakers of individuals with mental-health issues who cannot cope in the community. I'd suggest watching the PBS Frontlines episode entitled "The New Asylum" to learn more about this phenomenon as it is playing out in the U.S.
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
You may consider it quality care, but I don't
Here is an example. The ghetto of Old East London. You couldn't swing a politician without hitting a homeless person, or a half-assed social agency in that area. Do you consider that mosiac of ill-conceived ghetto makers quality care?
I think you misunderstood what I was asking for...
I'm asking you to provide an example of how social activist are responsible for the lack of mental healthcare and the need for these agencies... Not a diatribe about poor people in your 'back-yard'.
what exactally would you suggest as an alternative for addressing the need for the services provided by these social agencies?
-30-
Mike.
"We only wear black, but that's just until something darker comes along..."
-Anonymous Black Bloc Member.
-=There is no Cabal, Long live the Cabal=-
My Photos
An alternate would be a fair-share bylaw
An alternate would be that ghetto's for the disenfranchised not be allowed to form. That each community had to allow a certain percentage of housing units for the disenfranchised in their area. Not three story walk-ups designed just for the disenfranchinsed, but each apartment building in every area having subsidized apartments. Congregating the services for the disenfranchised in one area creates ghettos. The mentally ill, should be allowed to use the same health care facilities as the rest of us. Methadone clinic should be in a hospital, not across the street from a high school, where patients are lined up like cattle, and put on public display to recieve their meds. If they were suffering from AIDS, that would not be allowed. Their dignity would not be usurped, their anonymity would be guaranteed.
agreed
I think we have some area of agreement. Sounds alot like socialism. Much of this I could live with. But if you want to see how fast the elites mobilize, then hit them with your idea of putting subsidized housing in their gated communities. That should be good for a laugh. They constructed the design the way that they wanted it.
Now you're starting to make
Now you're starting to make a little sense, at least about the methadone clinic. I don't see any problem with it being close to a high school, but you're right about the lack of privacy for the patients that use the service.
London does distribute subsidized housing all over the city, but not how you describe as subsidized units in (what I guess would be) mostly private buildings. There's subsidized housing in Whitehills, Pond Mills, Downtown west of Richmond and west of Downtown on Riverside just to name a few.
Some London Housing areas might be rough, but that's only a few from what I can tell.
If you ask me, a major reason for the "ghetto" of the Old East Village (where I live) is malls and big box stores in the sub-urbs that over decades made it infeasible to have a decent commercial district downtown. Not to mention all of the private landlords that don't maintain their properties, or the ones who let their units sit vacant for some strange reason.
Jeremy
P.S. You still haven't backed up your claims about social activists and churches being responsible for closing mental health facilities and putting all the former patients into ghettos.
info?
where did you get this info? it doesn't seem to match the history I remember or was a part of.
Trev, do you not read the newspapers or hansard?
Go read, and you will see, starting in the 80's the push to shut down mental-health care facilities?
Wow
You really don't want to admit the role of the people in power in the way things turn out. You are trying to have us believe that a group of social activists forced the governments hand against their better judgement? That is worthy of an Orwellian prize. You said it yourself that this wasn't a problem only in Ontario, as obviously it is part of a larger strategy. You seem to have a very selective and distorted view of who makes things happen and why. The idea of downloading the problem of the poor and at risk to the responsibility of food banks, shelters, social workers, and churches was a neo-conservative initiative. Who formed the policies that maintain the population of have-nots? You should really read something other than the elite point of view.
No the gatekeepers love it
Oh no, the gatekeepers love it. Holy shit, they have all these burnt out do-gooders, looking after the sick for free, or next to nothing. What the hell is not to love? I am saying the social activist were duped. They always tend to think with their hearts instead of their brains. The social activist should have made sure the money was there for housing before they were beating their chest demanding the mental health facilities were shut down.
what social activists???
you haven't said which groups were demanding the shut down of facilities..
I'll take you more seriously when you provide an example of this.
What are you talking about?
Elaine,
What are you talking about? You've been asked by a few people to say which social activists it was that demanded mental health institutions be shut down. I really think it's time to tell us, or admit that you're blowing hot air.
And when was this supposed to have happened? Are you talking about the 1990s, the 2000s? Earlier?
Jeremy
duped
Wouldn't having " made sure the money was there for housing before ... the mental health facilities were shut down", be a responsibility of the government in power?
If you feel that we were duped, then why would you continually blame social activists for what the elite rulers have done? This is their grand strategy, not ours. We just get to deal with the mess that is left. Besides housing was another item on the Harris hitlist.
maybe I'm reading the wrong material..
but I've never heard of a social activist group pushing the idea that care for citizens was a bad thing.
perhaps not just reading, but also going and talking to these groups you seem to have a problem with. I guarantee they will tell that it was the conservative powers that decided to make life for the poor and ill a complete hell.
I honestly don't care what party(s) you blame, I just get insulted when you blame the hard work, and the years I've put into helping people, for the fall of social services.
You clearly have been living in a different Ontario
Elaine,
So, you think that mental hospitals are a good thing? Guess again. I am one of those human service executives who run those "half-assed" social agencies (albeit not in London). I would wonder what a fully-assed social agency would look like? Probably one with adequate funding. But then you would complain that there was too many dollars flowing to the needy and not enough "sugar" for your personal "scoop."
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact the LPH is still open. It is now a regional mental health facility operating under the auspices of the St. Josephs Health Care. The same is true of St. Thomas Psych. These institutions provide treatment to those most seriously ill and those with forensic mental health challenges.
Restructuring and deinstitutionalization (I know, big, big words - means get the people out of those hell-holes) is considered to be a move in the correct direction in most progressive jurisdictions. Follow the logic: having people in mental hospitals removes them from "well culture" and immerses them in "ill culture." For the most part they are patients forever. In the early 90s I would attend monthly meetings of a homelessness working group at the LPH. I would see the residents shuffle in the hallways, walking into walls, and, in general, living in drug-fogged life of despair. These individuals were unemployed and virtually committed to a life devoid of all that makes life worthwhile. They were virtual prisoners within the institution.
Today, these folks are supported in the community. They are not drugged to make them compliant. The medications they receive help them to cope with their illnesses. The drugs they are on permit them to work and earn incomes. They are monitored by a mental health worker. They receive training in household management and other essential life skills. They can attend social activities run by the Canadian Mental Health Association (another half-assed agency?) and other events, and they can obtain health care from the London Intercommunity Health Centre (another half-assed service?). I know personally several of these folks and, believe me, they are more than happy to have been liberated from the dungeon.
So, before you make statements such as the one above, please, please do your research first. There is so much of value in East London and the people living there are happy and proud of their neighbourhood. You do none of us any favour when you malign our social institutions in order to support some rabid, pale, and dated neo-conservative ideology. It seems to me that you say what you do in order to inflame infighting. That's not how we do things here. Maybe AltLondon would be a better place for this sort of rhetoric. Those of us who work in the sector have to fight for every penny. It isn't easy securing the support of neo-lib governments. We don't care to be attacked in the alternative media and have our efforts referred to as "half-assed" in return. Thanks for your support!
Charles
******************
ART MATTERS!!!
The New is Now!!!
Modern Art Rules!!
the same category
It is the neo-conservative politicians who have put them in the same category. Enemies.
The bit about social activists makes for a good Mother Goose story. Much easier to believe than the rich and powerful screwing the poor and weak once again. As they always have.
i just have to point this out...
the ctv article (the link to which you can find by clicking on "eat the kittens" contains this compelling truth:
"If people don't think those things are connected to the Internet, they're wrong," Purita told The Globe.
HAHAHAHAHAHA
apologies for seriously low-browing the discussion.