Most are aware of the furor around Abercrombie & Fitch these days, with social media serving to expose the long held exclusionary (and possibly racist) perspectives of the corporation.  Greg Karber has started a “Fitch the Homeless” campaign to fight back:

I like the concept of undermining a brand in such a novel way, and I am always for finding ways to assist those experiencing homelessness with accessing the basic necessities of live, but I’m not sold on the delivery here.

Now, don’t get me wrong, I donate a lot of clothes to local agencies serving people experiencing homelessness.  And I always encourage those who ask to do the same, donating directly to the agencies versus for-profit chains like Value Village.  But have a look at the reactions of the people he interacts with; this lady is scared:

This lady is confused:

And this guy just wants to be left alone:

People who are experiencing homelessness aren’t just sitting around hoping strangers will give them some clothing.  There’s a certain pretentiousness to using homeless people like props to make a point against a brand.  My fear is that others will do the same and unwittingly harass people experiencing homelessness.  Instead, look closely at Greg’s suggestions for how to help.  I agree, we should “Fitch the Homeless Shelter”, not people experiencing homelessness directly unless you already have a relationship of respect with them.

The following is a motion that I am sending for our January 7th meeting of the London Homeless Coalition.

The two greatest human rights concerns of our nation and our generation, in my mind, are homelessness and the plight of the First Nations of this land.  It should come as no surprise that the two are intricately connected, and therefore of concern to the London Homeless Coalition.  Both involve histories of marginalization, poverty, disenfranchisement, prejudice, and poverty.

In regards to the First Nations the question is, how should we respond?  I would suggest that we respond primarily by rejecting the common assertion “We have done enough.”  Our current federal government is pushing the narrative that whether it’s through apologies or through restitution payments, the ‘Canadian’ response to the plight of First Nations has been sufficient.  Therefore, any further concerns reflect a short-coming of First Nations people, no fault of ‘ours’.  I believe we need to adamantly reject this perception.  Whether it’s the problematic way we have structured funding to First Nations (http://natpo.st/t5sOil) or the way in which legislation is being passed (http://www.idlenomore.ca/ under Bills & Other Resources) the current treaty relationship is not working well.  In particular, whether we look at rates of suicide, age of death, poverty, homelessness, housing conditions, etc., we as Canadians should be gravely concerned.  Most importantly, through the Idle No More movement, we need to hear the voices of Aboriginal peoples who are telling us it isn’t working.

As the London Homeless Coalition continues to work with Darlene in enhancing our relationships with the Aboriginal people of our community, I believe there are important steps we can take as along the way, as recommended at our last meeting.  To this end, I would like to make the following motion:

I so move that the London Homeless Coalition accepts and endorses the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf).

I had been avoiding signing the petition asking Mayor Fontana to take a leave.  In my mind, it quite easily could have been a big mix-up, and I didn’t want to get carried away and push for something on the basis of misinformation.  However, now that charges have been laid, I have changed my stance.  It’s not that I think we should call him guilty before trial and force a resignation, and it’s not that I even support the hyperbole around the ‘moral authority to lead’.  Rather, I cringe at the thought of him serving as our chief ambassador until these charges have been settled.  I note in his review of Year 2 that the Mayor has attended 300+ community events, as well as attending regional, national, and international functions.  I believe that until this whole scenario is cleared up, councillors would serve as much better ambassadors for our City, in his place.

I know that this has been a difficult situation for you and your colleagues, and hope that you can find a way to optimize the image of our City in the face of negative national press.

Thank you,

Abe Oudshoorn

To the Editor:

In the article “Downtown Too Rough For Business?” I was surprised to see the term ‘vagrants’ being used to describe people experiencing poverty or homelessness.  It made me want to break out my gramophone and dance a jive with a west-end filly.

In all seriousness though, terms like ‘vagrants’ and ‘bums’ have been dropped from our lexicon years ago because they lack the respect we like to show people regardless of their lessened circumstances.  That ‘vagrant’ on the corner?  That’s Mike, who lost his job, suffers from bi-polar disorder, and is waiting on the affordable housing list.  That ‘vagrant’ shuffling along the sidewalk?  That’s Jessica, who ran away from her abusive home and is now going to Wheable to complete her high school education.

Call me a curmudgeon, but given a series of unfortunate events, that person experiencing absolute poverty could even be you and I.

Apparently there is a line-up of developers waiting to get their hands on the McCormick building, three different developers to be precise.  Yet, when the building went to auction starting at the low price of $744,250, which is what is owed in back taxes on the site, there were zero bidders.  So, what happened to the line-up?

A clue to this seeming dilemma can be found buried in the pile of submissions for building the prosperity of London.  There you will find this letter from Kilmer Brownfield Management Limited.  In the letter Pamela Kraft of Kilmer expresses their interest in the ‘hydro lands’ located at 111 Horton St.  As you may recall, this area was prominently featured for redevelopment in the vision plan for downtown London.  Ms. Kraft highlights Kilmer’s experience in brownfield redevelopment and ensures the City that a mutually agreeable financial arrangement would be the first step of the process.  What does this mean?  It means that Kilmer would like to be in the front of the line if a money-making agreement on this 14-acre property is in the future.

Which brings us back to the McCormick site, and the fact that I do believe Councilor Orser that at least three developers have expressed interest in the site.  However, the interest is not to buy it at cost, the interest is to be at the front of the line if a give-away is to occur.  Is this a bad thing?  Of course not.  Heck, add me to the line-up if the property is being given away.  What really needs to be asked is whether the City is doing due diligence to protect our public finances, which in this case of a property the City doesn’t own means at least getting the back-taxes out of it.

…and no one even noticed.

The provincial Liberal government is currently in deficit-slaying mode, which as I have written about elsewhere, is a good idea.  However, as the Drummond Report highlighted, we need to be careful about eliminating deficits to ensure that this is actually done in such a manner as to decrease inequality rather than increasing it.

The initial proposal to freeze social assistance rates was a bad sign.  Fortunately the NDP were able to negotiate a 1% increase, but the message was clear, the poor were going to feel the cuts along with those employed in the public sector.

Sure enough another cut has come, and it has happened so quietly that most haven’t noticed.  The cut comes through a process of reorganizing services for people experiencing homelessness.  Five programs (Consolidated Homelessness Prevention Program, Emergency Energy Fund, Emergency Hostel Services, Domiciliary Hostel Program, and the Provincial Rent Bank) have been rolled together into the new Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative or CHPI (chip-ee).  As well, and most importantly, the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (or CSUMB) has been eliminated, and 50% of the cost of this program ($62.6m) will be added to CHPI.

What does all that mean?  It means that across Ontario municipalities will have $62,000,000 less in order to address homelessness.  Secondly, the elimination of CSUMB, used most often to pay last month’s rent in order to re-house people, means more people will be stuck in shelter solely for financial reasons.

If this is a concern to you, I encourage you to write to your local MPP and let them know that although eliminating the deficit is a good idea, it should not happen on the backs of the poor.  Check out this briefing note for more info.

Much has been made about Mitt Romney’s comments regarding the 47% of Americans he  considers the entitled, dependent, irresponsible poor.  These individuals have the audacity, in his mind, to consider the government as having a responsibility to ensure healthcare, food, and housing.  And, much of the media in the States has jumped to his defence, saying that the language was wrong but the sentiment right.

Of course I am concerned regarding the sentiments expressed, the crassness of the perspective, and the implications for people such as seniors living on a pension.  But more so I am dismayed by the deeper underlying philosophy, one I see reflected around me in small decisions like decreasing public transit hours.  To me, we are witnessing the slow dismantling of social cohesion.

Societies are built on the idea that we are all in this together.  For example, in the same way that confederation included means to distribute income equitably between provinces, our legislation contains means to distribute income between individuals.  Similarly, rather than being islands unto ourselves, we pay into our governments to pool our resources to fund our services.  This is a contract we reaffirm every day with each other by driving on a road or turning on a light switch.  Romney’s math is wrong.  Because we are, in fact, all of us reliant on our government and on each other.  We all use water, roads, healthcare, internationally traded resources, police services, currency, etc., etc.  We all access government funds through different programs and services, some simply use a little more, and some a little less.

Yet cynicism towards government, and at times our own selfishness, is leading us to surrender many points of cohesion; to erode, for example, services that allow those with poverty incomes to meet their basic needs.  Right now we’re all in this together, but we’re flirting with giving that away.  And for many experiencing poverty, they already feel that sentiment is lost:

Most of you will be aware of the buzz around methadone clinics over the past two years.  For a period of around 18 months we have been in the process in London of creating a by-law to manage methadone clinics and pharmacies.  With the by-law now completed and being law, the first organization is applying to open a new clinic.  One of the components of the new by-law is a public participation meeting around site planning.  When the by-law was being developed I expressed some concern around this stipulation, as I wondered whether it might just bring out the worst in terms of NIMBYism.  Sure enough, comments on this and this article in the London Free Press confirm my concerns.

An important first place to start with the methadone discussion is a reminder that methadone is a treatment modality for addiction.  Many decry methadone stating instead that we should be treating the addiction, which shows a degree of confusion.  Methadone has been amazing as with no other substances do we have the opportunity of giving people medicine to eliminate addictive cravings, though researchers have certainly tried.  Methadone does not get an addict high (though it would someone who has never taken narcotics), so people who work in a factory or operate heavy equipment are able to work when they have taken their dose.

For community members concerns, I believe the most important comment in terms of methadone being a treatment is that it alleviates a huge amount of crime.  If someone is unemployed and supporting a $150/day addiction, they are likely involved in property crime (ie. theft), prostitution, or drug dealing to support their habit.  By giving them a medicine that blocks the cravings this is a huge boon to the community.  Imagine the 1300 or so people currently receiving methadone treatment not having that option, and still having their addiction.

It is also worth noting that narcotic addiction shows no preference based on class or neighbourhood.  The people accessing methadone maintenance treatment are our neighbours, our relatives, our co-workers, and our friends.  They want their treatment to be private and accessible.  This is quite relevant to the current discussion of the site on Whancliffe Rd (pictured above), as my fellow residents of Old South at times forget that health and social problems exist in our neighbourhood like any other.

Which all ties in nicely with the particular concern around this site, that there is already another clinic a few blocks up the street.  The first point I would make is that no one knew that other clinic was there until it was publicized, not even myself, who has worked in the sector and drives by it almost every day.  We need to recall that the initial purpose of creating the by-law as to ensure that we had a lot of small clinics, instead of a couple of large ones.  This is exactly what is being proposed.  The applicant has done their analysis and found that the market is demanding another site in the area, the current small, quiet one being insufficient.  So, a second small, quiet site nearby will meet the demand in a way the least impacts upon the community.

If you would like to have your say on the issue, I invite you to the public participation meeting on Wednesday, September 5th, 2012 from 6:30 to 9:30 p.m. at Hillside Church located at 250 Commissioners Road East (at Wortley Road).  More details are available on the OSCO website.  These meetings are all about making our democracy participatory, so are a great experience and I would encourage you to both come out and speak out.

Religious issues, of course, are incredibly touchy.  It has been stated that you avoid discussions of religions and politics to be good company.  However, as I cover politics in depth, why not tackle where politics and religion interact?  Many may have heard of the Christian flag at City Hall issue, and for more information I refer you to the London Free Press article linked below.  I chose to write to the City Clerk Cathy Saunders as she stated that she would follow-up if public concern was expressed.  I want to be clear that I am not against religious groups holding events, and wanting this recognized formally by the City, but I believe that the particular individual involved does not pass the test for the City to accept such a request.  Public outcry on this should not be seen as persecution of Christians, but as a reminder that regardless of your faith you must show respect to all.  In fact, this seems like a message that should resonate quite well with those of the Christian faith.

Good afternoon Cathy,

I’m writing in response to the issue of the flag raising at City Hall for the event organized by Mr. Rancourt.  As stated in this article in the London Free Press http://m.lfpress.com/news/london/2012/08/19/20118251.html the test for flag raising is “Flags (are) barred from political or commercial groups or those whose philosophies espouse hatred, violence or racism”.  In the same article Mr. Rancourt is quoted as stating that “90,000 (Canadian Muslims) believe in Sharia law, jihad and terrorism,” which in my mind fails to meet 2 of the 3 conditions.

I fully support the raising of flags to recognize various cultural, ethnic, and religious events and groups in the City, but our guidelines are there for a reason.  Unfortunately, what could be a good event for the City, has as it’s spokesperson someone who promotes hatred and racism.  Fly the Christian flag for such a day, but not at the request of Mr. Rancourt.

And just to clarify the comments of Councillor Henderson, the March for Jesus and other events of that day are explicitly Christian, not inter-faith.  There are many other inter-faith prayer events in London.

Abe Oudshoorn