|
Newsletter No. 30
I've been a street nurse in Toronto for 17 years. In the spring of 2004 I received the Atkinson Economic Justice Award which permits me to pursue, for up to three years, my passions for nursing and working on homelessness and housing issues. In this newsletter I hope to report on my activities, create a link to a broader group of individuals who care about these social issues and encourage critical debate. |
|
|
Further information about subscribing to the newsletter is found below. I want to hear from you - about the newsletter, about things that are happening in the homelessness sector (what a sad term!), and about good things which will provide inspiration for all of us. *************************************************************************************************************
|
|
|
Giving and
Taking: ‘tis the Season
Giving To bestow,
confer ownership of, make a present of; deliver, impart; assign; yield,
supply; make over, cause to have. Taking To
get by conquering; to capture; to seize.To trap or snare.
Giving is a good
thing
“Should I give to the women instead of the men –
would that be better?” “Wouldn’t it be better if I went and bought them something to eat instead of giving them money?” “But, aren’t a lot of them (panhandlers) not even
homeless?” “What if they use it to buy alcohol or drugs?” “Don’t some of them bring in $100 a day
panhandling?” Although these questions are about whether to give
small change, I have to emphasize that the people asking these questions are
seriously concerned about whether they should give to panhandlers.
Many scenarios go through their head. I
don’t believe I have ever adequately answered the question and until I do
I know they can’t move from that place of fear, anxiety, anger and
frustration. I was asked the question last month – at the photo copier. I
was asked the question the last time I went to get my hair cut. I was
recently asked the question by a social work student. I’m definitely asked
the question more often since some media and politicians declared war on
panhandlers in
"I am not able to pass
someone asking for change without giving Charles Pascal, Executive Director of the Atkinson Charitable Foundation writes that he uses one of his favorite principles: "Best to do fewer things
better rather than all things less well. I
don't always manage to put this in practice but with panhandlers, I have
found it more rewarding to give a twenty to one person a week and try to
‘make their day’, than hand out loose change to everyone I meet.” Maude Barlow,
Council of Canadians writes: "There but for the Grace of God go I, people say. But do they really mean it? Do they really understand that it could be any of us or our children standing on that corner, cold, hungry and needing some human connection? Do they (we) all understand, really understand, that life is a lotto that some have won at birth and others have to strive for because of race, socio-economic status, or just bad luck? Do they (we) really understand that the constant social service cut-backs at the federal and provincial levels have had a devastating impact on the unemployed, disabled, poor, and working families? And that with the loss of health or a job, it could be any of us? So let this be our lesson
this holiday. No-one should have
to beg for food or shelter; but until we build a just society in which
no-one has to beg, please don't pass a panhandler without stopping,
talking and sharing what you have. The
person you help is yourself in a mirror.” Laurel Rothman,
Director of Social Reform and the
National Coordinator for Campaign 2000 says: “Yes, we need to give to panhandlers. I usually try to keep spare change in my pocket so that I am prepared. In the Jewish tradition, “tzedakah” is the Hebrew word for what we call “charity” in English. While charity suggests a magnanimous act by the wealthy for the benefit of the poor, tzedakah means righteousness, justice or fairness. According to Jewish law, people are required to give one-tenth of their income to the poor, both Jews and non-Jews. Often families keep tzedakah boxes and contribute to them each week in preparation for the Sabbath. So, when I give money to panhandlers who have asked, I view it as an act of tzedakah. That helps to minimize the awkward and sad feelings and makes me feel that I am performing an act of social justice.”
“The question for me is not ‘Should I give to panhandlers,’ but rather ‘What should I give to panhandlers?’ I believe in the innate worth of all people, without exception, and that everyone is made in the image of God and is a child of God. The Salvation Army uses the phrase, ‘A hand up, not a handout. ’While I might phrase it differently, it does seem to capture the sense that a panhandler does have needs beyond those of the moment, even if those needs are not clear to her/him. So, while it is absolutely critical that I serve humankind through offering what I have to those in extreme need, it is just as critical that I work with colleagues and friends, those who journey with me, to understand that the social crisis in which the panhandler is trapped is my responsibility too. We must find ways to blame and attack (solve) the social problem and not blame and attack the person.”
"To question how someone
is spending money, whether received from wages, welfare or panhandling,
reflects an internal predudice. There is a pre-determination that someone who
appears to be homeless is either a drunk, drug addict or scam artist. Pan-handling,
for many, is an essential source of income due to the inadequacy of the social
support system." Beric
German, long-time anti-poverty activist notes: “I think that anyone should be allowed to ask another for help. Of course, the other person may not be able to respond with appropriate or enough help. This is of course the limitations of the charitable model.” Clearly, the contributions of the charitable sector
to homelessness are significant and invaluable for the basic survival of
those who are in need. But charitable individuals and groups cannot, nor
should they be expected to, formulate and implement a national
strategy for dealing with homeless individuals, nor are they able to develop
a comprehensive national housing policy. This is the role of government and
our elected representatives. As we all know, our precious Medicare program
could never have come about piecemeal, based on charitable donations and
fundraising. Lately however, when it comes to our federal
government, the word taking
rather than giving is the word that comes to mind. In his September 2006 budget announcement federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, in the same breath, announced
a record $13 billion surplus and with that, $1 billion in federal program
cuts.
“Since Prime Minister
Stephen Harper took power, he has been rapidly emptying the treasury. How is
Harper burning through a mountain of surplus cash? Tax
cuts. The Conservatives'
election platform had a ton of them. In
his first budget, he promised almost $9.9 billion in tax cuts in 2006/07
alone. More than half of that
went to the GST cut. In addition, this year he is spending another $4.4
billion — mostly on defence and his pseudo-childcare program — and he committed to
$3 billion in debt repayment. Add
it all up and his own budget indicates that he needs more than $17 billion
to pay for his agenda in this current fiscal year alone. Paying
for Harper's agenda will virtually empty the treasury this year — and for
some years to come.” · $5.6 million cut that eliminated the Court Challenges Program. · $4.2 million cut that eliminated the Law Commission of Canada. · $4 million cut to medical marijuana research. · $5
million cut to Status of Women Canada, closing 12 of 16 regional · $5 million cut, scrapping the Kelowna Accord. · $18 million cut from adult literacy programs. · $55.4 million cut from youth employment programs. · $42
million in cuts to Industry · $17.6 million cut to the Workplace Skills program. The Tories plan to issue $100 a month to parents with children under the age of six makes the search for child-care spots even more difficult, according to the Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada (CCAAC): "This government doesn't understand the benefits of early learning and child care or how to develop it," said CCAAC co-chair Debra Mayer. "An allowance to parents is not an early learning program for children. "In canceling the child care agreements with the provinces, the Harper government took $3.6-billion away from Canadian communities.” “The federal government's previous agreement with the provinces would have expanded early learning and child care options for over 100,000 families; improved access, particularly for low income and rural families and for children with special needs; and enhance intervention services for children at-risk” The
CCAAC said it was particularly vicious of the government to single out
aboriginal children for a $25-million cut. From the CBC: "In all, 66 programs
were cut or trimmed back in a series of cuts announced September 2006 that
hit across many departments and agencies… it's just the beginning, as
Baird says he will look for another $1 billion in savings." Full list of Sept 06 cuts: The Canadian "Stephen Harper has cut
or eliminated a number of government programs Jack Layton,
national leader of the New Democratic Party states: "This government has a
$13-billion surplus, and they cut funding for
Subscribe to this newsletter
|
|
