A List of Our Demands: ODSP/OW Clients of Ontario.

 

Do it.

 

 

All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

To that end.

We hereby demand a 2.5 % raise for ODSP/OW, to be committed to in writing by this government. This announcement will be made prior to Oct 1/21. The commitment will be for a term of five years. This raise will take effect Nov 1/21 and remain in effect for five subsequent years, that is to say until the last raise of Nov 1/26, at which time a new rate is to be determined in a timely manner as circumstances dictate. The new rate will be higher.

This government will commit, in writing, and on the front pages of community Canadian journalism, not to claw back any federal benefits including, but not exclusive to, child care programs, income adjustment benefits, including any form of federal basic income benefits, or any form of federal housing benefits for low income Canadians. This includes carbon tax rebates, HST and Trillium Benefits as well as any other federal/provincial subsidy that exists or should take effect.

This government will not exclude this demographic group from any such further social benefits.

We hereby demand this government to commit, in writing, to raising the allowable earnings, to $500.00 per month for ODSP/OW, with a rate of claw-back no more than one third, in other words 33 % on earnings over the allowable income threshold. This government understands that the present rate is fifty percent and shall not be raised by subterfuge or obfuscation.

This government will immediately raise the Work Related Benefit from $100.00/month to $250.00/month for a single adult employed person and proportionately for adults with dependent children. Each and every dependent child or incapacitated adult.

This government will immediately raise all benefits for dependent children, up to and including the age of 25, as presently applied for otherwise inapplicable adults currently living in household and otherwise not covered under existing and otherwise applicable dependents.

We hereby demand that this government commit in writing to continue rent controls as presently constituted, (Sept/21), for a period of 3-5 years; or until such time as the housing crisis has been deemed by parties competent to determine same, has been ended.

We hereby demand that this government shall from this time henceforth, collect, collate, study and determine the ODSP/OW suicide rate, and take all appropriate actions to lessen and mitigate these issues. We expect the government to be sincere in these initiatives. Let this government ‘flatten the curve’.

We hereby demand that this government end the practice of dividing benefits into ‘shelter’ and ‘personal needs’ portions, which do nothing other than place burdens on our most vulnerable citizens. This alone is a recipe for homelessness, as we have repeatedly stated; in our communications to this government. Which so far have been unacknowledged.

We hereby demand a raise in allowable assets as applied to ODSP/OW, this especially applies at the time of original application. We demand a ten percent raise in allowable assets, we also demand that all guidelines applicable be clear, easily understood and easily accessed and searched online and otherwise in an easily-accessible form for those of sight and hearing-impaired status. This should also be available in as many languages as are presently found in this polity, i.e., Ontario, Canada and its environs. This includes roughly three hundred and fifty languages.

We demand that this government recognize the right of the disabled, the mentally ill, or any other marginalized group, person or entity, whether collectively or in their own right, to negotiate on their own behalf, as well as on the behalf of others, for any beneficial or charitable reason, for any reasonable reason whatsoever, and that it shall not prejudice their case, or any other cases, that may be shown to be affected by this and other demands.

This government commits to no reprisals, including any form of bureaucratic or ministerial infringement, interference or undue inquiry when faced with such moral or ethical questions or challenges. The government will honour this commitment.

This government understands and acknowledges that charity is not, and can never be, a substitute for adequate, robustly funded social programs that meet the needs of the target demographic and should never be used to solicit positive, front page publicity without any real impact on the issue at question, a situation that has of late become intolerable to any thinking citizen.

We hereby demand that the allowable gifts in any given benefit period be raised from $7,000.00 to $10,000.00 immediately.

We hereby demand that the guideline or provision allowing any charitable institution, a church, a charity, a benevolent association, thereby allowing them to give a disabled person one million dollars for any reason whatsoever, without penalty to their benefits, be immediately raised to two million dollars.

We hereby demand that the practice of clawing back benefits from spousal parties or otherwise, who choose to co-habit a domicile, be ended and that neither party shall lose any part of their shelter portion, neither their personal needs portion or any other portion, whatsoever, under any circumstance whatsoever. No more claw-backs.

We hereby demand that the mileage rate for business, employment or medical travel be immediately raised ten percent, from $0.40/k to $0.44/k.

This government will commit in writing to initiatives that will reduce stigma, reduce the role of race, bigotry and prejudice, sexual or otherwise, in any social services delivery, including reducing barriers to proper service for those suffering from mental health and addictions issues. This also includes issues of sexual dysphoria.

This government will commit no future funding to community nutritionists, on the front pages of local media outlets, who just want to help poor people make better nutritional choices, when this government knows very well that clients of ODSP/OW have no money for food anyways. Honestly, it’s not even a dollar a day for either demographic group. So why bother.

This government will negotiate in good faith with the one million citizens of Ontario, through their representatives, duly appointed or selected, by God if necessary, but otherwise by democratic and parliamentary means, who, in the past have always been the last to be consulted in regards to their own hopes, their own dreams and their own aspirations, and whose lives, families and fortunes, their very futures have always been sacrificed in the past in the interest of those who could very well have done without such unfair advantages at the expense of their less fortunate friends, neighbours and fellow citizens, and who undoubtedly would have done something about it, if only they could have found the time.

This government will also acknowledge that it understands that it has been put on notice; and that it indeed understands that it has been put on notice; and that it also understands its responsibility to respond in an ethical manner, and even in a timely manner, that reflects credit upon itself and upon the taxpayers and the interested citizens of this province.

This government will clearly state that it has failed, and that it will endeavour to do better in the future in the best interest of this polity.

This government will reinstitute food safety guidelines for food banks and homeless shelters, with a view to preventing abuses of the food safety network, e.g. Grade C eggs donated to food banks, which are not suitable for human consumption but only for further processing. Even though agricultural corporations receive substantial tax credits for same.

This government commits to a program of defunding the food bank industrial complex and de-emphasizing homeless shelters and initiatives in favour of longer term solutions including a mix of co-op, geared-to-income, independent and dependent senior housing solutions, as well as more autonomous housing solutions in those cases where such may be applicable, in a person-based model, which is arguably better than whichever model may have come before, in the opinion of this writer.

Which model did come before? That is to say, if the government, or perhaps the Minister, doesn’t mind one million citizens asking a pretty reasonable question.

 

END

 

 

 

 

How to Spot an Ineffectual Do-Gooder. Louis Shalako.

Louis Shalako



How to Spot an Ineffectual Do-Gooder.


The ineffectual do-gooder’s preferred habitat is the front page of your local media outlet.


Their most distinguishing feature is that they are always ‘raising awareness’ of some significant topical issue, and a distinct absence of ideas of exactly what to do about it. They want to hold a candlelight vigil. More than anything, they want a pat on the back and reinforcement of the idea that they are good people, that they love Jesus and they’re just trying to do God’s work for Him, when in reality, these privileged, dull, unimaginative children of the middle class are just looking for a little publicity and a feeling that they are making a difference, when, really they are not—


If I was a Canadian journalist, confronted by yet another ineffectual do-gooder, ever so sincerely trying to raise awareness on the front page of my media outlet, I would have just one question for them:


“On this particular issue, if you could offer one single, concrete, and specific suggestion to address the situation, if you were given the power to take action, what would you do?”


< resounding silence>


“What’s the first thing you would tell the government to do. Right? They have the power to pass laws and fund programs, what would you suggest…? Right?”


<more silence>


And, ladies and gentlemen, if they don't have anything, then they don't get in my newspaper or other media outlet. That's because you're wasting all of our time. As a self-absorbed, egotistical little shit, this shocks you in some small way. But, as an example, 'the opoid crisis' is in the newspapers, on TV news and radio news, at least once a week.


How much fucking higher do you think we will have to 'raise awareness' of this issue, considering the idea or concept of the opioid crisis has well over a 95% 'penetration rate', in terms of public awareness. So, if you get that up to 98%, will something miraculously happen to solve the problem…??? Because that’s the impression I get. The power of positive thinking is useless without positive, by that I mean concrete, specific suggestions. Ideas. What exactly would you have us do? Go downtown and burn a candle on the riverbank with you? All that does is get us in the paper.


You honestly believe it will work—


You honestly believe that somebody, somewhere else—surely not the likes of you, will take concrete and specific actions to address the issue. As long as it’s not you—because you don’t have one, single fucking idea. Just feelings—hopes and dreams—thoughts and fucking prayers.


And you can't—or won't—answer that one either. It's okay, you're in good company. Canadian journalists can't answer it either. No, far better to raise awareness and have no ideas at all. At least that way you can’t fail. That’s because you can’t try. You have nothing to try—nothing at all.


#practical_suggestions #Canadian_journalism

Simply put, you're a bunch of fucking dummies.

A dummy is someone who doesn't have any ideas.

They’re fucking everywhere.

Are you aware, young man, that income levels are closely linked to outcomes in terms of mental health issues?

And that mainstream media and the middle class have forever inextricably linked mental health and addictions as being one and the same issue...??? #fuck_off

Have you ever wondered why they do that? You know, like slandering anyone who ever had a beer or smoked a joint as mentally-ill?

Oh, yeah, and then turning around and slandering anyone with a mental illness as an inveterate substance-abuser?

When the Establishment does that, government, CMHA, corporate media, it is an attempt to make an expensive problem look unsolvable. They’ll drib and drab with food banks, mental-health outreach programs, all of it underfunded because it’s hopeless anyway.

And they’ll never be out of a job, either.

And, if the middle-class, the taxpayers, (the rich, the big corporations, duck their fair share in a multitude of ways, and of course poor people are below the tax threshold on CRA tax tables), think it's a lost cause, why, then, they’re obviously not going to want to spend their tax dollars on it. They’d rather plunk it down on something that works, like roads, bridges and hospitals.

Those are more tangible—you can see them, and they seem real. The average middle class person has no expertise when it comes to solving poverty.

I’ll tell you this much: you have no ideas. No one is going to hand you a big pile of cash, not an effective amount of cash. Because it takes billions, year in and year out. Fifty or sixty grand, some grant money, (but you haven’t even got that far yet, that’s because you have no fucking ideas), buys you a storefront for a few months. It hires one entry-level professional just out of school, for about six months, and it buys a few pens, pencils, an ad in the local paper—who are only too happy to take the taxpayer’s money.

You're all talk and no cock, Boyo.

What impresses me most about you people is how little you know about the people you are ostensibly planning to help.

More.

“It’s difficult to validate, but we do believe that several deaths have been prevented since Naloxone or Narcan kits have become available,” he said.


Yeah, it's a lot like claiming success in suicide prevention, while at the same time, resisting all calls to track ODSP/OW suicide statistics. Because we all know what that would show. It would show that ODSP/OW clients are a high-risk group. They are at-risk. We all know it to be true, even though there are no stats—it is a self-evident truth.  


And we also know that the only solution is time, money, expense, trained people, working at effective programs. That money would have to come from somewhere, probably the taxpayers.


We can’t have that now, can we.


Ideas do not come from ineffectual do-gooders.


#fuck_off

Another one.



...would this, by any chance, have anything to do with the fact that ODSP clients are living thirty-five to forty percent below the poverty line?


Then why not fucking say so.


The funny thing is, he never will, and neither will local radio.


#fuck_off


St. Myles of Yappi.


What’s interesting about the more effectual do-gooders, such as St. Myles of Yappi, is that never, so long as they live, will they bring up the fact that ODSP clients are living thirty-five to forty percent below the poverty line, and that the landlord is taking seventy percent of their disability pension in rent.


Saint Myles will never call for a raise in ODSP/OW rates.

He will never call for a raise in the minimum wage, or rent controls, or an increase in allowable earnings for people on social assistance. In that sense, he is a stooge for the bourgeoisie. But then, they’re the ones donating all the tins of soup, which is of course in their best interest—they don’t want to see the situation coming down to class warfare.

***

Ultimately, an ineffectual do-gooder on the front page of the newspaper is just another damned suck-hole, looking for easy publicity, mostly for no reason at all.

End