Another issue that has not been addressed in this whole “war on poverty” is transportation.

Where I live, if you do not have a driver’s license (for whatever reason) AND have at least $700 - $800 in disposable income after housing, food, clothing, children’s needs, etc. to support personal vehicle ownership, you do NOT get a job.

You are looked down upon in this Region (Niagara) if you do not drive, and are only offered low-wage, no skill jobs, always assuming if you don’t drive, there’s something wrong with you.

This prejudice will only entrench and continue to produce poverty and inter-generational disadvantage for years to come in Niagara, yet our politicians don’t give a flying f____ who they hurt by their priorities. Spending on roads, parking, traffic lights, etc. all take priority, as millions of dollars of taxpayers are taken (including from me that never uses any of this) to pay for the privileges of middle and upper income families that can afford to own two, three or more vehicles for their household.

This is prejudice to the extreme and it needs to be addressed … yesterday.

Keep up the good work!

The right not to be offended, did I say that? How does trying to deal with the issue of media accountability warrant a mention of this oft spoken obfuscation and fallacy? Also, the legislation you cited also applies to television and other venues where expression is monitored and to some extent censured.

you comment that the `free-speechers’ (surely you’re in favour of free-speech, that of your own at least) have used terms such as `kangaroo court’ to denigrate the so-called Human Rights Commissions… but linking Paul Fromm with Mark Steyn, this is `fair and analytical’ to you.

Makes me wonder what `unfair and synthetical’ would be you…

btw, if you consult the Charter, and the UN Dec. of Universal Rights, you’ll find freedom of speech is one of them - the right not to be offended, well, that’s just not there.

There are many blogs and websites that deal and address issues that you put forth. What makes yours unique and integral is that it is not over the top or extremely one dimensional. Your views are ones that don’t prescribe to any political doctrine or dogma. The opinions put forth are those that address the issues that are relevant and pressing when it comes to exercising free speech.

I can appreciate the opinions of those who want to protect free speech, I think many of us who have come from a Western culture will also feel this way. We want to protect our right to speak our minds. I’m sure you also believe, judging from your commentary. But I what I think you are trying to say is: how far does this right extend? You are describing situations in which free speech serves a purpose and should be protected but it should also not be dominated by those who can afford to monopolize content and venues.

Immanuel Kant had said that your right only extends so far as it interferes with another. Meaning you can enjoy the rights you have and use them as freely and liberally as you like but once it encroaches upon another’s right then that right does not have supremacy. It should no longer be used. What people like Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn are doing is exercising a right that we all value and elevate to the highest level. For people in who have lived and been educated in western thought, we cherish our rights, it defines who we are as people. We will do whatever we can never to lose those rights. Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn know this. They, however, have abused this right because they have encroached on other people’s rights to fair treatment and respect. These men use their forum for speech to create discrimination to a culture. This is inexcusable.

I’m not advocating for their removal, what I do advocate is that free speech does have a limit if it’s result is discrimination. Now the rights of those who have been stigmatized and chastised have been breached. Should we allow this to happen?

I have read arguments for both sides. I appreciate what the human rights tribunals were doing when they made their decisions. This is a political issue not just one that deals with the applicability of law and the philosophy of rights. These tribunals were in a difficult position due to the pressure placed on them but also the gravity of their decision. These same people have been educated in western thought and as such believe that the protection of free speech must be upheld. They did try a give a warning to Macleans and other publications but in the end their reach could only extend so far so as not to have an uproar in our society.

The tribunals failed in their decision regarding the Macleans issue. They needed more time and research to explain why the right to free speech can only extend to a certain point. The tribunal looked at cause but they didn’t look at effect. The cause and effect of any action or the exercise of a right must be viewed when rendering a decision of this magnitude. But I do believe the pressure and internal bias of our supreme right to free speech was a weight that left those to make that decision slightly blindfolded.

Hopefully in the future the blindfold will be removed. The application of law and assessing its reach must be viewed in a way that considers cause and effect. Law is not linear, it is lateral and as such its epistemology must be considered. It is understood that we have substantive laws. It is what governs our nations whether civil or common law. However, substantive law is the child of natural law. And natural law has dictated what is right and what is wrong; what is acceptable and what is not. Reason must be used in relation to ethics. Has not empiricism taught us anything? Rationalism is only one aspect of modern political thought.

The Ontario Human Rights Commission recently released a report entitled “Right at Home” documenting how the racialized and poor are discriminated by landlords across the board.

As discussed on this site, blacks are more likely to be ordered to have DNA tests by judges, when compared to whites with the same track records.

Women professors in universities still get paid less than their male counterparts for having the same credentials and same amount of experience.

If you would like a response next time I suggest you try to be a little more open-minded and fair, as well, try and think before you post.

Show documentation dude if it is insurmountable. There is no pressing concern.

Thanks for your comments and insight.

To be clear, I don’t agree with the Cabinet Committee’s mandate to develop poverty indicators before taking on poverty issues. I do believe, however, that if this indeed is a goal it should be completed with efficiency and transparency as being top priorities. Dalton McGuinty alloted one year from October 2007 for these indicators to be developed. With only a few months until October, Ontario is yet to catch wind of what these indicators are.

Additionally, I suggested that Deb Matthews and her committee take the time to contemplate the definition of poverty only because Matthews is yet to take a firm stand on the major issues. While she recognizes that the ODSP appeals process is in need of serious reform, social assistance as a whole was given only a small mention in Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Plan. ODSP and OW together may receive an additional 2% in funding this year. Overall, funding for social assistance is barely keeping up with the rise in inflation and this a central reason as to why ODSP is a sub par system.

Regarding the ODSP appeals process, I do believe that application procedures need to become more efficient. When an ODSP application is granted, this often doubles the applicant’s income (the first half funded from Ontario Works). When an application takes over a year to be approved, the health conditions of many applicants continue to worsen as they have close to no funding for medicine and special treatment.

In this post I was unable to flush out many of the sub-issues and complexities that I would have liked to. It was more important to provide an alternative perspective to that of the mainstream media. While the War on Poverty piece should be commended for shedding light on some of the broader issues, it failed to ask the right questions. While this post supplied few answers to some of these complex problems, it’s purpose was to encourage discussion. By no means do I suggest that you accept or even entertain my position, however, by it urging you to make a response and take a stand, I feel like I’ve done my job.

This too, is a practice that I hope the media will soon employ and encourage when covering topics of this magnitude.

Thanks again for your comments.