ECONOMY-CANADA: ‘War’ On Terror Threatens Fight Against Poverty

By Paul Weinberg Reprint | | Print |

Paul Weinberg

TORONTO, Oct 8 2001 (IPS) - Anti-poverty activists say they face the added burden of their issue being sidelined – even suppressed – by last month’s terrorist attacks on the United States and the subsequent preoccupation with security and retaliation.

Poverty across the country is rising. Between 1990 and 1995, the national population grew by 6.1 percent but the number of poor people rose by 28.6 percent to reach 5.5 million – or almost one in five Canadians. In urban areas, the poverty growth rate was 33.8 percent, according to the Canadian Council on Social Development.

Yet, “it is very hard to get social justice on the table,” says Buzz Hargrove, president of the Canadian Auto Workers (CAW) union.

Canada’s most controversial anti-poverty organisation, in alliance with groups that include indigenous peoples’ associations, says it will go ahead with planned “economic disruptions” across the province of Ontario in mid-October. These include an effort to shut down this city’s financial district.

John Clarke, an organiser and spokesperson for the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP), says the actions are aimed to focus attention on disparity. In the wake of Sep. 11 attacks on New York and the Pentagon, the groups’ list of concerns also will include the racist backlash against immigrants and Muslins that has followed revelations that some of the alleged terrorists were of Middle Eastern origin. This backlash, he says, has been particularly felt in Toronto, “the most multicultural city on earth.”

The national and provincial governments are embarking upon legislation and regulations that will toughen measures against illegal immigrants and refugee claimants. Retired Gen. Lewis Mackenzie, who now advises the Ontario government, has indicated that ethnic profiling – in which a subject’s ethnicity suffices to merit suspicion, investigation, and possible detention – might be necessary in some circumstances to deter potential terrorists and criminals.

“We are talking about repressive initiatives directed against the immigrants and communities of colour, a huge issue in Toronto,” says Clarke. “But we are also talking about a straight diverting of resources away from the necessary social spending to military and police, something that (Canadian Prime Minister Jean) Chretien has already talked about openly.”

OCAP uses direct action in defending poor people at the hands of welfare administrators, employers, landlords and immigration authorities. Along with the Canadian Union of Public Employees, it helped stop the deportation of three families that was being carried out by government officials even though a tribunal had ruled against it.

“The truth is that due process is very lacking even in situations where people have been granted humanitarian and compassionate appeal,” says Clarke.

Such activities, which OCAP’s allies say occur almost daily and have earned the group their enduring support, have been eclipsed by media-grabbing protests for which OCAP has drawn criticism.

During a rally in front of the Ontario provincial legislature a couple of years ago, there was a violent encounter between some members of OCAP and the Toronto police. On another occasion, the police arrested group members for setting up a poor people’s camp in a downtown park in violation of city bylaws.

Earlier this year, OCAP members raided the constituency office of an Ontario finance minister, Jim Flaherty, and dumped his furniture on the street as a way to illustrate the experience of evicted tenants following the lifting of rent control and tenant protection legislation by his provincial government.

This incident was the last straw for Hargrove and his CAW. While favouring non-violent protests involving civil disobedience and sit-ins, he criticized OCAP for “intimidating” the staff in the minister’s constituency office, including one disabled person.

While other Canadian unions still give money to OCAP, the CAW has cut its financial support for the Toronto-based group. Hargrove says his misgivings started when OCAP began picketing the homes of politicians and community leaders considered hostile to poor people.

Clarke counters that in the present political climate in Canada and globally, the disadvantaged have no alternative but to resort to direct action. “In today’s context, it has to take the form that can actually put a price tag on the policies that the government is seeking to implement,” he says.

Josephine Grey, who heads Low Income Families Together, says that OCAP has played “a useful role” in keeping the plight of poor people, immigrants, and the homeless in the media spotlight. “It is unfortunate that TV networks and newspapers will only cover demonstrations and rallies if they turn violent,” she told IPS.

Nevertheless, Grey, a woman of colour and a single parent, says she is concerned that “it has become more dangerous” for OCAP in the current Canadian political climate. “There is a heightened sense of paranoia and a push for security.”

The debate in a generally peaceful country like Canada about protest tactics might appear quaint to those in countries where the poor apply more assertive measures to gain the attention of authorities.

The poor in developing countries are easier to organise politically because they have a stronger sense of community and identity, says Jonathan Barker, a University of Toronto professor and author of “Street-Level Democracy: Political Settings at the Margins of Global Power”.

Grey adds that it is generally accepted that the poor – who now are estimated to make up about a quarter of the Canadian population – often blame themselves for their plight in a rich Western society.

Clarke cites a movement in Argentina that conducts road blockades to make its point, as one inspiration for OCAP.