Race to lunch on Elgin

I went to Wendy's today to try their new fish fillet sandwich, which I had seen advertised between online clips of the Colbert Report.

Harvey's (my fast food restaurant of choice) hasn't had a fish sandwich in years, and I haven't had a McDonald's Filet-o-Fish in five and a half years.

I also haven't been to Wendy's very often. It's the next rung up from McDonald's in my list of 'corporations I probably shouldn't frequent'. I used to enjoy it, but more recently the food would taste rather bland.

Then I remembered that the taste I get at Wendy's isn't just from the food.

Inventory

The last time I was there, the girl at the cash was a young black girl whose eyes and face wore an expression of despondency. Her white colleague, a female maybe mid to late 20's, wearing a crisp managerial-type outfit, made smalltalk at her, completely oblivious to the black girl's utter lack of interest.

I think the black girl could see what I see.

Of the various traditional fast food places on Elgin street, Wendy's is the only one where the staff are nearly all of black or southeast Asian ancestry.

At Harvey's, they're almost all white except for the two managers, including Sammy (seen here shaking hands with Jean Chrétien). The recently-opened Quizno's is also very white bread. I haven't been inside the McDonald's recently, but peeking through the window on my way back from Wendy's today I saw a white guy behind the counter. Haven't been to Subway recently either so can't comment on that. There are no Tim Horton's on Elgin, but most of the ones downtown are staffed by visible minorities who barely speak English.

Meanwhile, look at the prices. McDonald's, Wendy's and Subway are lower on the budgetary spectrum, while Harvey's and Quizno's are definitely more expensive. There are also ethnic eateries like Shawarma and pho/bubble tea places, plus pizza places and non-fast-food places that are hard to compare because many of them are family owned and run.

I haven't done enough observation of the customers (Ottawa is pretty vanilla), so the most I can go on is the counter staff.

Clueless white guys

Andrew Nellis (who like me is white) told me a good story once of a trip to a suburban breakfast place with a black friend of his. They sat down and the staff never approached the table. Never gave them menus, asked for their orders, or so much as acknowledged their presence.

Andrew's friend told him that it was because he was black, and they should probably just go someplace else.

Andrew, being the hardcore activist he is, was upset by this and wanted to put up a fight. Stage a campaign, make a fuss, and so on. But his black friend told him that if he were to fight every time he encountered racism, he'd do nothing but. This shocked Andrew, as it did me when he relayed the story.

It's a good story of how easy it is to be ignorant of racism, sexism, homophobia, and discrimination against the poor when you're in the majority.

Just one clue

That's why I'm so bothered by this observation of the Wendy's staff. I've gotten as far as observing that there's something different going on, but I otherwise don't know what to make of it.

Is it because these are the lowest-paid jobs in the service sector, and these people are the only ones who will take it?

Are the other places discriminatory in their hiring practises?

Is there a correlation between race and poverty? Like, do they only apply to the lower-priced places because those are the only places where they shop?

And assuming I did figure out where this discrepancy came from, how should I respond? Actively boycotting Wendy's and Tim Horton's won't work; that would only encourage them to stop hiring minorities. (Not that fast food is good for your health)

I don't think the problem is with the fast food places; I suspect this is just a manifestation of a greater social problem that causes minority youth to be poorer and less well educated.

But it's really hard for me to know any of this because I'm a well-educated middle-class white guy who hangs around with other well-educated people and professionals who are mostly white.

Not that it matters at this point, but the fish fillet sandwich was unspectacular. A bit smaller than I'd hoped and the sauce bland.

- RG>

Honey, get my picket sign

You might already have heard about it from this Ottawa Sun article by Jon Willing or this Sun column by Earl McRae, but I learned about it from browsing through upcoming City Hall agendas.

On the agenda for next Wednesday's Transportation Committee meeting, Councillor Georges Bédard will be presenting a motion that would make it illegal, while on a City street, to:

engage in loud, boisterous, threatening, abusive, insulting or indecent language, or engage in any disorderly conduct or behaviour

or to:

engage in any activity so as to interfere with or become a nuisance to the general public using the highway or to adjacent property owners.

Pretty broad-reaching stuff, and at Transportation committee no less.

According to the Sun article, Bédard got the idea from the Police, who wanted a way to deal with rowdy folks spilling out of bars and clubs after closing time in the Byward Market. That is, a way that didn't involve all the mess and paperwork of criminal charges.

The thing is, that's not the only thing this law does. It allows police and by-law officers to charge you for a wide range of vague activities, phrased in a list that allows officers to pick and choose what they want to enforce: "insulting language," "indecent language" are both on the menu, as are "any disorderly conduct" and "any disorderly behaviour" (presumably so officers can avoid boredom while writing tickets by alternating between the two terms).

In the Sun column by Earl McRae, barfly Art Cormier points out the absurdity of these powers:

"who the hell is going to decide what’s loud and boisterous or insulting? Will some cop show up with a meter in his hand —oh, oh, you’re over the line. Loud, boisterous, and insulting. Like, gimme a break."

And if that broad mandate doesn't scream "police state" to you, Byward Market BIA Executive Director Jasna Jennings cements it with that famous line:

"If you behave, you have nothing to worry about."

Sorry Jasna. If I get hit by a car, I'm not the one who should be getting a ticket because I called the driver a motherfucker—especially not on top of the one I'd get for being a pedestrian.

And despite Bédard's stated intentions, this law could also be used against his other nuisance, panhandlers and homeless people. And never mind that silly bylaw requiring protests to be across the street—this law will get protesters off the street altogether!

We already have a noise by-law that works pretty well against late-night boisterousness, plus the existing criminal charges that the police don't seem intent on enforcing.

I won't go into the constitutionality of such a law, because it's such a patently obvious violation of free speech that even Bob Monette should be able to realize it. If this motion passes Transportation Committee (and I highly doubt it will), the City's top lawyer will probably talk Council out of approving it like he did with the attempted ban on Atheist bus ads.

I've already sent an e-mail to Committee members expressing my disapproval of such a regulation, and I managed to restrain myself from using words that would earn me a visit from the green hornets.

As a member of the Committee, Georges Bédard has the right to present this motion. But in this case, it would be wiser for him to exercise his right to withdraw it.

- RG>

Tell Liberals what you think about crime and safety

This invitation came through my inbox. While I can't attend myself, I hope those who are rightly-minded can express the view that the best way to tackle crime is to tackle the social issues at its source.

I was going to make a comment about "when the only tool you have is a hammer, you tend to look at every problem as a nail," but apparently I already nailed the Conservative Party on that note. The Liberals need to stop kowtowing the Conservative Party line and start making some real sense. You know, like when Chrétien let loose and started toward decriminalizing marijuana. Those kinds of crime policies would at least help the Liberals look "green".

---

Dear Community Member:

On behalf of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Caucus, I am pleased to invite you to a non-partisan roundtable and public forum on crime and community safety, taking place on Parliament Hill on February 4^th from 9am-12pm.

Though Parliament has been prorogued, we are continuing to work on the issues that matter most to Canadians. This event will explore effective public policy solutions to the issues of crime and community safety.

For it to be effective, we need your participation. Your experience and knowledge is a valuable asset to our discussion and understanding of the issue, so I do hope you can find time in your busy schedule to participate.

Please feel free to distribute the invitation below to anyone in your network that you feel would be interested in participating. I look forward to our discussion next week.

Sincerely,

[signature]

Mark Holland, M.P.

Liberal Party Critic for Public Safety and National Security

***************************

On behalf of our Leader, Michael Ignatieff, and the National Liberal Caucus,

You are invited to a special roundtable and forum on Community Safety

When: Thursday, February 4^nd, 2010 beginning at

9:00am – 12:00pm

The Roundtable will feature a panel discussion with community advocates, criminologists, and members of law enforcement about the creation of a national action plan to reduce crime, prevent victimization and enhance community safety in Canada.

Where: Room 253-D, Centre Block, Parliament Hill, Ottawa

With the Presence of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff

Panel Participants and Complete Agenda to be distributed prior to February 4^th

RSVP and for more information, please call 613-995-8042 or email hollam0@parl.gc.ca

Sincerely,

Mark Holland, M.P.

Liberal Critic for Public Safety and National Security

- RG>

Book release Friday: "SUN, FUN & SLAVERY : How to South Became the North's Playground"

Exile Infoshop is hosting a book release this Friday. Below is the text of the announcement.

SUN, FUN & SLAVERY : How to South Became the North's Playground

a new book by our very own, Nelson Ross Laguna

"In our attempts to re-invent our own little paradise in someone’s else’s
backyard, we have in turn recreated a system we were determined to
destroy."

Friday, August 14th, 2009

8:00pm - doors open
8:30pm - one-on-one with the author

Exile Infoshop 256 Bank St. (at Cooper) Second Fl.


In the sixth Exile Press release, Sun, Fun & Slavery, Nelson Ross Laguna
explores modern day tourism in the americas and its intersections with
terrorism. Exposing modern tourism's calculated and disastrous effects in
South and Central America. As tourism, and the production of tourist
infrastrure entrench the priviliges of the North, and reinforce the
racilaization of poverty, we ask: What are our hidden histories of modern
slavery? How is the path of western imperialism continuing today? What is
to be done? Join us on Friday, August 19th for a discussion with Nelson
Ross Laguna, who will share his experiences & perspectives on sun, fun,
and slavery.

If you've never been to Exile (especially since they moved across the hall to their current space), check it out, it's a great space with lots of interesting stuff that you won't find in a regular bookstore.

- RG>

At least I didn't catch swine flu...

It's been a while since I sat in the front window at Bridgehead. I occasionally like to sit here because I can keep an eye out on the panhandler of the day across the sidewalk.

This night, at about a quarter to 8pm, two policemen approached the person sitting in front of the empty Ottawa Sun box and she got up.

She had been sitting there when I had sat down, at least forty minutes, barely breaking her silent, empty gaze as pedestrians went by her, often ignoring her. She was very skinny, and wasn't holding a sign. She wasn't asking people for change, or even saying hello, as some panhandlers do.

And the police got her to leave. They watched her as she sullenly stuffed into the recycling bin the newspapers on which she had been sitting, then walked away.

As they did this, I got up and stood outside the door of Bridgehead, my body language making it clear that I was keeping away, but watching very intently. The cops chose not to notice me.

I followed the cops and called out "excuse me" as nonaggressively as I could, and I guess they didn't hear me because they started into a lively chat with a couple on the patio of the Sir John A. I stood back, allowing pedestrians to pass on the sidewalk, and waited about five minutes until their conversation waned.

Again, as I waited, I used my body language to make it clear I was there for them: my hands were in my pockets, my shoulders were aimed square at them, and my eyes were on them, making eye contact whenever they popped their head up to look around.

There were two officers, both beat cops on foot.

The older one, a sergeant, looked around 50-60 years old, white male, with salt-and-pepper hair under his cap. He lightly rested the palm of his right hand lightly on the end of his sidearm and fold-up baton on his belt.

The younger one, a constable, was more interested in the conversation and more comfortable in it. He looked around 30, a bit on the larger side, and had a buzz cut and a short goatee from his lower lip to his chin.

As I stood there immobile, I noticed that the sergeant's shoes were shinier.

I suspect the sergeant was uncomfortable because he realized I was there, and he knew that eventually this conversation would have to end and he'd have to talk to me. He forced himself to look cheerful as he chatted, despite his obvious discomfort, in order to borrow as much time as possible.

The younger one suggested they'd better get back on their way, and the sergeant turned around.

"Hi!" I said as cheerfully as I could muster.

"Oh, you're waiting for me? Sorry," asked the sergeant with a politeness so artificial that it was obvious he knew for damn sure I was waiting for him.

So we're both playing ignorant. Fine.

It was at this point that I discovered the sergeant, Mr. Couillard, was about six foot four. I hadn't noticed this earlier because it was only now that he was standing eight inches away from me!

Ostensibly, he didn't even know what I was going to ask him about. He probably had an idea, but up until that point I'm just joe on the street. So here we have our friendly neighbourhood police officer, there to be a part of the community (PDF warning), staring down a member of the public and violating their personal space while politely saying hello.

I hope he saw the "go fuck yourself" I was hiding behind my polite banter and smile.

"Yeah," I said rather cludgily, my words fast and my voice pitched high. I was waiting for you, "I mean, I have all night." On the surface I was saying that I was being patient and polite for him to finish his conversation with the folks on the patio. Underneath, I was telling him that he couldn't make me uncomfortable (at least not easily) or threaten me with delay tactics.

Since these guys had an important job to get to, I got right down to business.

"I was wondering why you guys asked the panhandler to move along there."

Officer smiley suddenly turned into officer frowny. The game was up, at least on his side. Thankfully he didn't have bad breath, because he was standing as close to me as an unfamiliar man could. The constable stood behind him across the sidewalk. I couldn't see him.

Without a pause after my question, Sergeant Frowny replied "because she was obstructing the sidewalk, somebody's going to trip and break either her ankle, or their ankle."

I paused to process this reply.

Me: "I... Okay. I accept your view. I disagree with it, but I accept it."

Him: "You can disagree with it all you want. When it creates a danger, in the manner that they're doing it..."

Me: "mmm-hmm.."

Him: "...then we ask them to--we didn't even ask; we just walked up said 'hi', and she says 'I know I'm gonna move.'"

Me: "Okay. Thank you!"

As the conversation ended, I could see the constable behind the cop, on the other side of the sidewalk, almost on his toes trying to look over the sergeant's shoulder to see what was going on. I find this very curious. I guess he wanted to learn how to keep Ottawa's streets safe from one of the best.

It's so nice off Sergeant Couillard to think of the safety of this girl's ankle. Like any police officer walking the beat, he politely approached her and said hi. It was her choice to respond by getting up and leave--all he did was say "hi".

If he said 'hi' to her as "politely" as he said it to me--and he towered over me while I was standing, the girl had been sitting--does he really expect me to think that she had any choice but to leave? I mean, she doesn't want to end up like this girl, does she? [None of the cops in the linked post were either of the ones in this incident]

Copwatch

In addition to zoom's account in the above-linked incident, my other inspiration to stand up and approach the police about this incident is from Copwatch, which I've never done myself on any formal basis, but have heard of. In Ottawa, it's organized by Andrew Nellis (whom I've mentioned many times on this blog).

Kill Everything blogger Nik has a good post [among others; I've spent the last four hours enthralled by his blog posts... he also writes about Nellis] where he describes Copwatch and what it's like to be out on a patrol shift with Nellis:

"Copwatch happens all over the world. In Ottawa, it's a program where ordinary people put on florescent orange vests with COPWATCH written on them..."

The police are (allegedly) there for people's safety, not to harass the vulnerable. I didn't want to intervene on the girl's behalf and possibly cause her undue trouble (which she obviously wanted to avoid), but I sure as hell wanted to let those cops know that what they're doing is bullshit.

You want to look out for her safety? Find her a place to live and a reliable source of income. Look after her stomach, not her ankle. And protect her from being harassed--of the hundreds of people who walked by her, the only two who seemed to be bothered by her was those two white men with shiny badges.

- RG>

MAYDAY 2009: Public Space Under Attack

Here's a poster that I got from Andrew Nellis on a recent visit to Exile:

On the eve of May Day 2008, Nellis was arrested for cutting the lock on the fence under the Terry Fox bridge on Rideau (fence pictured below). I blogged about it here and here. He also got a lot of media coverage and managed to get the conditions cleaned up at the Ottawa Regional Detention Centre in the process. The charges were later dropped.

Anyway, according to Nellis, who also coordinates the CopWatch program, the goal of MAYDAY 2009 is to start a Black Ribbon campaign. Starting May 1, black ribbons will be tied in places where public space has been lost.

Nellis was also involved with the Ticket Defense Program, which is no longer able to defend panhandlers from illegitimate charges. This development is explained by Reuel S. Amdur in his article, "Do Poor People Have Rights?" in the January/February 2009 issue of the Access Now newspaper, which represents people with disabilities. Click the image below to zoom in to read the article:

I don't agree with him on a number of issues, but you can't argue that he works awfully hard playing defence on the front lines of the war on poverty.

- RG>

SCAN: Split Communities and Neighbourhoods?

Via Blogawa, I saw a post by A. on Please Pick-Up Your Socks that there would be a meeting about Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods ("SCAN") legislation, which is being proposed in Ontario by our local MPP, Yasir Naqvi. The meeting was held tonight (Thursday, February 5, 2009) at the Ottawa Public Library main branch.

The event was organized by a group called People Against SCAN (PeopleAgainstSCAN.com), and consisted of a panel of five speakers, including Naqvi, Cheri DiNovo (NDP MPP for Parkdale-High Park; Naqvi and DiNovo pictured below), Yutaka Dirks (Advocacy and Outreach Coordinator, Advocacy Centre for Tenants - Ontario), Anne Levesque (Lawyer, Clinique juridique francophone de l'est d'Ottawa), and Tara Lyons (Executive Director, Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy).

Kudos are in order for Mr. Naqvi coming out to an event organized by a group whose sole purpose is to oppose legislation he is sponsoring, and also for being willing to meet with many of the individuals and groups represented at the meeting who oppose his bill. But just showing up won't win my support.

Before the event, I had a chance to read over some information about the Orwellian-titled SCAN bill on the People Against SCAN's website, particularly This memo detailing areas of concern of the bill. Looking through that document was frightening. The mere fact that a tenant can be evicted without having a right to properly defend themselves (as is the case with SCAN legislation in other jurisdictions) is enough for me to oppose it outright. I don't care what your bill is designed to do, if it skirts due process, I oppose it--didn't we learn that already with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Gonzales?

There were definitely a decent representation of people at the meeting in favour of the legislation. Most cited chronic crack houses as the problem they want this legislation to solve--houses where illegal activity takes place (even though the reach of the bill goes beyond criminal activity)--but I am not convinced, as they are, that this legislation will actually solve their problems. So you shut down a house filled with crack addicts. They're not all of a sudden going to get un-addicted because they were evicted.

Moreover, even if it were to solve the problems cited by its proponents in the audience, SCAN would impact others in the community in ways that don't seem to concern the proponents.

You can download a PDF of the bill here and see for yourself what it says.

One section that was raised as a concern was section 20. Section 20 starts out by saying that the municipally-appointed Director of Safer Communities and Neighbourhoods must make a "reasonable effort" to make sure that evicted residents have alternate accommodation. Now, I don't like ambiguous words like "reasonable" to begin with, but the section continues to say that it "does not apply to a resident who the Director reasonably believes caused or contributed to any of the activities in respect of which the order that requires the residents to leave was made."

So once the eviction takes place, the Director can let them go out in the cold so long as the Director "reasonably believes" that the people caused or contributed to activities which triggered the SCAN legislation--activities which don't have to be illegal, simply which "adversely affect" the neighbourhood--such as sniffing glue or gasoline in one's home (read the law--it actually mentions glue!).

The bill has passed second reading, but is in committee and will likely not survive there, which is a good thing in a way.

But in another way, it's a pity, because the community members who wanted SCAN wanted it because there were problems in their community and they're banking on it getting passed. But they asked for legislation that does far more than is reasonable, and as such it will get shot down and these community members will be back at square one with no resolution to their legitimate problems.

---

On my way home from the meeting, I came across a car whose alarm was going off. This was pretty late at night, and the streets were empty. As someone who is concerned about his neighbourhood, I felt compelled to do something about it. My cell phone's battery had run out (grr... stupid thing won't even last one full day and it's less than a year old...), so my initial reaction to phone Bylaw to make a noise complaint was not an option. But a dead cellphone battery wasn't going to stop me.

I started by leaving a note on the windshield wiper, which read "If you're not going to respond to your car alarm going off, then TURN IT THE FUCK OFF!!! (P.S. Your radio is still on)"

After leaving this note under the windshield wiper, I took down the plate number, time and location on my notepad so I could report it when I got home if I felt like it. But as I was writing it, a man walked up to the car. I established that he was the owner, and told him that the car alarm was going off, even if I just walk in front of the car.

And the guy was genuinely concerned. He was concerned about his car alarm being oversensitive, he was concerned about the disruption this caused, and he was concerned that there was probably something wrong with his car's electronics system causing this. He said he would take it in the next day and get a loaner while it is fixed, and I think he even said something about disconnecting the battery so it wouldn't bother any more people tonight.

I snatched my note off his windshield and crumpled it into my pocket, and instead wished him a good night, as he went into his car to troubleshoot the problem.

I felt good about that experience, because I dealt with the problem myself without relying on a government to intervene because of my anonymous (to the driver) complaint. In fact, I am probably more anonymous for having confronted him in person than by reporting it to Bylaw.

---

At the meeting about SCAN, a number of times opponents said to proponents that they should try to talk to the problem tenants. Frankly, I cringed when they said this, and some people said they already tried dealing directly with the people to no avail. If I had a biker gang next door dealing drugs and guns, I sure as hell won't knock on the door and--hell, I'd avoid drawing attention to myself as much as possible!

But the incident with the car alarm really brought it home that there are people out there who are willing to respond to your concerns in a civil manner. We live in a society where we want to respond to problems with anger and punishment, but sometimes all you have to do is ask politely.

- RG>

Police intimidate blogger?

zoom! of Knitnut.net has posted an entry in her blog, aptly titled Bank Street Bully, referring to a police officer who didn't like her photographing him handling a woman on Bank street.

Zoom recounts how she valiantly held her ground and challenged the uniformed officer's demand to erase the photos from her camera. While police can be useful to some people in some situations, the officer in this case was definitely overstepping--abusing, even--his authority by trying to coerce her into deleting the photos she had just taken of him.

I'm no stranger to complaining about police, but I've never really confronted nor been confronted by an officer directly about a serious matter (there was one time when I challenged an officer after he made a snide remark he made about me to another officer).

I have, however, photographed a few police-related incidents that have set off my spidey sense, which zoom!'s post has inspired me to post tonight.

The one most similar to that observed by zoom! happened this past June on Elgin street. I was chatting with Carver, a popular downtown panhandler/artist/philosopher (who, by the way, is not an alcoholic or drug addict, and is not homeless, contrary to many people's stereotypes of panhandlers!), when he noticed a native panhandler out cold up the block, being roused by a couple of cops and a paramedic. I took a few photographs from far enough away to not attract the police's attention.

This wasn't police brutally, mind you, but I didn't think someone sleeping on a doorstep is really causing anybody any harm. Which is why I was a bit surprised when the paramedic stepped back while the police arrested him.

I'm not sure who is the guy in the blue shirt, but he seemed to play a part in the incident; he may have been the complainant, or simply a concerned citizen. He followed the officers around the corner to their cruiser, against which they pressed him before putting him inside.

I innocently asked the officer what was going on, and the officer gave me a brief overview: that they were going to put him in a cell overnight "for his own protection" yadda yadda yadda.

---

The next incident is from August 2007 during the Montebello North American Leaders' Summit (the one where undercover police officers were caught acting as agents provocateurs in a crowd of otherwise peaceful protesters). I had just happened to be on Cartier Street, when I discovered an odd sight. A couple police vehicles and three OC Transpo buses.

Being once again unseen in plain view, I snapped a few shots of what I saw. The windows of the buses were covered by black garbage bags, and even a garbage-bag drape was installed across the aisle.

The buses were chartered by the Ottawa Police Service to head to the Montebello Summit, as the sign in the front window (closeup below) clearly and publicly indicates. While I was sufficiently unfond of what the buses likely contained at the time--probably Ottawa Police officers with riot squad gear--I know that public transit vehicles are used during protests to detain groups of protesters en masse, and I shudder at the possibility of what could happen to detained protesters if they were hidden from public view inside these buses (paid for by OUR tax dollars!).

I wonder what the advertisers on those buses (landroverottawa.ca and Ocean's light tuna italian salad, among others not captured in my photos) think about their ads being on potential mobile holding units.

---

In October, I was walking home when a pair of police cruisers somewhat forcefully pulled over an OC Transpo bus that had just picked up a pair of passengers on Gladstone at Percy.

Two officers boarded the bus, questioned a young black male who had just boarded, got off the bus and let it (and the youth) go on its way. I overheard one of the officers say something along the lines of "wow, he matched the description perfectly, but it's not the guy." Just imagine being that kid on the bus and having to sit through the rest of the ride with everyone staring at you because the police thought you looked like someone they want.

---

This last one isn't so much police, but it's certainly along the same lines. It's also along the lines of the oft-quoted saying:

"The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread." (Anatole France, from The Red Lily, 1894)

After the City of Ottawa literally banned the poor from sleeping under a bridge earlier this year, raising the ire of CopWatch organizer Andrew Nellis (the aftermath of which I blogged about at the time), the National Capital Commission abruptly removed the shrubs in Confederation Park behind which homeless people sleep. I walked through Confederation Park every day for five years and never once noticed a homeless person sleeping behind a shrub--much less be bothered by it.

But in the name of shooing homelessness to some other quarter, the shrubs were removed from this previously enjoyable public space, leaving a grey concrete wall for passers-by to stare at.

O, how inviting this park is now. They should pave over the grass and cut down the trees, too, just to be sure it won't attract any undesirable people. (Or any people at all!)





- RG>

Underprivileged? No. Smug? Yes.

So it looks like I haven't posted at all in October. I guess life happens, eh?

I had a great time working at the polls during the recent election. The big pile of forms, envelopes and ballots that had to be sorted just right was thrilling. It was like my coming out as a bureaucrat.

In fact, I even compiled a list of corrections to the elections manual based on the questions and problems I encountered through the day. There were a number of problems with it. For example, when gathering the items on a list of materials we'd require at the end of the night, we spent five whole minutes looking for an envelope that didn't exist. Also, there was no central list of what to do at the end of the night: it was all "go from this set of instructions to that one over there and follow them." Quite confusing, even for a logic puzzle solver like myself.

I e-mailed Elections Canada to let them know I've got this feedback, and I offered to write it up if they would give me an address to forward it to. The response I received, in full (albeit within 24 hours), was "We acknowledge receipt of the electronic message you sent to Elections Canada on October 16, 2008. Your message has been forwarded to the appropriate directorate." How nice of them to accept the input that I haven't even sent them yet!

I've been really busy since then with various commitments, but I've got some breathing room now.

I was very disappointed this morning to find not 25-35 cm of snow on the roads (as forecast), but mostly clear roads with a smattering of wet stuff on the sidewalks. I was looking forward to the adventure of riding in the snow again, but it'll have to wait for another day. (Hopefully a month or two off)

Other things are also going well. A few things have broken, or I've otherwise determined the need to replace things, and it's been quite painless to get them fixed. For example, the belt holster for my phone broke and I was so disinclined to deal with the people at the Bell World store (who conned me into buying the thing) that I'd rather spend the $30 elsewhere to get a new one than to have to deal with those fucks. In the meantime, I'll just stick the holster in my pocket.

A better example of something breaking is my sunglasses. When I got a new prescription earlier this year (hmm... same time as the new phone...), I had to choose between getting new frames and new lenses on my sunglasses, or just replacing the lenses on my five-year-old shades. New frames would allow me to update the style with new glasses, but replacing the lenses would be much cheaper. Since I was also buying non-sunglasses, I chose the cheaper sunglass option.

Then a couple of weeks ago, the frames started to fall apart. I wasn't quite sure what to do. My worst fear was that I would have to buy new frames and lenses, and toss the expensive lenses I had purchased earlier this year. Very expensive. Then I got an idea: I could try getting another pair of the same model as my current shades.

I called up the Lenscrafters at Rideau Centre and asked them if they had any of these five year old model. They were very polite and very helpful. They did a bunch of looking around for me and concluded that, while the model wasn't marked as being discontinued, there were no more of them in any Lenscrafters in the country. They suggested I try on the internet, and they gave me all the details that I would need to make sure I get the right ones.

With this information, I looked on the internet for the shades. According to places that didn't have them in stock (including the manufacturer), they cost about $235 new. Yowch. So I went to the next obvious destination--eBay. There they were, the only ones, available from a place in California for 90 bucks plus shipping (this was while the dollar was still at about 90 cents. Then, the icing: they had them in different colours. Okay, "colours". By replacing my gunmetal model with a black matte, I could get the best of both worlds: cheaper (by replacing the lenses earlier on, and subsequently replacing the frames at much less than retail), and still get a bit of change in style. Still a costly item, but much cheaper than it could have been.

So fast forward to this week. The shades arrived in the mail and I swapped out the lenses. Only they didn't quite fit. Grr! It was clear that when they had installed the lenses the first time five years ago, they removed some of the sweep in the frames to accommodate them. I did not want to bend my frames and risk breaking them.

I would have to go to the Rideau Centre to take them to Lenscrafters.

I hate going to the Rideau Centre. It's so big and commercial and unfriendly. There are so many people, yet so little personality. Give me the charm of Elgin or Bank street any day. On top of that, since it's a place I don't go often, there are likely to be a few things that I want to photograph, but I forgot my camera at home today.

I took them into Lenscrafters, expecting to have to leave them there for a few days while they fixed it. Instead, they took them behind the glass and did the work right there in minutes. Best part? They didn't charge me for it at all!

So what does this have to do with the title? On the way back out, I saw the welcome mats outside Miss Tiggy Winkles. The one in the front annoyed me so much that, with my one free hand, I fumbled my phone out of my pocket, pried it out of the holster and aimed it in the general direction of the mat to take a photo of it (hence the atrocious quality):

It says "WE WORK WITH THE UNDERPRIVILEGED (Our children)"

Anyone who displays that slogan outside of their house--whether they mean it honestly or in jest--ought to be shot. If you're rich enough to afford that mat, then either your children are privileged as fuck or you're gloating at how poorly you treat your children. If you children aren't privileged, then you're a neglectful cad for wasting your money on a stupid novelty mat instead of something that will help in their development (or at least get them a toy that's a bit more fun than a bloody welcome mat). If you want to spend money to show appreciation for your children, buy a damn "my son/daughter is an honour student" bumper sticker (or some, uh, prescription sunglasses :P ), but calling them "underprivileged" is just insulting to everybody.

- RG>

The Andrew Nellis file gets interesting...

As I wrote earlier today, Andrew Nellis has been arrested on what are, as far as I've been able to find out, unspecified charges, and that he won't be out until his hearing on Monday morning.

In that blog entry, I wrote "If it were someone else arrested and Andrew had been at the protest, he would have pointed out that his arrest was intended to preclude his ability to participate and organize in today's planned demonstration." Sure enough, I was right.

At the grand re-opening and one-year celebration of Exile Infoshop (which, interestingly, is located at the same interection as this previously-blogged abuse of police powers), there was a copy of the 24 Hours newspaper, and on the back page was an article by Adrienne Ascah called "May Day set to take city by storm."

The article includes an itinerary for the May Day celebrations, including (quote):

• Noon-1 p.m. Mayor Larry O'Brien's Impeachment Tea Party at City Hall.


• 1 p.m. Take Back The Streets rally, beginning at the Human Rights Monument.


• Noon-8 p.m. Opening of the anarchist Exile Infoshop's new location 256 Bank Street.

Ascah talks about and with Nellis for the second half of the article. He talks about why he works with the Ottawa Panhandlers Union: "The city and the businesses use the police to enforce their will. The police will come out and harass panhandlers even though panhandling is not illegal."

This was certainly the case at Exile tonight. Someone came up the stairs and yelled "someone is getting a ticket for spitting on the sidewalk!" A bunch of people went down to check it out, and two officers were accosting a guy. One of the onlookers tried to take a photo of one of the officers with his cameraphone, and an officer tried to whack it out of his hand (following Larry O'Brien's lead, perhaps?).

The officers left without giving the guy a ticket, but came back a few minutes later and did give a ticket to a guy for allegedly riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. On the other side of the street were four other cops—two City cops and two bylaw enforcement officers—looking on. I crossed the street and stood there with them, trying to see if the view really was as good as they made it out to be from the bleachers. A girl walked by and asked these officers what was going on, and the tallest one said, "we're not quite sure ourselves!"

It's really somewhat ironic, because in the 24 Hours article, Nellis talks about how the Ticket Defense Program. This program has managed to stop nearly all tickets given out under the Safe Streets Act, but the police merely upped the ante.

In the article, as I anticipated him to say in my blog earlier today, Ascah writes: "[P]olice find other charges, even if they don't stick, Nellis said."

Nellis is then quoted:

"The entire point is to get them in front of a judge who will slap them with conditions, which are usually 'stay out of the downtown core' and 'don't panhandle,'"

Interestingly also, the article ends by saying that the Ottawa Panhandlers Union filed suit yesterday against the City of Ottawa for installing the fence beneath the Terry Fox bridge between the Rideau Centre and the old Union station (and amusingly, across from 700 Sussex, the condo building where Ottawa's mayor Larry O'Brien lives).

The timing makes it clear that the police are trying to muzzle Nellis. He was arrested by City of Ottawa police on the same day he filed suit against the City, and on the day before a rally he is organizing (or at least participating in).

They want him to accept the bail conditions so they can get him on breach of bail and toss him in jail for a long time. As I learned at Exile, Nellis was not willing to accept the stringent bail conditions, which is why he will remain in jail until his hearing on Monday morning.

Nellis knows what he's doing (he encounters cops regularly, but I believe this is the first time he's actually been arrested), and I would not be surprised if he uses his arrest as an opportunity to challenge the whole bail-and-bait tactic.

In the meantime, check out Exile's spacious and inviting new location. They're open Wednesday to Sunday, 12pm to 8pm.

- RG>

Solving Ottawa's drug problem...

...once and for all.

It really isn't very hard, just nobody has the guts to say what they think.

This time, another plea from Ottawa Chief Medical Officer of Health, David Salisbury, is being shot down by anti-drug dogmatists, as reported in this Citizen article.

They say that it is useless to distribute needles to drug addicts without a treatment program in place to get them off their addictions. Since that facility doesn't appear to be coming anytime soon, and Council doesn't want to pay for it, I would say that harm reduction programs aren't useless at all. They prevent addictions from turning into infections and diseases that cost taxpayers a whole lot more, until the person's earlier death.

I was rather disgusted by a recent article in a Centretown newspaper by Somerset Community Police Officer Nathan Hoedeman that asked the community to help the police deal with the drug problem. Drugs are first and foremost a health problem. It is only by criminalizing them that they become a police issue, and the only "solution" in the police tool box--punishment--is anything but. If we stopped trying to end drug addiction by throwing money at police, we could focus on addressing the factors that drive people to drug addiction, and we wouldn't be aggravating the problem as much by hiding it under the rug.

Of course, this isn't a real solution. Any suburban and rural councillor would lose their "tough on crime" merit badge by voting for a holistic solution. Besides, it's not their fault, it's the province's fault for not building a treatment facility, right?

Why should those foul, criminal drug addicts have access to drug paraphernalia while communities have to pay whopping amounts of nickels (about five per resident per year, according to Salisbury) to clean up their mess? If they can't be responsible enough to hold onto their needles to exchange them for a new one, then they obviously deserve to get HIV and die.

It's clearly obvious, when you hear people like Orléans councillor Bob Monette talk about the drug plans, that they don't value drug addicts' lives--at least, not as much as the people who vote for him. It's right under the surface of his words. So let's just get it on the table, shan't we?

Councillors should take away all the harm-reduction schemes (um... even though the needle exchange is mandated by the province, and the crack pipe program is funded entirely by the province) and set a target for the number of drug addicts who have to die before they'll get off their arses and give a shit.

Seventeen? No, that would be too convenient. Seventeen fewer punk lowlifes to suck up valuable resources of real citizens, but enough left to blame for society's problems.

Twenty-six? Well, now we're getting someplace. Let twenty-six people die and maybe you can build a smaller treatment facility. Though nobody's really shed a tear for twenty-six dead homeless scum.

We'll have to let about fifty-eight of them writhe to death, isolated in an agonizing feeling of pain and meaninglessness. Hell, once you get that many off the streets, you can just lock the rest up in the slammer and forget about them. Then they're no longer dead drug addicts or dead homeless, they're dead criminals. Hey, and you don't have to worry about building that treatment facility!

Do all anti-harm-reduction people think this way? No. Community residents are mostly thinking about themselves and their children, and politicians are mostly thinking about buying votes. They both see that by removing stopgap measures, things will get a lot worse, but it simply doesn't concern them that a long-term solution is nowhere to be seen. That's somebody else's problem--and fault.

But don't ascribe it all to egocentrism and ignorance. Racism and classism are not foreign to our town: check the reader comments in the Ottawa articles on cbc.ca, and you'll be shocked to see how quick people are to blame everything on immigrants.

So ask your councillor, how many dead drug addicts do they think is enough?

- RG>

The Ministry of Truth would like to present...

...Kindness week.

Kindness week.

...

I'm speechless...

...

"Kindness week."

...

That's got to be the most absurd thing I've heard of since...

since...

...since Motherhood and Apple Pie. Or Kindness meters, for that matter.

I can't even decide which angle to take on how obsequious this idea is.

There's the easy angle--"What, so the rest of the year we don't have to be kind?"

But then there's the more subtle angle. One that will play quite well for Mayor O'Brien.

Just as we were told (though perhaps not necessarily by O'Brien) to not question the mission in Afghanistan, because we need to "Support Our Troops", perhaps now Mayor O'Brien will ask taxi drivers (who are protesting the forced installation of cameras in their cabs by the City) will be asked to be kinder, because it's "Kindness week". Oh, wait. The Citizen already did that for him.

What kind of bullshit society do we live in, where if you are feeling oppressed, you're supposed to shut up, suck it up, and take it? And be kind while this is happening?

If you ask me, Kindness week can go and fuck itself. And that's putting it kindly.

- RG>

Conspicuous Consumption in Action

I am posting this from a train.

My employer is sending me down to help with our annual conference in southern Ontario, and I decided to take the train down first class, which is a much more pleasant (if longer) trip than a 70-minute up-down flight in cattle class, plus all the associated probing of cavities and containers (which I'll experience for the way home).

The last time I took the train I was literally too young to remember. It's quite the pleasant experience, and far, far simpler than any plane ride I've ever been on. I haven't done much traveling within Canada, so it was nice to walk around downtown Toronto for an hour (albeit with my bags). Much more vibrant than Ottawa, with plenty of pedestrians, although I don't know if that's just because of the hockey game that was an hour away from starting. The multicolour lights on the CN tower does a good job of hiding its ugly.

I could only see two types of people on the street: rich-looking metropolitans walking places who didn't make eye contact, and panhandlers who quietly sat and asked for change. I literally saw nothing in between. I held a door open for one man, and he was absolutely shocked (but he did thank me!).

I'm on the second (and last) leg of my trip, right now, and it looks like the internet connection is stable enough on this train to warrant spending the ten bucks for the internet connection. I mean, work is paying for the whole trip, so I can splurge a bit on my own expenses, right?

- RG>

In a coffeeshop, on a corner

A few nights ago, I was sitting inside a coffeeshop downtown.

Outside, in front of the garbage bin, was a panhandler, trying desperately to get a bit of rest while he sat unassumingly with a cup between his legs.

He knew that people would snub him as they walk past, ignoring his sign that asked for spare change for this "unemployable" man.

I sat in the coffeeshop, reading the papers and sipping on my tea, catching up on some paperwork, all the while keeping an eye out for him.

For most of the hour and a half I sat there, only one person put any change in his cup. A few people stopped or cocked their necks as they passed. Most people walked by without even noticing him, as though he were somebody else's problem.

A man in a sweater came by and left a paper bag in the resting man's lap. The bag likely held a sandwich or a bagel.

The panhandler looked up and thanked the man. The man waved back and smiled, then each returned to what they had been doing.

I walked up to the man in the sweater. I thanked him, too.

- RG>