Justice For Mental Health - Now, With a Justice's Endorsement

 

School discriminated against boy by cutting special-needs program: top court

Kirk Makin - JUSTICE REPORTER

The Globe and Mail

Last updated Friday, Nov. 09 2012, 9:07 PM EST

 

 

Jeffrey Moore, the boy at the centre of a discrimination case based on his learning disability, became an adult and a successful plumber in North Vancouver in the years it took his case to reach the Supreme Court of Canada. (John Lehmann /The Globe and Mail)

 

A landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision has put schools on strict notice that they cannot evade their responsibility to accommodate children with special needs.
 

Waving aside the financial woes of a North Vancouver school board, the court concluded on Tuesday that it had discriminated against a dyslexic child who was not given adequate help to attain literacy.

• REGULATIONS Ontario disabilities act creates compliance confusion
• Math and the brain Why things just don't add up for some students
• CRA to spend $42,900 to help dyslexic worker learn French

Madam Justice Rosalie Abella ordered school authorities to reimburse the family of Jeffrey Moore for several years of costly private education they sought after Jeffrey fell far behind in school.
 

“Adequate special education is not a dispensable luxury,” Judge Abella said for a 9-0 majority. “For those with severe learning disabilities, it is the ramp that provides access to the statutory commitment to education made to all children in British Columbia.”
 

Advocates for the disabled were overjoyed by the judgment. They said that school boards that cannot furnish compelling evidence to justify under-funding must henceforth provide genuine help to children with learning disabilities.
 

“I’m ecstatic,” said Yude Henteleff, a Winnipeg lawyer representing the Learning Disability Association of Canada. “This is a profoundly important victory. Time and time, school divisions say: ‘We can’t afford this.’ Well, now they can’t afford not to.”
 

Mr. Henteleff said that parents of any child with a learning disability can demand action from their school board. “If they don’t get it, there will be a plethora of actions all across the country,” he said.
 

Rick Moore, Jeffrey’s father, expressed elation. “This case is about the thousands of kids who can’t afford a private school education and ... are stuck in the public school system; who end up dropping out and become a burden on society,” he said.
 

Mr. Moore, a bus driver in Vancouver, said that his family scrimped to pay Jeffrey’s private school tuition. Aided by the Vancouver Community Legal Assistance Society, they simultaneously waged a 15-year war with the school system that led them through human rights tribunals and law courts.
 

The family’s lawyer, Frances Kelly, said she focused the case not just on Jeffrey’s plight, but on the high price society pays when frustrated children fall by the educational wayside.
 

“We had evidence that jails and welfare systems and hospitals are full of people who have learning disabilities that were never properly addressed in the education system,” Ms. Kelly said.
 

Now a 24-year-old plumber, Jeffrey Moore recalled losing his confidence as he struggled to complete school assignments. “I had no idea why everyone in class was moving forward and I was on the sidelines,” he said. “I didn’t even know how to put a word together.”

 

 

He said it is immensely satisfying to have helped future generations. “Kids won’t be left in the dark,” he said. “They are going to get the help they need before the damage is done; before they feel stupid or that they are unable to do anything.”
 

One of those children – nine-year-old Griffin Lajoie – has waited many months for Toronto school authorities to provide resources that will help him rise above a visual-spatial learning disorder that was diagnosed last year.
 

“I am over the moon that the Supreme Court has ruled that our kids will have access to resources that they need,” said Griffin’s mother, Lesley Sargla. “It is a basic right. It is a reasonable expectation that children with learning differences be held to the same academic standards as their peers and that our kids graduate from public school being fully literate.”
 

Governments fought hard at the Supreme Court hearing to prevent judges from taking a role in setting educational spending priorities. An Ontario government brief also warned that reimbursing the Moores for their tuition expenses could badly skew educational priorities.
 

“If this remedy is upheld by this court, private school tuition payment orders will be a widely sought and sanctioned alternative to requiring boards to provide appropriate accommodation within public schools,” it warned.

 

 

A. Wayne MacKay, a Dalhousie University law professor, said that the court has left governments a certain amount of wriggle room to reduce spending on special-needs programs – but only if they can show that their budgetary concerns are truly pressing.
 

Prof. MacKay said it was unusual for the Supreme Court to intervene in a policy area such as education, particularly with a decision that has serious cost implications.

 

 

“In my opinion, this may be the most important human-rights case in the last decade or so,” he said.

With a report from Caroline Alphonso

Fordian Slip?

 

It's actually not such a big deal that Ford has a complex - we all do.  People all over the world think that they have the dominant share of common sense, etc.  Why wouldn't they?  They view the world through a specific lens; the world they see is defined by their complexes.

 

Here's the catch - like going on a diet or breaking a habit, everyone is capable of changing their perspectives, adding to it from others.  To do so, you first must accept you don't own the market on righteousness and you kinda gotta be curious.  When you start to ask how others look at the world, you expand your own perception and expand your communication and action options.

 

That's not a threat to identify - that's a competitive advantage.

 

 

Does Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Have a White Saviour Complex?

 

Anthony Morgan

Public and Social Affairs Commentator

 

The City of Toronto's Mayor, Rob Ford, recently took to the regular radio segment he hosts with his brother, Doug.

 

This time, it was to defend himself against allegations that he has been using city-funded resources (cellphones, cars and staff) to manage his youth football teams. The Mayor defended these actions with the usual stubbornness that girds the cavalier, unapologetic and arrogant attitude with which he always rebuffs his critics -- no matter how legitimate their concerns.

 

Anyone who has been following the follies of Ford's mayoralty would not be surprised by the Mayor's reaction to these latest allegations which come on the heels of a conflict of interest court case that could see him removed from office. However, what did come as a surprise was the revelatory insinuation by Doug Ford that the Mayor's psyche is infected with what's generally known as a "white saviour complex," specifically in relation to the mostly black youth that he coaches.

 

The suggestion that the Mayor harbours a white saviour complex came from none other than his brother when, during this radio segment, Doug boldly proclaimed, "There's no one that helps black youth more than Rob Ford," which he followed with, "These are kids who have nothing."

 

That's right, Doug Ford actually said that the black youth whom Mayor Ford coaches have NOTHING, without Mayor Ford. Permit me to use my historical memory to translate Doug Ford's words: "dem po' black kids ain't got a damn bit'a nuthin widdout dat gud suh and Massa, I means, Maya, Robs Fowd..."

 

In political terms, Doug Ford is an extension of Rob Ford's brain and vice versa (though Doug is arguably the more astute, if not, the more collected of the two) and so it's not at all unreasonable to assume that at the moment Doug revealed the taint of his and his brother's white saviourism, he was expressing exactly what was on Mayor Ford's mind and drives the Mayor's work with his football teams.

 

So what is the white saviour complex? Most popularly perpetuated within the plots of any mainstream films featuring whites alongside blacks or other racialized groups, the white saviour complex is best described in the following way:

"[A] white person coming into the lives of a person or people of color who are often low-income, troubled, and/or severely oppressed. [...] [where] the white saviour comes in, quickly sympathizes with the problems of the people of colour, learning what needs to happen to solve their problems, and in doing so, wins their favour and becomes their hero."

The white saviour complex which Doug Ford's assertion suggests that the Mayor possesses is, in effect, a psychologically insidious manifestation that consciously or unconsciously infects and corrodes the minds of some people (of all racial and cultural backgrounds), and which maintains that blacks and other racialized minorities are fundamentally, if not, inherently incapable of achieving any measure of success or overcoming obstacles of any sort without the help of a benevolent white person. For examples, consider the movies The Help, The Last Air Bender, or more classically, To Kill A Mockingbird. Also see the Kony2012 fiasco.

 

So what does all of this mean about Mayor Ford and the underprivileged black youth he coaches and has coached over more than a decade? It means, or at least it strongly suggests, that the Mayor of Toronto actually thinks that black youth are hopeless, irredeemable nobodies and total zeroes without Ford's football teams. With the deep-seated belief in the hopelessness of black youth cancerously entrenched in the Mayor's mind, of course it makes sense to him to abuse public office, break the law and misappropriate tax-payers' funds to save these otherwise incurably destitute and indefinitely despondent black youth.

 

With some reflection, it seems that Mayor Ford's white saviourism might also explain why in the wake of the brazen public shootings that seized Toronto earlier this summer, the Mayor, dismissed community-led support programs and was instead most adamant about securing public funding for more aggressive policing initiatives targeted at disadvantaged Toronto neighbourhoods.

 

As the Mayor's thinking seems to go, why work to change the underlying and collectively manufactured structural conditions that entrench and legitimize the perpetual impoverishment and marginalization, out of which violent crime naturally flows, if the black youth engaging in such crimes are incorrigible miscreants?

 

So, am I saying that any and all work done by white people to help black people or other racialized minorities is inherently corrupt and should be stopped? Absolutely not. Such a position is totally ridiculous and fundamentally un-Canadian. After all, part of what makes our country great is expressions of our general commitment to helping residents of this country (except for Canada's First Nations, Inuit and Métis peoples) enjoy standards of living that are consistent with not only the immense wealth of our country, but also consistent with the inherent dignity and equality of all human beings. Our robust, publicly-funded social-support systems, which include health care and education, are ready examples of this.

 

What I am saying though, is that when a white person holds the belief, as Mayor Ford seems to, that his fellow community members of racialized backgrounds, in this case black youth, have and presumably are "nothing" without their assistance, such otherwise welcomed, laudable and noteworthy community service goes from an example of fulfilling a civic and social duty to equalize the playing field, towards being a menacing act that gives permanence to relations that support white privilege and racial hierarchies of power and domination with white people unquestionably on top of the socio-economic pyramid.

         

"Charity" of this sort is misguided and harmful, regardless of one's intentions, because it is not offered as a way to reconstruct society so that the conditions that create racialized socio-economic disadvantage are broken down and eliminated. To the contrary, it prolongs racialized social injustice, and does so in a way that demoralizes and degrades the individuals being helped. It does this by inflicting the receivers of such assistance (and also infecting the acts and minds of the person "helping") with the psychic trauma of believing in the racial superiority of white people, a.k.a. white supremacy.

In other words, if Mayor Ford really does hold the view that the black youths he helps have "nothing" without his football program, he is only furthering the sentiment that no matter how hard black people and communities work or how committed they are to bringing themselves and their families out of poverty and into hard and fairly-won prosperity, they still have "nothing" if their self-help, hard work and perseverance is not supported by a white saviour.

 

There are few better ways to cultivate a culture of dependency within Toronto's black youth and families than having a Mayor who thinks this way and worse, who is backed by tax-payers who demonstrate a latent willingness to fund expressions of this mental dysfunction.

 

The City of Toronto's official motto is "Diversity Our Strength." Ford's comments about black youth having nothing without Mayor Ford's football program is really making me wonder who exactly in the Mayor's mind the "Our" in the city's motto is meant to include (and exclude) and how his thinking on the question may be fundamentally corrupting his capacity to lead Canada's most diverse city.

Warren's Where's Waldo Method of Engagement

 

 

I can't imagine Warren Kinsella is a big fan of Carly Rae Jepsen, being a punk and all - but he clearly understands the value of a catchy meme.  He has started to roll out endorsements for the Ontario Liberal Leadership Candidate he supports (can you find who it is in the picture above?) but instead of just feeding his audience names and title that might not have meaning for them, he's challenging his readers to identify who the endorsers are themselves.  This accomplishes four things:

 

1) It engages readers in his candidate; figuring out who backs that person becomes a viral campaign, creating a community of engagement around them

 

2) It motivates his audience to take the lead in identifying the supporters, ensuring everyone has a chance to know who they are...

 

3) ... but as that information is crowd-sourced, the information comes from the community rather than being delivered to them by the campaign itself.  This adds an automatic level of accessibility and authenticity to the endorsements that biased political staff would be hard-pressed to achieve on their own

 

4) Letting the crowd do the work and handing out gold stars to those who find the info first builds competition, which gets people more active, but it also rewards the experience of participation with a dopamine rush, the same sort of thrill you get from winning at bingo (but also the same neurochemistry that can get you hooked on slot machines)

 

Of course, there's a whole science to this; someone with an NLP background or even a rudimentary knowledge of how cognition works can tell you why people react this way.  With a bit of practice, it's not difficult to proactively shape those responses by managing the stimuli your audience receives, creating the sort of community experience you're looking for.  Kinsella's great at doing this in person - he'll engage crowds directly within the first moments of a presentation, getting them to clap for themselves, etc. to make his talks their experience, not just his.

 

There's nothing new to these tricks of the engagement trade.  Religion has done this for ages.  Great artists or speakers (like politicians) use these tools to their advantage all the time.  Conversely, poor leaders do the reverse - instead of creating communities of experience, they block external stimuli and trigger fear rather than engagement.  These are the cultists, setting themselves up as saviours from troubles lapping at shores and holding you to that fear and dependence on their protection, trying to foster a kind of crowd Stockhom Syndrome.

 

What's perhaps more recent a phenomenon is the internalization of these techniques through things like Positive Psychology and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy.  These sorts of practices work kind of how exercise or yoga does, except from the inside out rather than the outside in.  These conscious exercises provide effective methods to manage emotional disorders or to overcome duress (though not always in exclusion).  When you become aware of how your own neuropsychology works, you begin to see how external and internal conditions shape your mood and thoughts the same way any drug would.  That's when they become your tools to use, rather than someone else's to abuse.

 

Of course, all of this requires a lot of thought, time and discipline.  Why bother?  Wading into the fine print of brain function is boring.  You get a decent rush from playing the game right in front of you and besides, consequences are things that happen to others. 

 

Keeping track of where Waldo's at is enough to keep anyone occupied and entertained.

Bridging Ontario's Islands of Excellence - Nov. 16 and 17 in Downtown Toronto

Islands of excellence are people who are out there doing it, making it happen, and are catalysts for change.

 

What if... Islands of Excellence from different fields and industries were brought together for just one evening and one day?

 

 

There is a lot of justified concern out there about the state of Ontario's economy, the sustainability of our health care sector and the effectiveness of our education, social service and justice sectors.  That's a lot of big problems requiring complex, daunting solutions.  It's more than any one person, agency or even one sector can solve on its own.

 

At the same time, there are leaders, innovators and socially-minded entrepreneurs creating pieces of the solution we need to keep moving forward.  School principals are changing the design of learning spaces.  Private ventures are making it easier for private and not-for-profit companies to harness public funding.  New approaches are being devised to facilitate information sharing and how to foster greater workplace productivity. 

 

These islands of excellence are creating tomorrow's answers today - but all too often, they are working in isolation or within individual sectors.  As a result, exciting opportunities are being missed; partnerships that could spin off whole new industries and effective solutions to our social and economic challenges aren't being realized. 

 

Islands of Excellence: Make Waves bridges that gap.  By bringing together the best community builders, thought leaders and entrepreneurs in the province into one space, Islands of Excellence creates a community of opportunity.  That's opportunity for Ontario - and opportunity for you as well.

 

On Friday, November 16th and Saturday, November 17th you have the chance to join this community, add your piece to the puzzle and meet some fantastic new partners.  It all happens at The YMCA Academy, a short hop from both Queen's Park and the MaRS Discovery District.

 

You can register here.

 

Let's bridge the gap; let's build tomorrow's solutions today, together.

 

I look forward to meeting you there.

SCHEDULE

Friday November 16

 

6 pm     Pecha Kucha Social - Islands Of Excellence Edition

 

 - Innovational speakers

 - Unparalleled access to Ontario's thought leaders

Saturday November 17

 

10 am - 5 pm - Discussion Topics:

 

 - Provocateur - Pushing our Comfort

 - Morning - Who are we in the system?

Lunch

 - What is the future of education, today?

Go Fast, Go Alone - Go Far...

“Mr. President, We want you to succeed. … Let’s challenge ourselves to find the common ground that has eluded us.”

 

 

I'm a rational optimist, so I know it's possible for people of opposing views to find and build on common ground.  I don't think people are fixed - I believe in evolution, both genetic and social.  When we focus on similarities, we always find we have more in common than not.  It's a good place to build.

 

There will be partisans on both sides who refuse to give an inch and who push for partisan victory, biting extended hands at the expense of the national interest.  The greatest test true leaders face today is to resist the urge to jump on selfish, short-term gain, fueling our political tragedy of the commons and to set the example for the more rabid partisans in their midst.

 

There is no challenge we can't overcome, no mountain we can't move, when we're all pushing in the same direction.

 

Capitalism and Feudal Employment

From an email sent to a friend yesterday:

Getting work today is a bit of a catch 22, isn't it? Big firms have their internal hiring mechanisms and tend to be pretty good at proactively finding talent to meet their HR needs. It's the small-to-medium employers and franchisees that are the best bet for people without inside contacts to find work.
The problem is, these employers aren't necessarily the ones willing to take any risk by bringing on folk they aren't already familiar with. Plus, given the glut of bodies on the market, there's no particular incentive for them to hire up; the competition is pretty much one-sided in their favour. It's the students out of school who will work for relatively low wages and longer hours that are more likely to land jobs - people with experience, some age and familial responsibilities are the new expectant mothers in how they're being stigmatized.

In the defense of these small/medium employers, it's hard to invest in highly qualified/experienced labour for the lower-wage positions they can afford; employers can only assume that these types of folk will leave as soon as something better comes along, leaving them in the lurch after having invested in training. This doesn't help the qualified job-seekers desperate to find means to feed, clothe and house their families, though.

Crafty employees take advantage of this reality and turn to a kind of occupational feudalism; they might offer their space and brand to prospective employees, but the expectation is that those people have to create and sell their own business, with the would-be employer taking their tithe. If these people don't have the skill or experience to close a deal, their indebtedness mounts, leading to an emotional indentured servitude.

For those who do land salaried/contact positions, how often are they being told that they must develop new lines of business, convince employers they have value, then create products/services and sell them - but without adding risk to the employer's brand?

This is what an increasingly polraized and competitive market is doing - it allows for the most aggressive to get ahead and dominate those who are less so, regardless of where skills lie.  Think Rob Ford.  The incentive here is not to care about anything but one's own interests. It's the same in politics - Parties are circling the wagons and putting internal partisan interests ahead of social interests, resulting in an increasingly fractured society. Ayn Rand would be proud.

It's no wonder we have an occupational mental health crisis.

The way out of this workplace morass isn't more brow beating or straight-up charity, but the provision of opportunity, mentorship, collaboration and accomodation. Leaders, Parties, Government, the Private Sector, companies and employers have to realize it's their action, not inaction, that will make or break our economy. Hoarding resources is just fueling a tragedy of the commons.

This kind of pro-social approach isn't going to happen on its own. Lord knows Flaherty has had no luck shaming the Private Sector into hiring. Shame, fear and micro-management lead people to close off, not expand. It takes hopeful, inspirational leadership to do that.

It's promising that the Federal + Ontario leadership races are shaping up to be hopeful affairs, but they need to add incentive for business to follow suit.

This is where the real opportunity lies; there is more than enough evidence out there about how you can motivate innovation and increase employee productivity through environmental and mental health supports. It's killing two birds with one stone, adding a solution to the mental health crisis and positioning the workforce for success in the knowledge economy all at the same time.

The big question is - do our would-be leaders see this?

Republicans Need to Look to Canada to See How Conservatives Can Win (John Ibbitson)

Alas, the Globe & Mail is telling me my free online access is coming to an end, which means I won't be able to read and help promote their stories much longer.  Lessons abound for everyone, I guess...

 

 

Canadian political strategists of every stripe regularly travel to the United States in search of the latest tips, techniques and technology for winning elections. It’s time to reverse the flow.

 

Republicans need to come to Canada, to learn how a Conservative government has put together the very coalition that eludes the GOP, which has now lost the popular vote in five out of the last six presidential contests.

 

What do Conservatives get that Republicans don’t? In a word: immigrants. It’s fascinating to study how and why.

 

Dick Morris, the rabidly conservative pundit and pollster, confidently predicted that Mitt Romney would win a landslide for the Republicans right up until the polls closed, Tuesday. Wednesday, he ate crow.

 

“I mistakenly believed that the 2008 surge in black, Latino, and young voter turnout would recede in 2012 to ‘normal’ levels,” he wrote. “Didn’t happen. These high levels of minority and young voter participation are here to stay. And, with them, a permanent reshaping of our nation’s politics.”

 

As Mr. Morris accurately (for once) observed, African Americans accounted for 13 per cent of the vote on Nov. 6; 10 per cent of the vote was Latino; 19 per cent was cast by voters under 30. All three groups voted overwhelmingly for Mr. Obama, “accounting fully for his victory,” he concluded.

 

Mr. Morris had based his projections on the assumption that the high voter turnout among these groups in 2008 was a temporary phenomenon, caused by excitement over electing America’s first black president. Voting levels among blacks, Hispanics and the young, he confidently predicted, would drift back to previous levels after four years of a presidency that had its share of difficulties.

“I was wrong,” he acknowledged. And then some.

 

Compare this with the Canadian election of 2011. The Conservative coalition in one respect mirrored its Republican counterpart: It was rooted in white male voters in the conservative heartland – in Canada’s case, the Prairies, plus the rural parts of British Columbia and Ontario.

 

But the Conservatives also did well among immigrant voters. In fact, middle-class immigrant voters who dominate the suburban ridings surrounding Toronto and, to a lesser extent, Vancouver were key to the Conservative victory.

 

Of course, the Tories only took 40 per cent of the vote in the last election, so one conclusion the Republicans might draw is that they should encourage a third party that would split progressive support.

 

But the more practical lesson the Republicans could take from the Canadian example is that it is possible for conservatives to win over minority voters by following these two simple steps: 1) Trumpet responsible fiscal conservatism; 2) Lay off everything else.

 

Conservatives, like Republicans, believe in low taxes, minimal regulations and balanced budgets. Many immigrants to Canada are attracted to that message. They came here to escape the corrupt or tyrannical governments of their native land; they are attracted to a party that promises to mind the store and avoid expensive commitments.

 

But Canadian Conservatives, unlike American Republicans, are pro-immigration. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has made it his life’s work to win over immigrants to the Conservative cause. Immigration levels have remained robust on the Tory watch.

 

The Republican base, on the other hand, forced Mr. Romney to oppose any reasonable compromise in creating a path to legal status for illegal immigrants, or at least their children. The party at every level presents a hostile face to newcomers. Yes, part of that is because many of them arrive illegally. But the impact on the electoral result is nonetheless proving fatal.

 

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has also avoided promoting socially conservative issues such as abortion or clawing back gay rights. While many immigrants are socially conservative, they also recognize that intolerance toward another minority could also mean intolerance toward them.

 

Bottom line: If Mr. Romney had put forward a Canadian Conservative platform of low taxes, balanced books, robust immigration and social tolerance, he might be on his way to the White House.

There was one result from Tuesday’s election that Canadian political strategists from all parties should consider. Across the Western world, the young represent a smaller share of votes cast than their numbers warrant.

 

But in the United States, that’s no longer the case. In 2008, voters under 30 made up 17 per cent of the American electorate, yet accounted for 18 per cent of votes cast. On Tuesday, they accounted for 19 per cent of the vote, with 60 per cent of them voting Democrat.

 

A new generation of young Americans has decided to become politically engaged, because they believe in Barack Obama and what he stands for.

 

Someday, a politician may emerge in this country who appeals to young Canadians, who embraces their beliefs and who speaks to them through their (social) media. If so, a new generation of Canadian voters could begin to shape the outcome of elections.

 

The question is simply: When and where will that politician appear?