In Praise of Universality

Blog 2012 07 16 – Universality

I am often conscious that my parents’ generation had a vision of universality in social programs.  My parents saw this as meaning several important things:

1. Everyone would pay into the programs and everyone would be equally eligible to benefit from them regardless of need.
2. Such programs would be society’s way to make sure that everyone had a basic standard of living and of security no matter what catastrophe’s may happen.  We are our brother’s keeper.
3. It was understood that such programs would reduce inequalities and give everyone a fair chance at a good life.
4. It was understood that as individuals, we had to take care of ourselves and take care not to overuse the system so that the system would work. 
5. We would need a strong culture of mutual responsibility, one for the other.  The universality programs formed part of a social contract where people would have the right to fair employment and the responsibility to contribute to the fabric of society through working and paying taxes so that the system would work.

I have often thought that in my generation we have been gradually dismantling those programs – to my great sadness.  It seems that the word “universality” is not popular any more.  We hear questions like, “why pay for a rich person to have a benefit they don’t need and don’t want?”  We hear statements like, “Shouldn’t people be responsible for themselves?”

I have felt great attraction to these ideas about individual freedom and responsibility for self.  These libertarian ideas where there is no role for government and every person should take care of oneself seem attractive when your only goal is to be independent and to do whatever you want.  But the generation just leaving us now had seen the great depression.  They understood that to end up on the rails and begging for a day’s work and a bowl of soup is a possibility for anyone no matter how personally responsible they are and no matter how hard they work.  You can’t always do what you want and sometimes you need help.  They understood the power of working together for the common good.

Universality helps reduce the inequality between classes.  We learned from Wilkinson and Picket in The Spirit Level that a more equal society has better social outcomes of all types than a more unequal society.  It produces more stability, less violence, better health and education and more opportunity.

In Ed Broadbent’s book, Democratic Equality, I found a very clear explanation for why “Universality” is very important, and why we should not let it go, but rather reclaim it for ourselves and for generations to come:

• Bo Rothstein makes the case that the main source of the escalating differences between Sweden, for example, and the USA is whether the programs are universal or selective.  She finds unqualified support for universal programs.  Selective programs, requiring criteria and a means test, for example, are invasive of personal privacy, strip people of dignity, and are prone to problems of procedural justice.  Bureaucrats have to find some reason to justify their decisions – even if it is arbitrary.  There is a cycle of cheating, getting tough, and more cheating. P18, Democratic Equality.  I interpret this to mean that selective systems create bully bureaucrats and cheaters.  We make people bad instead of creating a climate for them to find their dignity and climb out of their poverty.  Universal systems provide a climate of worth and dignity and hope.
• If a program is universal, it’s benefit is a right.  If a program is selective, then it is altruistic – the rich taking care of the poor.  Where do you draw the line between who gives and who gets?  What is fair?  Do the needy deserve help or are they to blame for their own distress?  You avoid the control game – one side suspicious, looking for cheating and increasing the controls.  The other engaged in more evasion, lying, and cheating trying to avoid the controls. P20 Democratic Equality
• A universal policy is easier and cheaper to implement.  It requires fewer bureaucrats who have to make fewer decisions.  Because there is no cheating dynamic, you don’t need large numbers of enforcers or investigators.  There are fewer issues of abuse of power.  This is demonstrated by the United States having the highest health care costs in the world without the best health outcomes.
• Sweden deliberately chose universal social programs as a way of avoiding the problems of procedural justice.  It is not clear if the program actually saves enough money to pay for the costs of the needs of the poor but it definitely creates a more stable society (P21 Democratic Equality)
• In a universal system, the demand comes from the majority of the population.  If you took all the social programs in Sweden away, the people would still want education, healthcare, unemployment programs, and so on.  They would just have to buy insurance or otherwise pay for them out of their own pockets.  It would likely cost them a lot more.  If people chose not to buy insurance when they were young, when they got old we would still have to take care of them.  There is no evidence a democratic government can just let people rot because they didn’t plan ahead and catastrophe struck.  (p21)
• “. . . the Nordic type of welfare state is not an altruistic luxury established to take care of ‘the poor’. . .  Since the demand for social insurance and social services exists, the costs will be there, whether or not the demand is filled by government provision or market forces.  Most of the evidence seems to show that, due to the problem of asymmetric information in this area, mandatory and universal systems are more cost-efficient than private insurance systems. P27 Democratic Equality
• in the mid 1980’s, 54% of single-parent families in the USA and 46% in Canada lived in poverty compared to only 6% in the Netherlands and 7% in Sweden.  Out of 100,000 population, 580 were in prison in the USA compared to only 40 in Scandinavian countries.  Surely poverty could be a primary reason for this difference. P28  We note as Harper cuts social programs he is simultaneously planning for more prisons -- all likely if predicted consequences of Bill C-10 come through.

This is the battle the Quebec Students are fighting for in the Maple Spring.  Universal Education.

This is why we must fight for proper education funding for our schools at all levels.  This is why we must fight for single-tier universal health and promote the addition of pharmacare and dentacare.

But the big discussion must always be – how generous should the universal programs be? How will we finance them?  And how do we solve the problems of growing dependency if too many draw out and not enough contribute?  Why would anyone work if we had, for example, a guaranteed annual income system to redistribute wealth.

These are hard questions and will be explored further in future blogs, but for now, let us just say – the stresses that we feel in our society today – the global financial crisis; the loss of high quality jobs in favour of growth in the retail sector; the loss of jobs to other countries; the deep disparity between the rich and the poor that grows every day; the increasing number of catastrophic weather events as climate change accelerates; the potential conflict as oil and other resources decline in availability – these stresses must be addressed one way or another.  Either we will plan for a complete social restructuring of our society and put in place compassionate universal social programs to cushion the blow, or we will face increased chaos, public unrest, instability and violence.  Governments will move away from democracy towards police states.

Clarence Skinner was the great social justice minister for Universalism in the twentieth century.  In his book, What Religion Means To Me, (p14) He said:

“To me the highest type of religious experience is that which gives man a sense of unity and universality.  Most of our life is spent in narrow segments.  Our horizon is hemmed about by kitchen walls, office desks, narrow prejudices of race, class or creed.  In [our Universalist] religion, these partialisms, broken fragments of life, are lifted into a vast and profound oneness.  Our littleness becomes stretched to cosmic greatness.”

Let us all promote the values of universality and mutual responsibility one for the other in Canada and around the world.

C-38 - Anti Democracy, Anti-Environment, Anti Economic Justice

LEAD NOW RALLY AT JOHN BAIRD’S OFFICE – 2012 06 02

C-38 - Anti Democracy, Anti Environment, Anti Economic Justice

A big thank you to Lead Now for organizing this rally and to Anita Grace for stepping up to be the local contact on the ground.  And thank you so much for inviting me to speak on behalf of the Canadian Unitarians For Social Justice.  Thanks to all the Unitarians and all the rest of you who came here today to stand in the rain and protest this terrible budget bill.  Shall we take a page out of the Occupy Movement and try the human microphone?  Yes?

Mic check.  Mic check.

I didn’t want – to come out here – and stand in the rain – for a protest!  - Did you?

I came because my heart is broken.  This budget bill – is a terrible bill – for Canada.

I came to stand on guard for Canada.

As a Unitarian minister – I want to hold up – 3 principles – I hold sacred.

The first is democracy.  I object to the process of C-38. 

An omnibus bill hides the facts.  An omnibus bill suppresses debate.

We pay MP’s – to examine the details – give close scrutiny – debate – and LISTEN!

Closure gives no time for this.

In a democracy – government regulates industry – for the benefit – of the common good.

This budget – fires scientists – who study Canada – and produce knowledge.

This budget – fires librarians – archivists – and statisticians – who organize and store - and make meaning of knowledge – and who keep our history.  It doesn’t want – to make decisions – or set policy – based on knowledge.  It doesn’t value who we are.

This budget – fires inspectors – in all areas.  When government – abrogates its responsibilitiy of oversight – it leaves the fox – in charge of the chicken coop.  We have more Walkerton’s – Food poisoning – Enbridge leaky pipelines – and Gulf oil spills.

The second is the interdependent web – of all existence – of which we are a part.

I believe – the earth – the air – the water are sacred.

I believe all species – have a right – to a place to live.

Gigantic scale mining – produces industrialized landscapes – that wipe out all life – in their path.  This trend must stop.  It is a false economy.

We must change our ways – to live in harmony – with the natural world – that sustains us – and gives us life.

Mr. Harper and Mr. Baird – are dismantling our environmental protection, to promote – fast tar sands growth.  The want – to ignore – their obligations to consult – with First Nations – who live and die – eating polluted wildlife.

They care nothing for the needs – and well being - of future generations.

This bill – changes the face of Canada – without even a debate – for the sake of greed and profit.  This government was elected – by 39% of the vote – but it wields – 100% of the power – and gives 61% - no respect.  One minister – can make and change rules – with no consultation.  Absolute power corrupts – absolutely.

Why are they afraid to talk?   Why are they afraid to listen?

Third:  I hold justice – equity – and compassion sacred.

Where in this budget – do we care for the homeless?  Where in this budget – do we care for the hungry?  Instead – funding for medicare and education – is threatened.  Our pensions are under attack. 

For the first time – our children – will have less security – and well being – than we have had.  The social safety net – that my parent’s generation – set up – is being dismantled – piece by piece.

I stand here today – in the rain – to stand on guard of Canada.

I call on this government – to slow down – slow down – slow down.

Break up this bill.  Give us a national debate – about the kind of Canada – we want.

We want democracy.

We want environmental protection.

We want government oversight of industry.

We want respect and consultation with First Nations.

We want equity – and a fair chance – for all people – and all life.

Sing – O Canada – in English and French.

Celebrating the Charter of Rights

People of Canada Celebrate the Charter

Today we are celebrating the 30 year anniversary of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.  The people of Canada are celebrating but the Harper government is not.  For the people, the Charter is the great hope that there may be justice and human rights for them .  For the government, it is a pest that gets in the way of unfettered power.

On the Current this morning we were reminded of the great gains for women in Canada because of the charter.  Among them were the establishment of the right to control our own bodies and have an abortion if necessary and  the right to maternity and paternity leave to care for children.  According to the Ottawa Citizen the biggest changes are in the criminal justice system.  Ken Roach reports that you can’t be convicted of murder today unless the crown can prove you knew there was a possibility that someone would die.  People have a right to see the evidence against them before they go to court.  Evidence that was obtained illegally (such as evidence derived by torture) is inadmissible in court.  Tell that to Hassan Diab.  http://www.justiceforhassandiab.org/

But Roach reports that it is unlikely that the courts will overturn the mandatory minimums in Bill C-10.  The main effect of C-10 is that it reduces judicial discretion and transfers that discretion to the prosecutor who decides what charges to lay.  According to Roach we have a good balance between the political responsibility to legislate according to the moral standards of the day and judicial discretion to protect our rights and freedoms.

In the meantime, some people are still waiting for their rights.  The bill to give transgender people full equality of rights was allowed to die in the Senate.   Today Air Canada is still free to refuse to allow a transgender person who has not had the full medical changes performed to fly on an airplane.  (According to Transport Canada regulations a person must physically present as the same gender as that written on their passport.) 

And  Obert Madondo (http://www.canadianprogressiveworld.com) is on day 35 of his hunger strike.  He is demanding that Bill C-10 be struck down, and that the Harper Government give up its anti-democratic practices – ramming bills through the house and Senate without proper scrutiny and without democratic debate.  Originally subjected to violence in Zimbabwe, he came to Canada as a sanctuary and for awhile it was.  But he sees the sanctuary he once saw slipping away as Canada’s laws target the vulnerable at the bottom of society.

The people love the charter because it gives them hope that perhaps, one day, justice will come.

Mulcaire, the NDP, and PR

2012 03 25

This is the blog of an insider.  I joined the NDP for the first time in many years in order to participate in the election of its new leader.   I participated on line.  One of the highlights of the meeting for me was the success of Nathan Cullen, who rose during the campaign from near the bottom of the pack to third place.  Why did that happen?

Nathan had many fine personal qualities.  His French was good.  He was the master of the sound bite.  He had good up-beat energy and spoke with deep passion about the environment.  Nathan also took the risk of differentiating himself by inventing a way for parties in conservative-held ridings, if they chose to do so, to run a unity candidate to defeat the conservatives, with one goal in mind:  to implement a mixed-member proportional representation system of election in the 2015-2019 term.

Because he took that stand, I believe he was the beneficiary of votes from across Canada from everyone who joined the party to influence it towards PR.  His vote stayed rock solid on the third ballot because people wanted to send a message that PR is important. 

The real problem with the Conservative Government is not that they are acting like dictators.  We all know that power corrupts and that absolute power corrupts absolutely.  The problem is that our system allows someone to be a dictator.  First Past the Post takes away the necessity to listen to the people and to moderate one’s actions according to the larger will. 

The beauty of PR is that nobody has to give up their party identity or their cherished values and policies.  No one usually gets a majority but everyone is elected for who they are.  A Mixed-member proportional system would require any government – whether Conservative, NDP, or Liberal, to work together with other parties and to define policies that a majority of Canadians can support.  It is much more suited to Canadian values of respect, listening, compromising and peace-making.  Dictatorship is not our style and our voting system should not allow it.

I was disappointed to see that Nathan de-emphasized this position during the convention.  Mulcaire talked about making our votes count (A PR phrase) to attract youth, but didn’t actually talk about committing to a campaign for PR.  My hope is that the NDP will adopt this platform for the next election, and will allow some ridings to run “Unity Candidates” for one election with the goal of implementing PR in 20150-2019.    I’m not holding my breath.  If it is going to happen, it will be because we grass roots will continue to communicate to our new leadership that we want it,  expect it, yes -- even demand it.  And let us hope there is a strong contingent of liberals who will do the same thing.

My congratulations to Paul Dewar, Nicky Ashton, and Martin Singh for running fine campaigns.  You all had really strong speeches and the party is very lucky to have such fine talent as you.  To Peggy Nash, Nathan Cullen and Brian Topps, thank you for your great leadership over the long haul.  I hope all six of you will find strong roles in the party and help us to move forward toward a more democratic, peaceful and compassionate Canada.

Working Together

I am thinking about bunkers.  Enclaves.  We activists are all attached to something.  Elizabeth May is “the Green Party”.  Frances Deverell is CUSJ (whatever that is.)  Susan Berry is RODC. ??? We have the NDP and the Liberals.  We have John Howard and Elizabeth Fry.  We have Occupy Movement.  The Council of Canadians.  The Judges and Lawyers in the Smart Justice Network.  Lead Now coming out of Vancouver.  Avaaz Canada.  The Peace Movement.  The Rideau Club.  CCPA.

Who comes to who’s party?  Who leads?  How does this mish-mash of groups work together towards our common objectives?  Who do we follow and who do we ignore?  How do we consult with one another to encourage cooperation?  How do we support and encourage one another?  How do we invite new people in?  How do we multiply our impact? 

What will we do with a young man who feels so strongly that the young people of our country will be harmed by Bill C-10.  He feels so strongly that he has chosen to begin a hunger strike?   I heard Obert Madondo tell his story on the hill at Occupy Ottawa last fall.  He has been fighting to find a place in this country since he endured great difficulties to get here some years ago.  Madondo has a vision of freedom and respect and equality.  Canada presents itself to the world as the place where that exists.  He had expectations when he came here and we, as a country, have fallen short.

Do we have the capacity to embody the vision of justice and equality we all dream of by supporting the movement no matter where the initiative comes from.  What will it take to build that kind of trust and co-ordination?

Shall we support Obert Madondo and promote his hunger strike?  Or is this not the right action at this time and should we encourage him to be engaged in another way?

Rev. Frances Deverell

Canadian Unitarians For Social Justice

Co- Author of Finding Common Voice