One of the best ways to reform social policy whether it is national or international, is for the facts on which it is based to be open and transparent. Policy often comes down from high with very little information for the public to take part in a meaningful debate. Knowledge of all the information that is available is vital for a well-informed public. Attempts to keep information secret only leads to suspicion and distrust of those who are promoting the policy. In our political system almost every day in our legislatures we see the refusal of the government party to provide satisfactory answers to legitimate questions from the opposition parties.
Since 2007 WikiLeaks, a not-for-profit media organization, has been reporting and publishing information for the public to make informed decisions as to what actions they wish to support. What is unique about WikiLeaks is that the organization has developed technologies to enable contributors to send information with impunity to support their news gathering ability. One of the major reasons that prevent whistleblowers from exposing themselves has been the reprisal that they could face from superiors or those who would suppress the information. Often the suppression of information is justified on the basis that it would compromise "national security" another vague term that does not explain how security would be compromised. The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights promotes the ideal that all persons should have the right to freedom of opinion and expression including the right to seek, receive and distribute information and ideas through any media regardless of national boarders.
A familiar tactic by those in authority is to vilify those with opposing views rather than a frank discussion of the facts. It seems to be a juvenile tactic that one might witness during an argument between two children not high-level senior officials. What is required for informed debate is an honest discussion of the known facts or recognition that all the facts may not be known.
Another disturbing tactic is the attempt by those who promote changes in policy to engage in rhetoric that does not discuss the facts but rather speaks in pleasant generalities that no one can oppose. It only encourages others opposing the policy to also speak about it in general terms, which does nothing to clarify the debate.
A headline today from the Associated Press reported, "China ordered hacking of Google – sources". The information attributed by WikiLeaks mentioned a cable about the hijacking attacks against Google was classified as secret. In other words the public would never have learned about these discussions unless the cable had been leaked. Of course the media organization is required to try and confirm the information with the source or state that the information is unverified so that the public can form their opinion or perhaps treat the information with skepticism. If people have all the information verified or not, reasonable people will form reasonable conclusions.
Another media report from the Associated Press, in which a leaked cable by a US Ambassador stated that President Karzai was "an extremely weak man". A statement like this can jeopardize relationships. In this case the US official defended the cable by stating: "We are determined not to allow the reckless actions of WikiLeaks to harm the strong and strategic relationships we have built over many years with many members of the government of Afghanistan". Rather than offer an explanation of why he thought that Karzai was a weak man, the spokesperson attacked the news organization for harming the relations with the Afghan government. It may be true that Karzai is a weak man or he may not be weak, unfortunately we may never know because the spokesperson chose to divert attention from the message to vilifying the messenger.
There are two positions that need to be considered here. One is the right of persons to express their opinions freely and the other is to have at their disposal all the information they need to make an informed opinion. Inherent in the latter is access to the information, which can only be supplied by those who are privy to the information. If the information is suppressed or considered secret how can an opinion be expressed and the universal right be maintained? Therefore, the media finds itself in the position of protecting the identity of their sources and in the case of WikiLeaks, have developed elaborate internet technologies that will not only encourage persons to contribute but have virtually assured them protection from detection if they decide to provide information.
What is most disturbing is the attempt by some to shut down national servers using technology (for example the United States and China among others). This has had, to date, very limited success mainly due to the WikiLeaks technology and also the support of friendly organizations who have agreed to host the WikiLeaks website termed "Mirrors". It is assumed that as long as this happens that no nation will be able to completely shut down the WikiLeaks site.
What we need in society are people who are willing to demonstrate integrity by controlling what they say about others in private especially if it is based on rumor or unsubstantiated information. To say one thing in private and the opposite in public is deceitful and leads the public to wrong conclusions. As well, attempts to denigrate the messenger is seen for what it is – an attempt to deflect the truth.
Monday, December 6, 2010
Thursday, September 9, 2010
Social Innovation – A new Model?
Whenever the economy begins to take a nose-dive government debt begins to rise, the business sector ceases to expand and unemployment increases. Calls are heard from the private sector to downsize the public service, implement wage freezes, and cut government waste followed by strong opposition from the labour sector. It is then that we see a move to get the non-profit sector involved in the hope that with a little financial nudge community-based agencies with volunteers or lower wages paid to non-unionized workers can take up the slack. Non-profit agencies are provided limited funding in the form of grants to take over social programs but eventually cuts to various government services (health, education, income assistance, etc.) result in more people in need. While demands for more services increase, funding for community-based programs tends to decrease due to government budget cutting leaving the burden of maintaining the programs on the non-profit sector. This attempt to divert social services away from government budgets and to find new ways to provide services is known as "social innovation". Each time this public-private partnership has surfaced over the past decade it is interpreted as a way to reduce deficits and to cut back on government expenditures.
A social entrepreneur is someone who develops an innovative answer to a social problem. According to Stephen Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard University, there are four stages that society has used in the past to address the most difficult of social problems. Stage one was seen at the start of the 20th century, caring for people was largely left to families and charities. Stage two was marked by the welfare state in the United Kingdom and the Great Society in the United States that saw the government taking on the job of ending poverty. In stage three, the government tried to foster partnerships with the private sector and although this had some success, too much emphasis was placed on cost cutting at the expense of measuring successful outcomes. In the fourth stage government will tap the ability of the private and the non-profit sectors to deliver more "transformative innovations". Projects are selected by competition after being scrutinized by government bureaucrats for risk. The aim is to search for social innovations that have succeeded on a small scale and help them have a far bigger impact i.e., "investing in what works". Government funding together with private funding (both private capital and philanthropy) is the basis for supporting social projects that work.
However, how do you measure what works? The private sector has the profit yardstick. The social sector lacks a similar measure and the challenge here is to work out an effective measure of success. The number of people coming through the door of a social centre, or the number of volunteers or the number of hours they work tells you nothing about the program's effectiveness. The challenge will be to develop an evaluation process that will effectively measure success. One way to be effective is to require private capital to ensure a rigorous cost-based evaluation and another is for funding from a new group of philantophic foundations who take a personal interest in the growth of these social innovation groups by investing in a portfolio of non-profit groups and following their performance closely.
To ensure that social innovation projects continue it will be necessary for government departments to divert some of their budgets to a social innovation fund. There is usually resistance from the bureaucratic rule-bound public sector making it difficult to shift funds from old budgets to new ones. To overcome this tendency one suggestion is for every government agency to put aside 1% of their budgets into a social innovation fund thus making it easier to participate in innovative projects.
The evolution of the partnership between the public, private, and non-profit sectors continues. We need to continue to explore innovative ways to develop programs that are shown to be effective and fill unmet needs in our communities.
A social entrepreneur is someone who develops an innovative answer to a social problem. According to Stephen Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard University, there are four stages that society has used in the past to address the most difficult of social problems. Stage one was seen at the start of the 20th century, caring for people was largely left to families and charities. Stage two was marked by the welfare state in the United Kingdom and the Great Society in the United States that saw the government taking on the job of ending poverty. In stage three, the government tried to foster partnerships with the private sector and although this had some success, too much emphasis was placed on cost cutting at the expense of measuring successful outcomes. In the fourth stage government will tap the ability of the private and the non-profit sectors to deliver more "transformative innovations". Projects are selected by competition after being scrutinized by government bureaucrats for risk. The aim is to search for social innovations that have succeeded on a small scale and help them have a far bigger impact i.e., "investing in what works". Government funding together with private funding (both private capital and philanthropy) is the basis for supporting social projects that work.
However, how do you measure what works? The private sector has the profit yardstick. The social sector lacks a similar measure and the challenge here is to work out an effective measure of success. The number of people coming through the door of a social centre, or the number of volunteers or the number of hours they work tells you nothing about the program's effectiveness. The challenge will be to develop an evaluation process that will effectively measure success. One way to be effective is to require private capital to ensure a rigorous cost-based evaluation and another is for funding from a new group of philantophic foundations who take a personal interest in the growth of these social innovation groups by investing in a portfolio of non-profit groups and following their performance closely.
To ensure that social innovation projects continue it will be necessary for government departments to divert some of their budgets to a social innovation fund. There is usually resistance from the bureaucratic rule-bound public sector making it difficult to shift funds from old budgets to new ones. To overcome this tendency one suggestion is for every government agency to put aside 1% of their budgets into a social innovation fund thus making it easier to participate in innovative projects.
The evolution of the partnership between the public, private, and non-profit sectors continues. We need to continue to explore innovative ways to develop programs that are shown to be effective and fill unmet needs in our communities.
Thursday, July 1, 2010
Why are we attacking the police?
The most disturbing part of the G-20 summit was the horrible display of violence attributed to a fringe element that was bent on destruction and chaos. This group, thought to be in the neighbourhood of a few hundred, hid themselves within the legitimate protestors and at an opportune time donned attire that concealed their identity and brought out weapons that could be used to destroy property and inflict injuries to police officers. Is this the price a democratic society pays for the right to congregate and freely speak out against political decisions that they disagree with?
How do you prevent the criminal element from using a legitimate right to further their illegitimate actions? The police are often accused of either using too much or too little force to control people who may be getting dangerously close to turning their expression of peaceful protest into a violent outcome. From the perspective of the police, controlling a large crowd may quickly get out of control so clear rules of demonstration and protest must be followed.
The police had the responsibility to protect the leaders of the G-20. We can only imagine what would have happened if the police lost control of the crowd and the criminal element was able to attack each of the G-20 leaders with the same vengeance as we witnessed along the streets and businesses of Toronto? True, there needs to be a balance of the right to protest and the need to protect those whom the protesters want to leave their message with. The police need to prepare thoroughly for the event and try to anticipate what might happen in light of the environment in which the protest will take place. This is what the police did, taking into account what has happened in the past at similar events. They had the number of officers, weapons, tactics and other resources to handle arrests and detention of large numbers of protesters who were caught violating the law or ignoring directives from the police.
It was with dismay that we witnessed protesters coming back after the protests and carnage of the first day to confront the police again as if to taunt them for their failure to control and prevent the damage caused by the criminal element. In other words, instead of condemning the actions and helping the police identify the criminals in their midst, they turned their attention to the police and blamed them for their failure to stop the damage.
There is much to be learned about crowd control in a society that values the right of citizens to protest. It appears that some lessons have been learned from past experiences in other places but there is still more to learn to protect the rights of free speech and protest and the need to protect our leaders who make decisions for us all. One problem that was evident during the Toronto rioting were the intentions of the police and their failure to communicate them clearly to the protesters. On several occasions it was clear from the media accounts that this communication did not take place. Protesters faced police lines not aware of the police intention. Communication is vital during these protests. When police want specific actions to occur they need to announce this to the protesters before the action is taken, if possible, but also after the action the action is taken. A continual communication with loud speakers attempting to explain what the police need to do before it happens is vital. Often protesters are not aware what is happening in other parts of the city and the police need to change their tactics accordingly which need to be explained.
The police chief or spokesperson needs to be continually available to the media to explain what needs to be done to make the protest peaceful. The Toronto police chief attempted to do this but it needs to be sustained and available whenever a new situation arises. It would be helpful also if the police had an Internet site available as well as twitter and facebook advising citizens of places and streets to avoid and the reasons for this.
Protesters also have a responsibility in a free society to report criminal behaviour when they see it occurring. There were media reports that legitimate protesters stood back and watched as the criminals unleashed their violence. The media as well, filmed the violence as it was occurring and should readily turn over copies of their videos and photos to the police to help identify the perpetrators.
We need to realize that when the legitimate right to protest occurs in our country there will be those who hide their criminal intent among the legitimate protesters. This diminishes the issues of the legitimate protesters and effectively interferes with a citizen's right of free speech. For protesters to stand back and watch or ignore the behaviour of the criminals in their midst is no right at all.
How do you prevent the criminal element from using a legitimate right to further their illegitimate actions? The police are often accused of either using too much or too little force to control people who may be getting dangerously close to turning their expression of peaceful protest into a violent outcome. From the perspective of the police, controlling a large crowd may quickly get out of control so clear rules of demonstration and protest must be followed.
The police had the responsibility to protect the leaders of the G-20. We can only imagine what would have happened if the police lost control of the crowd and the criminal element was able to attack each of the G-20 leaders with the same vengeance as we witnessed along the streets and businesses of Toronto? True, there needs to be a balance of the right to protest and the need to protect those whom the protesters want to leave their message with. The police need to prepare thoroughly for the event and try to anticipate what might happen in light of the environment in which the protest will take place. This is what the police did, taking into account what has happened in the past at similar events. They had the number of officers, weapons, tactics and other resources to handle arrests and detention of large numbers of protesters who were caught violating the law or ignoring directives from the police.
It was with dismay that we witnessed protesters coming back after the protests and carnage of the first day to confront the police again as if to taunt them for their failure to control and prevent the damage caused by the criminal element. In other words, instead of condemning the actions and helping the police identify the criminals in their midst, they turned their attention to the police and blamed them for their failure to stop the damage.
There is much to be learned about crowd control in a society that values the right of citizens to protest. It appears that some lessons have been learned from past experiences in other places but there is still more to learn to protect the rights of free speech and protest and the need to protect our leaders who make decisions for us all. One problem that was evident during the Toronto rioting were the intentions of the police and their failure to communicate them clearly to the protesters. On several occasions it was clear from the media accounts that this communication did not take place. Protesters faced police lines not aware of the police intention. Communication is vital during these protests. When police want specific actions to occur they need to announce this to the protesters before the action is taken, if possible, but also after the action the action is taken. A continual communication with loud speakers attempting to explain what the police need to do before it happens is vital. Often protesters are not aware what is happening in other parts of the city and the police need to change their tactics accordingly which need to be explained.
The police chief or spokesperson needs to be continually available to the media to explain what needs to be done to make the protest peaceful. The Toronto police chief attempted to do this but it needs to be sustained and available whenever a new situation arises. It would be helpful also if the police had an Internet site available as well as twitter and facebook advising citizens of places and streets to avoid and the reasons for this.
Protesters also have a responsibility in a free society to report criminal behaviour when they see it occurring. There were media reports that legitimate protesters stood back and watched as the criminals unleashed their violence. The media as well, filmed the violence as it was occurring and should readily turn over copies of their videos and photos to the police to help identify the perpetrators.
We need to realize that when the legitimate right to protest occurs in our country there will be those who hide their criminal intent among the legitimate protesters. This diminishes the issues of the legitimate protesters and effectively interferes with a citizen's right of free speech. For protesters to stand back and watch or ignore the behaviour of the criminals in their midst is no right at all.
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Why is crime so prevalent in our society?
What is happening in communities in our own country and around the globe as more and more cases of criminal activity are brought to our attention by the media? Is it that the media is focusing on crime because they think this is what society wants to know and therefore will sell more newspapers and guarantee more viewers and listeners? Catastrophic events also get attention and finally they too become routine and uninteresting. In addition to crime, tornadoes, floods, tsunamis, fires, murders, shootings, deadly accidents, environmental disasters, wars and other conflicts seem to fill our news media on a daily basis.
Why all this preoccupation with crime and catastrophic events that fills the daily media? The reason could be fear - a fear that misfortune might someday fall on us. Since 9-11 everyone has been made more security conscious and fearful of his or her environment. There is the realization that bad things can happen to good or innocent people. It is just a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A matter of fate but now the odds have increased because it is happening more frequently or is it just being reported more frequently? In either case the fear has increased - real or unreal. The prevailing notion of terrorists seems to be, attack innocent people and thereby call attention to your cause. In other words, a cause is more important than innocent human life. What does that say about a system of values held by some people?
Another reason for our preoccupation with crime could be a loss of trust in the competence and integrity of our institutions to protect us. Governments have a primary duty and responsibility to protect the public. In a democratic society citizens hold their governments responsible for their welfare. For the most part, governments do respond to the needs of constituents. However, because all needs cannot be accommodated, there is always some criticism that specific needs are not met and eventually a creeping cynicism that government does nothing to solve the problems of ordinary people. Government needs to be seen as responding to a majority of human needs. This phenomenon is very evident currently in the United States and the government's response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Many people of the Gulf region are suffering due to a loss of their livelihoods and recreation resource. They automatically look to their government to protect them from these events and to resolve the problem. However, the problem is so enormous and the solutions so complicated that big government cannot respond quickly enough. It is obvious that the President of the United States, perhaps the most powerful individual in the world, cannot bring all the resources available to him to solve the problem quickly before more damage is done.
Dr. Fred MacKinnon, a respected Deputy Minister of Social Services in the government of Nova Scotia and an architect of the provincial social welfare system addressed social work graduates at Dalhousie University 30 years ago and admitted:
"There is very much that is unfair, unreasonable and wrong in our institutions, our personal relationships, and in the way life impinges itself at certain times on particular individuals". (The Chronicle-Herald, May 30 – June 6, 1980 as re-reported in the Nova Scotian June 6, 2010).
It is interesting to note that Dr. MacKinnon with his experience as a long-time civil servant in the human resources and social welfare field, was encouraging and inspiring new graduates to look at our institutions and relationships in a critical way with the expectation that they were not perfect and all needed to be improved or re-invented.
So, the system always needs to be reviewed and improved. Its an incremental adjustment of the system not one giant change that will solve all our problems. Change occurs when we have new knowledge that allows us to propose new solutions that we expect will be successful.
What can we do to mitigate against the problem of crime? Do we need more police, courts, judges, jails, probation and parole officers? Do we need more rehabilitative and restorative programs? Or do we need more human resources such as psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers? All these solutions are well after the fact and occur after the crime has been committed. It's probably true that crimes will always be committed and will never be completely eliminated from society. The goal should be to reduce crime perpetrated by young people before they become hardened criminals. Unfortunately, more youth appear to demonstrate hard-core behaviour at progressively younger ages. The bully at school, the roaming youth getting into trouble in the community, their association with the drug culture, taking revenge in drive-by shootings, and racing high- powered cars in a dangerous manner on city streets.
What has been left out of this discussion so far is the responsibility that parents have in raising their children. When probation officers prepare reports for the Court during a trial of a young person or anyone accused of a crime, they often find during their assessment that starting at a very early age the accused person missed the very critical teaching of values. Any values will do that have basic respect for another person, concern for another person's welfare and property, and to take responsibility for your own actions and behaviour. All persons should be free from violence and the threat of violence. Most if not all these values can be found in the teaching of religious faiths or associated with the norms of diverse cultures. These values can be summed up as respecting the inherent dignity and individual worth of all persons.
How then are these values not reflected in the behaviour of persons committing a crime? Could it be that no one has taken the time to teach and instill these values in the child during the early years? To be fair to the parents it may be that they were not taught these values and therefore are not able to teach their own child. Furthermore, parents may be absent from the home much of the time due to job commitments and in recent times both parents are working leaving children to fall under other influences. In some cases the child is living with a single parent where there is no stable other parent to assist in child rearing. In order for families to maintain a satisfactory standard of living, it is not unusual for both parents to work and for preschool children to attend day care at very early ages. Many parents try and compensate but many are not able to and therefore the child suffers from parental inattention or preoccupation with other concerns in their lives.
What happens when the child is basically left on its own for much of the time each day? First, they are not receiving any discussion of values and are often left to undesirable influences found in our society. Violent video games and movies that depict disrespect for others and the depiction of violence towards others have been demonstrated to be harmful to young children. However, as with many other similar correlations, there are those who maintain that the results are not conclusive and therefore not applicable to all children.
Where we see this denial of harmful influences most convincingly is in the parent-school confrontation. For example, the teacher or principal informs the parent of destructive or disruptive behaviour in school and the parent becomes defensive and denies the report from the principal. The situation then deteriorates to a battle between the parent and the principal. The principal expects the parent to exercise control of the child and the parent denies the school version even though the parent learns of the problem second hand. In the end no one has a lasting influence over the child and the child misses an opportunity to learn a valuable lesson in positive values.
Therefore how can we prevent crime? Any rehabilitative program for youth must include the child's parent(s). The child needs to be taught values and in many cases parents need to be taught the same values before they can have any influence over the child's behaviour. Any government or community program must take into consideration a discussion of basic values and a process for implementing and sustaining them. This appears to be a simple solution but may not be practicable to all parents and children. Some parents will refuse to become involved while others will find it very difficult to engage due to other family and personal influences. This will narrow down the number of parents who will be able to participate and fewer still the number who will benefit in the end.
What needs to be done to mitigate crime especially perpetrated by youth is for government policy to reflect the needs of children and families who are at risk. It might be too late for hardened criminals to change but some impact can be made on today's children, youth and families. There is still time to establish programs that will benefit young families that are at risk. Some programs that have been set up in our communities try to affect change by separating children or youth from their parents. Sometimes there is a need for this in order to stabilize a bad situation and temporarily reduce the risk of harm. Following a brief separation it is imperative that the family be reunited and enter into a therapeutic program. Fortunately there are rehabilitative programs available in the community. Unfortunately the families that need the programs do not have access or refuse to take part in the programs that are available. The programs themselves have deficits or are not suitable to the problem that is presented to them. Many focus on communication, and understanding the intentions and expectations of others. With youth the problem is the lack of a value system that promotes respect, and caring for other people. Changing entrenched dysfunctional behaviour is a difficult task to accomplish in a few counseling or therapy sessions. It requires a change in the way that an individual views the world around them. The task is further complicated because it is not enough to change the youth's value system but in many cases the value system of the parents needs to change as well in order for the change to be effective and long lasting. This is the reason why authorities find it is necessary to separate the child or youth from parents so that the counseling sessions will be more effective. Unfortunately, this is too is not always satisfactory since the child or youth will eventually return to a dysfunctional family.
If we look at the variety of rehabilitative programs available in the community and also the rate of crime in the community we would conclude that the system is not working properly. There are so many negative influences available compared to positive ones. Children and youth are so exposed to unedited violence in the media and Internet that no amount of positive influence can counteract it. Even parents with positive values systems are helpless to be a positive influence in the lives of their children. So what does this say about our society? Where have we fallen short in perpetrating a positive value system? Can we as a society ever promote positive values in light of the direction that society seems to be headed today? The images we project within our culture seem to be out of control. There is an expectation that the individual has rights and can pursue the satisfaction of their wants and desires at any cost. We are bombarded by advertisements in the media that show that their product is the best and that we as individuals have the right to have the best. This is a powerful message to both parents and their children. The advertisements are filled with messages that have a profound negative effect on young vulnerable minds.
Another well-practiced attempt to change behaviour is the use of positive role models. This is why parents try to ensure that their children are enrolled in sports or other social activities that will expose their child to positive values and to attempt to emulate what appear to be healthy role models. This is not always successful when the role models are found not so positive in their own lives. However, this is an attempt to use what is available in the community and in many cases the use of positive activities and the use of role models has been effective in teaching positive values or changing the dysfunctional behaviour of many children and youth.
So if we are to recall the evaluation of society's institutions and policies made by Dr. MacKinnon to the Dalhousie social work graduates in 1980, what should we be attempting to do? A society that requires both parents to work outside the home in order to provide adequately for their family and to rely on day care, or the school to teach their child basic values, needs to expect that deficits will occur in effective parenting. A comprehensive and critical analysis of public social policy by experts who have no biases needs to assess where stress is placed on parents, children and youth, and then prepare policy to relieve those stresses.
Why all this preoccupation with crime and catastrophic events that fills the daily media? The reason could be fear - a fear that misfortune might someday fall on us. Since 9-11 everyone has been made more security conscious and fearful of his or her environment. There is the realization that bad things can happen to good or innocent people. It is just a matter of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. A matter of fate but now the odds have increased because it is happening more frequently or is it just being reported more frequently? In either case the fear has increased - real or unreal. The prevailing notion of terrorists seems to be, attack innocent people and thereby call attention to your cause. In other words, a cause is more important than innocent human life. What does that say about a system of values held by some people?
Another reason for our preoccupation with crime could be a loss of trust in the competence and integrity of our institutions to protect us. Governments have a primary duty and responsibility to protect the public. In a democratic society citizens hold their governments responsible for their welfare. For the most part, governments do respond to the needs of constituents. However, because all needs cannot be accommodated, there is always some criticism that specific needs are not met and eventually a creeping cynicism that government does nothing to solve the problems of ordinary people. Government needs to be seen as responding to a majority of human needs. This phenomenon is very evident currently in the United States and the government's response to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Many people of the Gulf region are suffering due to a loss of their livelihoods and recreation resource. They automatically look to their government to protect them from these events and to resolve the problem. However, the problem is so enormous and the solutions so complicated that big government cannot respond quickly enough. It is obvious that the President of the United States, perhaps the most powerful individual in the world, cannot bring all the resources available to him to solve the problem quickly before more damage is done.
Dr. Fred MacKinnon, a respected Deputy Minister of Social Services in the government of Nova Scotia and an architect of the provincial social welfare system addressed social work graduates at Dalhousie University 30 years ago and admitted:
"There is very much that is unfair, unreasonable and wrong in our institutions, our personal relationships, and in the way life impinges itself at certain times on particular individuals". (The Chronicle-Herald, May 30 – June 6, 1980 as re-reported in the Nova Scotian June 6, 2010).
It is interesting to note that Dr. MacKinnon with his experience as a long-time civil servant in the human resources and social welfare field, was encouraging and inspiring new graduates to look at our institutions and relationships in a critical way with the expectation that they were not perfect and all needed to be improved or re-invented.
So, the system always needs to be reviewed and improved. Its an incremental adjustment of the system not one giant change that will solve all our problems. Change occurs when we have new knowledge that allows us to propose new solutions that we expect will be successful.
What can we do to mitigate against the problem of crime? Do we need more police, courts, judges, jails, probation and parole officers? Do we need more rehabilitative and restorative programs? Or do we need more human resources such as psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers? All these solutions are well after the fact and occur after the crime has been committed. It's probably true that crimes will always be committed and will never be completely eliminated from society. The goal should be to reduce crime perpetrated by young people before they become hardened criminals. Unfortunately, more youth appear to demonstrate hard-core behaviour at progressively younger ages. The bully at school, the roaming youth getting into trouble in the community, their association with the drug culture, taking revenge in drive-by shootings, and racing high- powered cars in a dangerous manner on city streets.
What has been left out of this discussion so far is the responsibility that parents have in raising their children. When probation officers prepare reports for the Court during a trial of a young person or anyone accused of a crime, they often find during their assessment that starting at a very early age the accused person missed the very critical teaching of values. Any values will do that have basic respect for another person, concern for another person's welfare and property, and to take responsibility for your own actions and behaviour. All persons should be free from violence and the threat of violence. Most if not all these values can be found in the teaching of religious faiths or associated with the norms of diverse cultures. These values can be summed up as respecting the inherent dignity and individual worth of all persons.
How then are these values not reflected in the behaviour of persons committing a crime? Could it be that no one has taken the time to teach and instill these values in the child during the early years? To be fair to the parents it may be that they were not taught these values and therefore are not able to teach their own child. Furthermore, parents may be absent from the home much of the time due to job commitments and in recent times both parents are working leaving children to fall under other influences. In some cases the child is living with a single parent where there is no stable other parent to assist in child rearing. In order for families to maintain a satisfactory standard of living, it is not unusual for both parents to work and for preschool children to attend day care at very early ages. Many parents try and compensate but many are not able to and therefore the child suffers from parental inattention or preoccupation with other concerns in their lives.
What happens when the child is basically left on its own for much of the time each day? First, they are not receiving any discussion of values and are often left to undesirable influences found in our society. Violent video games and movies that depict disrespect for others and the depiction of violence towards others have been demonstrated to be harmful to young children. However, as with many other similar correlations, there are those who maintain that the results are not conclusive and therefore not applicable to all children.
Where we see this denial of harmful influences most convincingly is in the parent-school confrontation. For example, the teacher or principal informs the parent of destructive or disruptive behaviour in school and the parent becomes defensive and denies the report from the principal. The situation then deteriorates to a battle between the parent and the principal. The principal expects the parent to exercise control of the child and the parent denies the school version even though the parent learns of the problem second hand. In the end no one has a lasting influence over the child and the child misses an opportunity to learn a valuable lesson in positive values.
Therefore how can we prevent crime? Any rehabilitative program for youth must include the child's parent(s). The child needs to be taught values and in many cases parents need to be taught the same values before they can have any influence over the child's behaviour. Any government or community program must take into consideration a discussion of basic values and a process for implementing and sustaining them. This appears to be a simple solution but may not be practicable to all parents and children. Some parents will refuse to become involved while others will find it very difficult to engage due to other family and personal influences. This will narrow down the number of parents who will be able to participate and fewer still the number who will benefit in the end.
What needs to be done to mitigate crime especially perpetrated by youth is for government policy to reflect the needs of children and families who are at risk. It might be too late for hardened criminals to change but some impact can be made on today's children, youth and families. There is still time to establish programs that will benefit young families that are at risk. Some programs that have been set up in our communities try to affect change by separating children or youth from their parents. Sometimes there is a need for this in order to stabilize a bad situation and temporarily reduce the risk of harm. Following a brief separation it is imperative that the family be reunited and enter into a therapeutic program. Fortunately there are rehabilitative programs available in the community. Unfortunately the families that need the programs do not have access or refuse to take part in the programs that are available. The programs themselves have deficits or are not suitable to the problem that is presented to them. Many focus on communication, and understanding the intentions and expectations of others. With youth the problem is the lack of a value system that promotes respect, and caring for other people. Changing entrenched dysfunctional behaviour is a difficult task to accomplish in a few counseling or therapy sessions. It requires a change in the way that an individual views the world around them. The task is further complicated because it is not enough to change the youth's value system but in many cases the value system of the parents needs to change as well in order for the change to be effective and long lasting. This is the reason why authorities find it is necessary to separate the child or youth from parents so that the counseling sessions will be more effective. Unfortunately, this is too is not always satisfactory since the child or youth will eventually return to a dysfunctional family.
If we look at the variety of rehabilitative programs available in the community and also the rate of crime in the community we would conclude that the system is not working properly. There are so many negative influences available compared to positive ones. Children and youth are so exposed to unedited violence in the media and Internet that no amount of positive influence can counteract it. Even parents with positive values systems are helpless to be a positive influence in the lives of their children. So what does this say about our society? Where have we fallen short in perpetrating a positive value system? Can we as a society ever promote positive values in light of the direction that society seems to be headed today? The images we project within our culture seem to be out of control. There is an expectation that the individual has rights and can pursue the satisfaction of their wants and desires at any cost. We are bombarded by advertisements in the media that show that their product is the best and that we as individuals have the right to have the best. This is a powerful message to both parents and their children. The advertisements are filled with messages that have a profound negative effect on young vulnerable minds.
Another well-practiced attempt to change behaviour is the use of positive role models. This is why parents try to ensure that their children are enrolled in sports or other social activities that will expose their child to positive values and to attempt to emulate what appear to be healthy role models. This is not always successful when the role models are found not so positive in their own lives. However, this is an attempt to use what is available in the community and in many cases the use of positive activities and the use of role models has been effective in teaching positive values or changing the dysfunctional behaviour of many children and youth.
So if we are to recall the evaluation of society's institutions and policies made by Dr. MacKinnon to the Dalhousie social work graduates in 1980, what should we be attempting to do? A society that requires both parents to work outside the home in order to provide adequately for their family and to rely on day care, or the school to teach their child basic values, needs to expect that deficits will occur in effective parenting. A comprehensive and critical analysis of public social policy by experts who have no biases needs to assess where stress is placed on parents, children and youth, and then prepare policy to relieve those stresses.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
A strategy for social reform
The recent thinking in the field of global social development initiatives focuses on the need to combine social policy with economic policy when attempting to reduce or eliminate poverty. Social development organizations around the globe are beginning to advocate for the inclusion of social policy when collaborating with government to strategize for poverty reduction and elimination.
In our own country poverty reduction strategies are the "in thing" as governments and poverty groups collaborate to design ways to eliminate poverty. A report released by the Canadian Association of Social Workers in December 2009 noted six provincial governments as developing poverty reduction strategies after extensive collaboration with their local community and social development organizations. There is also the commitment of the Federal government by way of a motion in the House of Commons on November 24, 2009 to, " …develop an immediate plan to eliminate poverty in Canada for all". All these attempts are developed through a complicated process that leads to the perception of progress being made to take action on poverty but as yet we have little data to show positive outcomes.
Poverty reduction strategies have incorporated lessons learned that economic and social strategies need to be mutually inclusive. Lessons learned, as reported in the Economist (May 15, 2010), show it is crucial to take the economic steps necessary to get the government's economic house in order and focus on the social policy at the same time. The development response in the past was to get the markets right first and then deal with any remaining pockets of the poverty. This notion was spurred by the example of Asia's rapid growth over the last two decades due to cheap land, cheap labour and technological change driven by globalization and international trade. Although these developing countries have shown phenomenal economic growth, poverty and its consequences remain. Income inequities continue to exist and they create social exclusion that tends to entrench discrimination in other areas such as education and health care.
However, there remains the battle between an ideology that promotes private enterprise and corporate profits and does not take into consideration the needs of vulnerable citizens who may not have had the advantages that others have had in life. The reluctance to share the wealth is based on the view that all persons have the same opportunities available to them and therefore with hard work can succeed. What we know is that much poverty is generational and once born into poverty it becomes difficult more often than not to rise out of the systemic poverty cycle. Also, catastrophic circumstances or disability may lead to personal poverty.
The poverty reduction strategies developed so far (as indicated above) have promoted the inclusiveness of economic and social policy and in our democracy the economic engine is a source of funding of social programs. Social programs must rely on the tax and employment revenues from a market economy. Yet to ignore social policy when developing economic strategies has been shown to perpetuate poverty and to create dissention and even violence is certain countries that ignored a corresponding strategy to improve the conditions that create poverty.
To indicate where social expenditures are made in Nova Scotia, the 2008-2009 provincial budget figures for government departments indicated that expenditures for departments amounted to 88% of total expenditures or $7.3 billion. The largest three departmental expenditures were: health about 40%; education was about 18%; community services about 11% and all other departments amounted to 21%.
Therefore, taxes are the life-blood of government social programs and according to research by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), over the past 15 years Canada's tax system has undergone major tax cuts. Our tax system used to be more progressive but now the richest one percent of Canadians pays less, as a portion of their income, than the poorest 10%. Tax cuts have compromised public services and reduced the effectiveness of our social safety net. Research by the CCPA recommends corrective measures: (a) make corporate Canada part of the solution instead seeing it as part of the problem by reversing tax cuts to corporations; (b) bring fairness back to personal income tax system with a new higher tax rate for persons earning over $250,000 per year; and (c) reverse the GST cut and restore it to 7% with expanded tax credit to protect low-income earners. This latter recommendation alone would allow programs for national pharmacare; home care program for seniors; and fund a national child-care program for our children. Of these three recommendations the fairest way to raise revenue to pay for social programs is to tax those who are capable of paying by taxing income.
In Canada and Nova Scotia social workers are bound by their Code of Ethics to the elimination of poverty, the equitable distribution of society's resources and the universal entitlement and access to the services and opportunities to meet basic human needs in the areas of housing, health care, child care, education and old age security. As professionals we need to continually remind the public that society's resources are not meant to squandered by a few but rather we are all responsible to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to have their basic needs met.
In our version of democracy social policy is directly related to economic policy. We have made important strides in developing social policy that addresses the needs of people living in poverty and the disadvantaged. We must continue to create incentives for private enterprise to flourish and then tax income both personal and corporate profits to pay for social programs for those without means.
In our own country poverty reduction strategies are the "in thing" as governments and poverty groups collaborate to design ways to eliminate poverty. A report released by the Canadian Association of Social Workers in December 2009 noted six provincial governments as developing poverty reduction strategies after extensive collaboration with their local community and social development organizations. There is also the commitment of the Federal government by way of a motion in the House of Commons on November 24, 2009 to, " …develop an immediate plan to eliminate poverty in Canada for all". All these attempts are developed through a complicated process that leads to the perception of progress being made to take action on poverty but as yet we have little data to show positive outcomes.
Poverty reduction strategies have incorporated lessons learned that economic and social strategies need to be mutually inclusive. Lessons learned, as reported in the Economist (May 15, 2010), show it is crucial to take the economic steps necessary to get the government's economic house in order and focus on the social policy at the same time. The development response in the past was to get the markets right first and then deal with any remaining pockets of the poverty. This notion was spurred by the example of Asia's rapid growth over the last two decades due to cheap land, cheap labour and technological change driven by globalization and international trade. Although these developing countries have shown phenomenal economic growth, poverty and its consequences remain. Income inequities continue to exist and they create social exclusion that tends to entrench discrimination in other areas such as education and health care.
However, there remains the battle between an ideology that promotes private enterprise and corporate profits and does not take into consideration the needs of vulnerable citizens who may not have had the advantages that others have had in life. The reluctance to share the wealth is based on the view that all persons have the same opportunities available to them and therefore with hard work can succeed. What we know is that much poverty is generational and once born into poverty it becomes difficult more often than not to rise out of the systemic poverty cycle. Also, catastrophic circumstances or disability may lead to personal poverty.
The poverty reduction strategies developed so far (as indicated above) have promoted the inclusiveness of economic and social policy and in our democracy the economic engine is a source of funding of social programs. Social programs must rely on the tax and employment revenues from a market economy. Yet to ignore social policy when developing economic strategies has been shown to perpetuate poverty and to create dissention and even violence is certain countries that ignored a corresponding strategy to improve the conditions that create poverty.
To indicate where social expenditures are made in Nova Scotia, the 2008-2009 provincial budget figures for government departments indicated that expenditures for departments amounted to 88% of total expenditures or $7.3 billion. The largest three departmental expenditures were: health about 40%; education was about 18%; community services about 11% and all other departments amounted to 21%.
Therefore, taxes are the life-blood of government social programs and according to research by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA), over the past 15 years Canada's tax system has undergone major tax cuts. Our tax system used to be more progressive but now the richest one percent of Canadians pays less, as a portion of their income, than the poorest 10%. Tax cuts have compromised public services and reduced the effectiveness of our social safety net. Research by the CCPA recommends corrective measures: (a) make corporate Canada part of the solution instead seeing it as part of the problem by reversing tax cuts to corporations; (b) bring fairness back to personal income tax system with a new higher tax rate for persons earning over $250,000 per year; and (c) reverse the GST cut and restore it to 7% with expanded tax credit to protect low-income earners. This latter recommendation alone would allow programs for national pharmacare; home care program for seniors; and fund a national child-care program for our children. Of these three recommendations the fairest way to raise revenue to pay for social programs is to tax those who are capable of paying by taxing income.
In Canada and Nova Scotia social workers are bound by their Code of Ethics to the elimination of poverty, the equitable distribution of society's resources and the universal entitlement and access to the services and opportunities to meet basic human needs in the areas of housing, health care, child care, education and old age security. As professionals we need to continually remind the public that society's resources are not meant to squandered by a few but rather we are all responsible to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to have their basic needs met.
In our version of democracy social policy is directly related to economic policy. We have made important strides in developing social policy that addresses the needs of people living in poverty and the disadvantaged. We must continue to create incentives for private enterprise to flourish and then tax income both personal and corporate profits to pay for social programs for those without means.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Media reports of child molestation in the Catholic Church: Is this media bias or balanced reporting?
The media reports recently and especially during the Easter celebrations in the Catholic Church are a great cause for alarm for Catholics all over the world. The Catholic Church being a universal church has about one billion adherents to the faith. How this crisis is affecting them must be very demoralizing to Catholics and causing many to question their faith as well as their trust in the clergy.
From reports in the media it does not seem that the general Catholic population is speaking out about their thoughts and opinions in the crisis in their Church. There are always a few in the opinion pages that speak out on the subject of the day but in general we don't hear from the congregations of Catholics on this issue. In some parishes the clergy have just begun to speak at masses and raising the issue to encourage parishioners to discuss the matter in an objective way.
Discussions about religion and the church have always been emotional and it is usually difficult to have a discussion without feelings being hurt and polarizing positions staked out. This can occur between different religious faiths or within the same faith.
The media reports on problems in the church like they do for any other issue that has public relevance. Someone comes to them with a story that begins as a one-sided view of the events. The media researches the issue and gathers facts on the subject. The media attempts to find others with the same concerns about the issue. In an attempt to be balanced, the media will try to speak to a representative of the opposing view and include it in the reporting. If they are not able to interview the opposing side, they will report that they tried to contact the opposing side but the source was unavailable or refused to speak to the media.
With the current practice of 24-hour news media reporting on cable, the first impulse is not hold on to the story but to get the news item out as soon as possible. This results in a report even before a thorough preliminary investigation can be made. Often the media will include a brief interview with police or other official who may be in the middle of an investigation only to report that they cannot answer the question because the investigation is not complete. The media's audiences only have an allegation of one or more persons and an absence of completed verified facts on the matter.
There are times when the media attempts to perform the role of the courts by interviewing witnesses, gathering opinions from experts and then leaving the impression that guilt has been established (conviction by media). In some cases it may not be the intention of the media to be biased in their reporting but due to competition from other media outlets there is a rush to report on the matter. Unfortunately, this can leave an impression in the public that what the media is alluding to must be correct. Of course the breaking news may turn out to be verified later but, in other, cases the story turns out to be inaccurate and it is too late to prevent innocent lives from being affected.
The media's job is to report the news. But is it always news that the media is reporting? In the case in point, the allegations and the proven cases of child abuse by Catholic priests are prominent in the news media. However there have been studies done on the problem of child sexual abuse by non-Catholic clergy and among other professionals. For example, an authoritative work by a Penn State professor (1) , determined that between 0.2% and 1.7% of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent. The media seems to be satisfied with one-sided reporting without reporting on child sexual abuse generally. The impression left with the public is that child sexual abuse only occurs with priests in the Catholic Church. Although we know this not to be true there is the willingness to believe it in the absence of a full investigation of the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the general population.
So, is there a media bias when reporting child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church? A sample of recent headlines may indicate a bias: "Catholics facing a crisis of faith"; "Vatican hopes to shield Pope from lawsuit"; "1963 letter spoke of abuse"; Mancini mentions scandal in sermon"; Vatican: leave Pope alone"; Rome took 12 years to defrock U.S. priest"; "Jewish leaders say comparing allegations against Pope to anti-Semitism 'offensive'".
As each new allegation or statement is scrutinized day by day and repeated hundreds of times over the regular and 24 hour news networks, the public begins to accept the allegations and incomplete evidence to be the truth. This is an injustice to those who have been singled out or others who have been labeled guilty by association.
Measuring past deeds in the light of today's knowledge is not acceptable. The processes that we use today to govern behaviour are much more sophisticated than they were decades ago. In the 60's and 70's the sexual abuse of children was not reported widely and, when reported, not likely to be investigated. In those days we were just beginning to deal with physical abuse with some expertise. We had to recognize that there was a difference between physical abuse and discipline by a parent or teacher. For example, teachers were permitted by law to strap a student for misbehaviour. This was finally removed from provincial statutes and tighter controls were placed on parents who used excessive discipline that left injuries on the child's body. Protocols for sexual abuse were not fully developed and so institutions and investigative bodies were not prepared to handle these cases. Experts when consulted offered no clear direction. Institutions like the church, schools, orphanages and children's organizations like the Boy Scouts, Boys and Girls clubs were often left on their own to deal with complains and allegations that came to them. No doubt there was some thought of protecting the integrity of the institution especially when no protocols were available. Eventually, professionals such as psychologists and psychiatrists and social workers began to intensively study cases of sexual abuse and develop new protocols and legislation which we have available today.
Unfortunately the media applies the knowledge we have today with the handling of cases from the past and tries to hold people accountable using today's standards. This is unfair and does not recognize advances in our knowledge of the causes and the treatments of those who abuse nor the advances made in developing protocols for handling these cases. For example, there were no child abuse registers legislated by provinces and no protocols by organizations to refer to the registers when hiring staff to work with children. There was the widely held belief that if someone wanted to work with children that this was a well-intentioned and noble aspiration. As a result child abusers were able to continue their secret lives undetected.
The media is in the position of never to being wrong. First, they can report allegations of abuse sometimes with only the news that an event has occurred and nothing more. The next report will be another tidbit of information. This can go on for several days or weeks. Then when the event actually does happen such as charges laid or lawsuit initiated, it is reported again. By this time the abuser, who has also been incarcerated or, after a bail hearing, been released awaiting trial, looks guilty as a result of all the media coverage. At this point no trial in a court of law has even begun. The axiom "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law does not apply in the public's mind. Then once the trial begins the news cycle begins anew with more speculation in the media and finally when a verdict is announced it is reported again. Sometimes this ends the speculation but other times speculation is made about launching an appeal. This leads to more speculation and media reporting unless the large time gaps in the legal process leads the media to abandon the case in favour of other stories where speculation can occur.
It is obvious that this process is good for the media that sells advertising during the newscasts. Also being the first to "break the story" will give them an advantage over their competitors, which will also bring in more revenue and some notoriety for being the media organization that "first broke the story". All during this type of reporting, the media can easily fall into the trap of biased reporting.
This is the context in which the reporting of the child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has occurred. The Christian Church, with its belief in, love, compassion and redemption, holds everyone to be accountable for their own misconduct (sins). They must not only reveal and confess their misdeeds but also must do it with the realization that they have done harm to another person(s) and vow to make amends and to change their conduct in the future.
Forgiveness is another important foundation stone of the Christian faith system. Forgiveness requires that the one who has been harmed (sinned against) by the misconduct of another person must accept, understand, and offer hope to the perpetrator. This is a difficult part of the Christian faith to live out. It requires tremendous love, compassion and trust that the perpetrator genuinely wants to reform. For example, the case where a loved one has been murdered and how difficult it must be to forgive and offer assistance to the person responsible. There is something so noble in the person who is able to forgive in this situation. On the other hand it is also quite disturbing to hear a person state that they will never forgive and add that they will not be satisfied until the murderer has paid the ultimate price.
Our Canadian society and other societies have tried to live out the Christian faith by enacting laws that reflect this tenant of "love one another" and forgiveness. For example, Canadian law no longer requires the death penalty for persons convicted of first-degree murder. That is, the barbaric behaviour of putting a person to death for breaking the law is against the values of Canadian society. One can argue that the substitute penalty of life in prison is just as barbaric, still the convicted person has their life, such as it is. The convicted person has their basic needs met and a chance to reform over time. The assumption is that all persons are basically "good" and when given time and an opportunity can reform.
The Catholic Church is now in a crisis, however as with all crises this provides an opportunity to reform and to correct the wrongs that have been hidden and rendered unaccountable in the past. Institutional abuse has been revealed in the Catholic Church. Priests who have been convicted in a court of law have maintained secret lives and have abused children or collected pornographic images to satisfy their perversion. This misconduct of a few has tarnished the credibility and trust of all clergy who may now be viewed with suspicion by some. The Church will now need to reform itself to assure parishioners that it has changed and will develop measures and protocols to assist the institution to properly handle complains in the future. This must start at the local Church level and hopefully spread to the upper levels of the Church hierarchy. This process has started in the Archdiocese of Halifax. The Archbishop of Halifax, in his Easter message, announced his commitment to "re-founding our church", by making it more transparent and accountable. In addition to… personal, spiritual and moral resurrection there must be efforts to re-found our institutional practices in the hope of being more consistent with Christ's expectation for us all". To make this happen there must be …"comprehensive policies and clear processes to correspond to complex conditions of our day, in which the gospel is to be proposed". These processes will include how to deal with …"complaints, concerns and criticisms regarding the state of a parish, and the actions of a priest or any person serving the church". Any such matters would include careful investigation before any action is taken.
It obvious the Church is trying to respond and must respond to past failures. What is refreshing is the action taken by the local the Church even at this late date - a testimony of the desire and commitment by the clergy with the help of its parishioners to find a way to prevent misconduct going forward. A process for the removal of offenders must be the first priority but as well there must be a focus on those who have been harmed in the past, help offered and, if required, compensation offered.
Can the media allow itself the opportunity to report on these efforts as a positive outcome of a sad past of the institution of the Church or will the media dwell on criticism of the attempts being made by a well-meaning church and hinder the attempts being made to address the problem and set the church on a new course.
________________
1. Phillip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (1996) New York Oxford University Press, pp. 50 and 82
From reports in the media it does not seem that the general Catholic population is speaking out about their thoughts and opinions in the crisis in their Church. There are always a few in the opinion pages that speak out on the subject of the day but in general we don't hear from the congregations of Catholics on this issue. In some parishes the clergy have just begun to speak at masses and raising the issue to encourage parishioners to discuss the matter in an objective way.
Discussions about religion and the church have always been emotional and it is usually difficult to have a discussion without feelings being hurt and polarizing positions staked out. This can occur between different religious faiths or within the same faith.
The media reports on problems in the church like they do for any other issue that has public relevance. Someone comes to them with a story that begins as a one-sided view of the events. The media researches the issue and gathers facts on the subject. The media attempts to find others with the same concerns about the issue. In an attempt to be balanced, the media will try to speak to a representative of the opposing view and include it in the reporting. If they are not able to interview the opposing side, they will report that they tried to contact the opposing side but the source was unavailable or refused to speak to the media.
With the current practice of 24-hour news media reporting on cable, the first impulse is not hold on to the story but to get the news item out as soon as possible. This results in a report even before a thorough preliminary investigation can be made. Often the media will include a brief interview with police or other official who may be in the middle of an investigation only to report that they cannot answer the question because the investigation is not complete. The media's audiences only have an allegation of one or more persons and an absence of completed verified facts on the matter.
There are times when the media attempts to perform the role of the courts by interviewing witnesses, gathering opinions from experts and then leaving the impression that guilt has been established (conviction by media). In some cases it may not be the intention of the media to be biased in their reporting but due to competition from other media outlets there is a rush to report on the matter. Unfortunately, this can leave an impression in the public that what the media is alluding to must be correct. Of course the breaking news may turn out to be verified later but, in other, cases the story turns out to be inaccurate and it is too late to prevent innocent lives from being affected.
The media's job is to report the news. But is it always news that the media is reporting? In the case in point, the allegations and the proven cases of child abuse by Catholic priests are prominent in the news media. However there have been studies done on the problem of child sexual abuse by non-Catholic clergy and among other professionals. For example, an authoritative work by a Penn State professor (1) , determined that between 0.2% and 1.7% of priests are pedophiles. The figure among the Protestant clergy ranges between 2 and 3 percent. The media seems to be satisfied with one-sided reporting without reporting on child sexual abuse generally. The impression left with the public is that child sexual abuse only occurs with priests in the Catholic Church. Although we know this not to be true there is the willingness to believe it in the absence of a full investigation of the prevalence of child sexual abuse in the general population.
So, is there a media bias when reporting child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church? A sample of recent headlines may indicate a bias: "Catholics facing a crisis of faith"; "Vatican hopes to shield Pope from lawsuit"; "1963 letter spoke of abuse"; Mancini mentions scandal in sermon"; Vatican: leave Pope alone"; Rome took 12 years to defrock U.S. priest"; "Jewish leaders say comparing allegations against Pope to anti-Semitism 'offensive'".
As each new allegation or statement is scrutinized day by day and repeated hundreds of times over the regular and 24 hour news networks, the public begins to accept the allegations and incomplete evidence to be the truth. This is an injustice to those who have been singled out or others who have been labeled guilty by association.
Measuring past deeds in the light of today's knowledge is not acceptable. The processes that we use today to govern behaviour are much more sophisticated than they were decades ago. In the 60's and 70's the sexual abuse of children was not reported widely and, when reported, not likely to be investigated. In those days we were just beginning to deal with physical abuse with some expertise. We had to recognize that there was a difference between physical abuse and discipline by a parent or teacher. For example, teachers were permitted by law to strap a student for misbehaviour. This was finally removed from provincial statutes and tighter controls were placed on parents who used excessive discipline that left injuries on the child's body. Protocols for sexual abuse were not fully developed and so institutions and investigative bodies were not prepared to handle these cases. Experts when consulted offered no clear direction. Institutions like the church, schools, orphanages and children's organizations like the Boy Scouts, Boys and Girls clubs were often left on their own to deal with complains and allegations that came to them. No doubt there was some thought of protecting the integrity of the institution especially when no protocols were available. Eventually, professionals such as psychologists and psychiatrists and social workers began to intensively study cases of sexual abuse and develop new protocols and legislation which we have available today.
Unfortunately the media applies the knowledge we have today with the handling of cases from the past and tries to hold people accountable using today's standards. This is unfair and does not recognize advances in our knowledge of the causes and the treatments of those who abuse nor the advances made in developing protocols for handling these cases. For example, there were no child abuse registers legislated by provinces and no protocols by organizations to refer to the registers when hiring staff to work with children. There was the widely held belief that if someone wanted to work with children that this was a well-intentioned and noble aspiration. As a result child abusers were able to continue their secret lives undetected.
The media is in the position of never to being wrong. First, they can report allegations of abuse sometimes with only the news that an event has occurred and nothing more. The next report will be another tidbit of information. This can go on for several days or weeks. Then when the event actually does happen such as charges laid or lawsuit initiated, it is reported again. By this time the abuser, who has also been incarcerated or, after a bail hearing, been released awaiting trial, looks guilty as a result of all the media coverage. At this point no trial in a court of law has even begun. The axiom "innocent until proven guilty" in a court of law does not apply in the public's mind. Then once the trial begins the news cycle begins anew with more speculation in the media and finally when a verdict is announced it is reported again. Sometimes this ends the speculation but other times speculation is made about launching an appeal. This leads to more speculation and media reporting unless the large time gaps in the legal process leads the media to abandon the case in favour of other stories where speculation can occur.
It is obvious that this process is good for the media that sells advertising during the newscasts. Also being the first to "break the story" will give them an advantage over their competitors, which will also bring in more revenue and some notoriety for being the media organization that "first broke the story". All during this type of reporting, the media can easily fall into the trap of biased reporting.
This is the context in which the reporting of the child sexual abuse in the Catholic Church has occurred. The Christian Church, with its belief in, love, compassion and redemption, holds everyone to be accountable for their own misconduct (sins). They must not only reveal and confess their misdeeds but also must do it with the realization that they have done harm to another person(s) and vow to make amends and to change their conduct in the future.
Forgiveness is another important foundation stone of the Christian faith system. Forgiveness requires that the one who has been harmed (sinned against) by the misconduct of another person must accept, understand, and offer hope to the perpetrator. This is a difficult part of the Christian faith to live out. It requires tremendous love, compassion and trust that the perpetrator genuinely wants to reform. For example, the case where a loved one has been murdered and how difficult it must be to forgive and offer assistance to the person responsible. There is something so noble in the person who is able to forgive in this situation. On the other hand it is also quite disturbing to hear a person state that they will never forgive and add that they will not be satisfied until the murderer has paid the ultimate price.
Our Canadian society and other societies have tried to live out the Christian faith by enacting laws that reflect this tenant of "love one another" and forgiveness. For example, Canadian law no longer requires the death penalty for persons convicted of first-degree murder. That is, the barbaric behaviour of putting a person to death for breaking the law is against the values of Canadian society. One can argue that the substitute penalty of life in prison is just as barbaric, still the convicted person has their life, such as it is. The convicted person has their basic needs met and a chance to reform over time. The assumption is that all persons are basically "good" and when given time and an opportunity can reform.
The Catholic Church is now in a crisis, however as with all crises this provides an opportunity to reform and to correct the wrongs that have been hidden and rendered unaccountable in the past. Institutional abuse has been revealed in the Catholic Church. Priests who have been convicted in a court of law have maintained secret lives and have abused children or collected pornographic images to satisfy their perversion. This misconduct of a few has tarnished the credibility and trust of all clergy who may now be viewed with suspicion by some. The Church will now need to reform itself to assure parishioners that it has changed and will develop measures and protocols to assist the institution to properly handle complains in the future. This must start at the local Church level and hopefully spread to the upper levels of the Church hierarchy. This process has started in the Archdiocese of Halifax. The Archbishop of Halifax, in his Easter message, announced his commitment to "re-founding our church", by making it more transparent and accountable. In addition to… personal, spiritual and moral resurrection there must be efforts to re-found our institutional practices in the hope of being more consistent with Christ's expectation for us all". To make this happen there must be …"comprehensive policies and clear processes to correspond to complex conditions of our day, in which the gospel is to be proposed". These processes will include how to deal with …"complaints, concerns and criticisms regarding the state of a parish, and the actions of a priest or any person serving the church". Any such matters would include careful investigation before any action is taken.
It obvious the Church is trying to respond and must respond to past failures. What is refreshing is the action taken by the local the Church even at this late date - a testimony of the desire and commitment by the clergy with the help of its parishioners to find a way to prevent misconduct going forward. A process for the removal of offenders must be the first priority but as well there must be a focus on those who have been harmed in the past, help offered and, if required, compensation offered.
Can the media allow itself the opportunity to report on these efforts as a positive outcome of a sad past of the institution of the Church or will the media dwell on criticism of the attempts being made by a well-meaning church and hinder the attempts being made to address the problem and set the church on a new course.
________________
1. Phillip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (1996) New York Oxford University Press, pp. 50 and 82
Monday, February 22, 2010
The extreme political right v-s the social welfare agenda:
The interest and concern of those who seek a social agenda is the welfare of all individuals not just the ablest and more fortunate members of society. Those on the right resent interference with their right to be successful even if it is at the expense of individuals less fortunate than themselves. The right's ideology emphasizes the importance of being free to pursue their dreams using their own abilities and resists any controls, especially government controls, on their ability to prosper.
The trouble with this philosophy is that not everyone has the ability nor the opportunities that others have in life. If inclusion is not a prevailing value then we live in a society that values the survival of the fittest and polarizes individuals into rich and poor categories.
Some have promoted the maintenance of a middle class to feed the appetite of the rich and to provide for the poor. Its important for the rich and the poor to have a middle class. The middle class, if large enough can consume the products of the rich (thereby making them richer) and likewise the middle class can consume and pay taxes that will finance services to themselves as well as the poor.
How one looks at the world and their own place in it is a reflection of the values that they have been taught during childhood. If one is taught to value others and share resources then it is natural to be concerned about those who are less fortunate or victims of misfortune. When something goes wrong such as a natural disaster, lack of opportunity due to poverty, mental or physical disabilities, or inadequate parental guidance during childhood, there is a human need to respond.
The capitalist system plays against this attitude. The idea of markets is good but the current market system is damaging if left unchecked as witnessed during the current recession and near collapse of the global economic system. Greed takes over when one experiences the accumulation of excess and becomes driven to be more successful. We can only conclude that an unregulated market system makes everyone a victim of greed and is harmful to all of us. According to Raj Patel, author of The Value of Nothing: "The flaw at the heart of markets is essentially the idea that profit and corporations should govern the valuation of things and that everyone else should stand aside". Global economies still need a place to do business and markets can be a good thing but they need to be regulated.
A market economy, if left unregulated, is basically problematic. A system based on unending consumption is basically unsustainable because the planet's resources are finite. We are seeing this played out, for example, with the consumption of oil. Oil reserves, like coal reserves before them, are being depleted and very few new reserves are being discovered. We can foresee the day when oil and oil products will no longer be available. The global community is currently scrambling to find other sources of energy which will undoubtedly impact the standard of living of the developed world as well as the whole global community.
Can we ever include all people in a system that trumps greed over need? Can the global economies ever agree on a system that will propose solutions for the greater good at the expense of their own economies? A case in point is the failure of the developed world and emerging markets to curb their excesses to control carbon emissions. We have seen very little progress here and no expression of optimism for the future benefit of our children who will suffer if we do not curb our excesses. Our civilization may be known in the future as the one that caused future generations grief rather than creating the conditions for a better life for all.
There is no doubt that climate change due to carbon emissions (man-made or otherwise) has contributed to a global food crisis. One billion people live in poverty and are chronically hungry around the globe. According to Margaret Biggs, President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), "The ability of poor people to grow food to feed starving populations will be strongly challenged by climate change in the next five years".
Another case in point is the Canadian health care insurance system. Denis Falvey writing an opinion in the Halifax Chronicle Herald has made a clear distinction in describing our health care system as being both moral and financial. He states: " It is immoral in this day and age for a rich country to provide health care on the basis of a patient's financial means. It is also economically and socially backward and limiting for a country to provide health care on that basis".
We must abolish the idea that paying our fair share of taxes is something that we should try to avoid. Paying taxes provides the means for us all to enjoy the benefits of living in a society that values all individuals. It is a way of distributing wealth so that everyone can benefit in spite of their misfortune - the trade mark of a caring and inclusive society.
The trouble with this philosophy is that not everyone has the ability nor the opportunities that others have in life. If inclusion is not a prevailing value then we live in a society that values the survival of the fittest and polarizes individuals into rich and poor categories.
Some have promoted the maintenance of a middle class to feed the appetite of the rich and to provide for the poor. Its important for the rich and the poor to have a middle class. The middle class, if large enough can consume the products of the rich (thereby making them richer) and likewise the middle class can consume and pay taxes that will finance services to themselves as well as the poor.
How one looks at the world and their own place in it is a reflection of the values that they have been taught during childhood. If one is taught to value others and share resources then it is natural to be concerned about those who are less fortunate or victims of misfortune. When something goes wrong such as a natural disaster, lack of opportunity due to poverty, mental or physical disabilities, or inadequate parental guidance during childhood, there is a human need to respond.
The capitalist system plays against this attitude. The idea of markets is good but the current market system is damaging if left unchecked as witnessed during the current recession and near collapse of the global economic system. Greed takes over when one experiences the accumulation of excess and becomes driven to be more successful. We can only conclude that an unregulated market system makes everyone a victim of greed and is harmful to all of us. According to Raj Patel, author of The Value of Nothing: "The flaw at the heart of markets is essentially the idea that profit and corporations should govern the valuation of things and that everyone else should stand aside". Global economies still need a place to do business and markets can be a good thing but they need to be regulated.
A market economy, if left unregulated, is basically problematic. A system based on unending consumption is basically unsustainable because the planet's resources are finite. We are seeing this played out, for example, with the consumption of oil. Oil reserves, like coal reserves before them, are being depleted and very few new reserves are being discovered. We can foresee the day when oil and oil products will no longer be available. The global community is currently scrambling to find other sources of energy which will undoubtedly impact the standard of living of the developed world as well as the whole global community.
Can we ever include all people in a system that trumps greed over need? Can the global economies ever agree on a system that will propose solutions for the greater good at the expense of their own economies? A case in point is the failure of the developed world and emerging markets to curb their excesses to control carbon emissions. We have seen very little progress here and no expression of optimism for the future benefit of our children who will suffer if we do not curb our excesses. Our civilization may be known in the future as the one that caused future generations grief rather than creating the conditions for a better life for all.
There is no doubt that climate change due to carbon emissions (man-made or otherwise) has contributed to a global food crisis. One billion people live in poverty and are chronically hungry around the globe. According to Margaret Biggs, President of the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), "The ability of poor people to grow food to feed starving populations will be strongly challenged by climate change in the next five years".
Another case in point is the Canadian health care insurance system. Denis Falvey writing an opinion in the Halifax Chronicle Herald has made a clear distinction in describing our health care system as being both moral and financial. He states: " It is immoral in this day and age for a rich country to provide health care on the basis of a patient's financial means. It is also economically and socially backward and limiting for a country to provide health care on that basis".
We must abolish the idea that paying our fair share of taxes is something that we should try to avoid. Paying taxes provides the means for us all to enjoy the benefits of living in a society that values all individuals. It is a way of distributing wealth so that everyone can benefit in spite of their misfortune - the trade mark of a caring and inclusive society.
Monday, February 1, 2010
Haiti: Will we stay for the long haul?
Canadians have been generous with their donations to assist with Haiti's recovery following the devastating earthquake on January 12th.
Canada has its own recession yet the charity of people even when their own situations might be precarious is impressive. Of course the situation Canadians find themselves in is nothing compared to Haitians, yet those who give to others while facing hardships of their own can relate to the suffering of others even as they try to cope with less serious situations of their own. In our materialistic and egocentric society one would think that the prevailing opinion when asked for donations would be that: "I'm not able to give because I have enough problems of my own". Instead the value we have seen expressed is one of compassion and to give what one can. The massive outpouring of good will and charity in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti is exceptional. Canadians as individuals, organizations and governments have been very generous by raising over $80 million in directing their wealth to Haiti relief efforts. On January 14, the Canadian government announced the creation of the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund which will match the donations dollar for dollar of registered Canadian charitable organizations in support of humanitarian and recovery efforts in response to the earthquake in Haiti. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) will allocate these funds to Canadian and international humanitarian and development organizations. When added to the generosity of other nations, this humanitarian effort will go down in history as one of the largest ever made to one small country hit by a terrible disaster.
As we observe our response and the response of the international community, there is no doubt that the values of sharing and compassion are universal. The outpouring of concern trumps other news witnessed daily of armed conflict, lawlessness and cruelty which seems to attract constant media attention. In the Haiti situation, this outpouring of compassion is refreshing in a world where we read in the media everyday of inhuman acts and suffering of innocent people by a few who wish only to satisfy their own selfish desires. The hope is that our attention to Haiti and other disasters will not be short lived.
The fact is that Haiti is only the latest disaster to hit innocent people. There have been other notable disasters recently such as the tsunami in the Philippines, the flooding in Bangladesh, the Sichuan earthquake in China, wild fires in Australia, famine in Africa and armed conflict in various parts of the world forcing people to be dislocated, exposed to violence with little hope of ever being able to sustain themselves and their families.
However, Haiti is unique because the world needs to ask itself: "How did Haiti get in to this sad condition in the first place". The world has known about Haiti's situation for decades. It has become known as the "basket case" in the western hemisphere. That is not to say that it has been totally ignored. The disaster has brought to the world's attention the vast number of government and other relief organizations as well as the United Nations that have been working in Haiti for many years. Unfortunately, it appears as if the assistance was uncoordinated, each organization working independently in hospitals, orphanages, schools law enforcement and others. Often emergencies create opportunity and under Canada's leadership key ministers were brought together last week in Ottawa to rally the international community towards a strategic and coordinated effort to rebuild Haiti over the long term. Prime Minister Harper's call came during an address to delegates of the Ministerial Preparatory Conference on Haiti where Haiti's Prime Minister, Jean-Max Bellerive was in attendance. He stated: “It is Canada’s hope that this meeting will set the stage for broad international action on reconstruction that will mobilize the will and resources of all of Haiti’s partners”.
As the work of emergency aid continues, the international community is now mobilizing for the long term reconstruction of Haiti, a task that is considered to take at least a decade and more. The mobilization, if it is sustained, perhaps will be a positive outcome of the earthquake although it should not have taken such a traumatic event effecting masses of innocent people to look at the long term development of this country. Any redevelopment of Haiti needs to include Haitians and their government. They need support for governance and their institutions, maintenance of security, a program for preserving the land, so that the land is able to eventually support and sustain the Haitian people.
Lets hope that after the initial response to Haiti subsides, we will not forget their long term needs.
Canada has its own recession yet the charity of people even when their own situations might be precarious is impressive. Of course the situation Canadians find themselves in is nothing compared to Haitians, yet those who give to others while facing hardships of their own can relate to the suffering of others even as they try to cope with less serious situations of their own. In our materialistic and egocentric society one would think that the prevailing opinion when asked for donations would be that: "I'm not able to give because I have enough problems of my own". Instead the value we have seen expressed is one of compassion and to give what one can. The massive outpouring of good will and charity in the aftermath of the earthquake in Haiti is exceptional. Canadians as individuals, organizations and governments have been very generous by raising over $80 million in directing their wealth to Haiti relief efforts. On January 14, the Canadian government announced the creation of the Haiti Earthquake Relief Fund which will match the donations dollar for dollar of registered Canadian charitable organizations in support of humanitarian and recovery efforts in response to the earthquake in Haiti. The Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA) will allocate these funds to Canadian and international humanitarian and development organizations. When added to the generosity of other nations, this humanitarian effort will go down in history as one of the largest ever made to one small country hit by a terrible disaster.
As we observe our response and the response of the international community, there is no doubt that the values of sharing and compassion are universal. The outpouring of concern trumps other news witnessed daily of armed conflict, lawlessness and cruelty which seems to attract constant media attention. In the Haiti situation, this outpouring of compassion is refreshing in a world where we read in the media everyday of inhuman acts and suffering of innocent people by a few who wish only to satisfy their own selfish desires. The hope is that our attention to Haiti and other disasters will not be short lived.
The fact is that Haiti is only the latest disaster to hit innocent people. There have been other notable disasters recently such as the tsunami in the Philippines, the flooding in Bangladesh, the Sichuan earthquake in China, wild fires in Australia, famine in Africa and armed conflict in various parts of the world forcing people to be dislocated, exposed to violence with little hope of ever being able to sustain themselves and their families.
However, Haiti is unique because the world needs to ask itself: "How did Haiti get in to this sad condition in the first place". The world has known about Haiti's situation for decades. It has become known as the "basket case" in the western hemisphere. That is not to say that it has been totally ignored. The disaster has brought to the world's attention the vast number of government and other relief organizations as well as the United Nations that have been working in Haiti for many years. Unfortunately, it appears as if the assistance was uncoordinated, each organization working independently in hospitals, orphanages, schools law enforcement and others. Often emergencies create opportunity and under Canada's leadership key ministers were brought together last week in Ottawa to rally the international community towards a strategic and coordinated effort to rebuild Haiti over the long term. Prime Minister Harper's call came during an address to delegates of the Ministerial Preparatory Conference on Haiti where Haiti's Prime Minister, Jean-Max Bellerive was in attendance. He stated: “It is Canada’s hope that this meeting will set the stage for broad international action on reconstruction that will mobilize the will and resources of all of Haiti’s partners”.
As the work of emergency aid continues, the international community is now mobilizing for the long term reconstruction of Haiti, a task that is considered to take at least a decade and more. The mobilization, if it is sustained, perhaps will be a positive outcome of the earthquake although it should not have taken such a traumatic event effecting masses of innocent people to look at the long term development of this country. Any redevelopment of Haiti needs to include Haitians and their government. They need support for governance and their institutions, maintenance of security, a program for preserving the land, so that the land is able to eventually support and sustain the Haitian people.
Lets hope that after the initial response to Haiti subsides, we will not forget their long term needs.
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Political Ideology Interferes with International Aid Policy
The current government of Canada through the party in power in Ottawa has made a mockery of their recently imposed policy of total control over the ability of international aid programs to assist the world's most vulnerable people. Kairos, a group of prominent Canadian churches, was abruptly told by the conservative government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper that their funding had been cancelled for 2010. No meaningful explanation was given at the time except the vague comment that the organization no longer met the funding criteria of the Canadian International Development Agency's (CIDA) priorities of providing food security and helping youth.
The treatment of this organization by the government of Canada is not acceptable and the public needs to speak out persistently in support of Kairos and other organizations that bring relief to millions of people in undeveloped countries around the globe.
Accusations against Kairos appear to be greatly unjustified in the face of the limited explanation by government and the immediate defense offered by Kairos Executive Director, Mary Corkery. From the limited response from government it appears that the government was misguided in its claim to crack down on anti-Semitism, a charge that Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, made at a conference in Jerusalem over a week ago when he stated that Kairos was promoting a boycott of Israeli corporations and products. This accusation was denied by Kairos.
If this is the rationale by the Canadian government for withdrawing funding to Kairos then it appears that any injustice is possible when false accusations are made to support a right wing agenda. What has happened is that an important financial aid program has been compromised and government actions have interfered with the delicate work being done by Kairos. Furthermore, this action has cast a shadow over other Canadian international development agencies carrying out similar work across the Globe.
We have a government in Canada that states that our own economic prosperity trumps international aid to the world's poorest. A government that anticipates that speaking out about injustices is a recipe for withdrawal of financial support. International aid organizations will now be concerned that by speaking out about injustices which they observe will result potentially in withdrawal of vital financial support. This is the old problem of social policy coming in conflict with the reality of injustice. The question is: Can an organization that receives funding from government openly criticize the funding source?
Some would argue that the funder has this right to choose since it does not want to be seen as supporting an injustice. It’s a delicate balance for the funder and especially for a government that supposedly represents the people and spends their tax dollars. However, the problem is who defines the injustice? This again depends on the ideology of the funding decision maker or their blatant miscalculation of events. In the case of Kairos it appears to be both.
The treatment of this organization by the government of Canada is not acceptable and the public needs to speak out persistently in support of Kairos and other organizations that bring relief to millions of people in undeveloped countries around the globe.
Accusations against Kairos appear to be greatly unjustified in the face of the limited explanation by government and the immediate defense offered by Kairos Executive Director, Mary Corkery. From the limited response from government it appears that the government was misguided in its claim to crack down on anti-Semitism, a charge that Immigration Minister, Jason Kenney, made at a conference in Jerusalem over a week ago when he stated that Kairos was promoting a boycott of Israeli corporations and products. This accusation was denied by Kairos.
If this is the rationale by the Canadian government for withdrawing funding to Kairos then it appears that any injustice is possible when false accusations are made to support a right wing agenda. What has happened is that an important financial aid program has been compromised and government actions have interfered with the delicate work being done by Kairos. Furthermore, this action has cast a shadow over other Canadian international development agencies carrying out similar work across the Globe.
We have a government in Canada that states that our own economic prosperity trumps international aid to the world's poorest. A government that anticipates that speaking out about injustices is a recipe for withdrawal of financial support. International aid organizations will now be concerned that by speaking out about injustices which they observe will result potentially in withdrawal of vital financial support. This is the old problem of social policy coming in conflict with the reality of injustice. The question is: Can an organization that receives funding from government openly criticize the funding source?
Some would argue that the funder has this right to choose since it does not want to be seen as supporting an injustice. It’s a delicate balance for the funder and especially for a government that supposedly represents the people and spends their tax dollars. However, the problem is who defines the injustice? This again depends on the ideology of the funding decision maker or their blatant miscalculation of events. In the case of Kairos it appears to be both.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)