Poaching is generally divided into two groups: those that poach animals to sell on the black market, and those that poach to survive. The question that was addressed in this “Planet Earth” documentary, and the one that I pose to you now, is when it comes to feeding a starving family, or protecting the health of an animal population, which is most important?

In short, which do we value more, a protected animal or a human being? Survival poaching will continue, especially in areas of the world where the food itself, not just the means to buy it, is scarce.

This debate between people who are trying to survive and conservationists trying to save a species really drove home for me that *poverty* is always part of the equation.

Thoughts, anyone?

As a precursor to the April 12th post, please enjoy the below brief video of some of the wonder of our planet.

In 2007, there were 35,000 (16.7%) children under age 18 living beneath the poverty line (before-tax Low Income Cut-off) in Saskatchewan.

Ignore the concept of a poverty line for a moment – that statement says that 16.7% of children live below the ‘before-tax Low Income Cut-off’. That statement also says that the ‘before-tax Low Income Cut-off is the poverty line.

If you want to beat back poverty, I think you have to define it and measure it.  And, I also think that Low Income Cut-off is the best way I can think of to measure poverty.  The only problem is that a lot of us don’t know what it means.  That is where this article comes in…

The Low Income Cut-off is, ultimately, an exercise in statistics.  And, to understand the definition of Low Income Cut-of, you have to understand one other concept – the Family Expenditure Survey (F.A.M.E.X.).  Statistics Canada periodically collects data on the spending habits of Canadian families.  This data primarily deals with how much money Canadian families spend on consumer goods (basic needs like food, shelter, transportation, and clothing) and with what consumer goods Canadian families own.

Once you are armed with how much the average Canadian family spends in a year, you take that number and express it as a percentage of before tax income.  Any family that spends over 20 percentage points more than the average on food, shelter, and clothing is said to be a ‘low income family’.

It will be easier to understand this if I use an example.

In 1998, a family of 4 that lived in Regina that earned less than $28,359 would be considered to live ‘below the poverty line’.  In 1998, $28,359 was the Low Income Cut-off for families of four that lived in cities with a population of between 100,000 and 499,999.

What do you think?  Is Low Income Cut-off a good measure of poverty?

While the entire report is a must-read for anyone interested in poverty in Regina, one particular statistic jumps out at me. Check out this quote:

In 2001, the estimated child poverty rate in Canada was 15.6 per cent while that of Saskatchewan was 17.6 per cent. Yet, the poverty rate among First Nations children ages 0-14 living off-reserve in Saskatchewan in 2000 was 55.9 per cent, while the corresponding number for Regina was 61.3 per cent. The incidence of poverty
among Métis children ages 0-14 living off-reserve in Saskatchewan in 2000 was 36 per cent, while the corresponding number for Regina was 45.7 per cent.

Shocking numbers, but I am wondering, has anyone seen more current numbers? If you have, please contact us, or leave a comment below!

What made this particular refugee claim newsworthy? Thousands of refugee claims are processed in Canada every year that are the result of violent racial discrimination and oppression. Why was Huntley’s case singled out as newsworthy… was it because he is caucasian? Is it SO rare that a white person from another country applies for refugee status as to make it newsworthy? Is it really that rare; are white people universally privileged and immune from racial oppression? Oh, but wait… this story gets better!

Huntley’s refugee claim is now under review after last week’s media coverage. Why, you ask? No, it’s not because his claim of being violently attacked is being investigated; and no, it’s not because the voracity of his claim is being challenged. In response to the media coverage of Huntley’s case, the South African government released a statement saying that “white South Africans live in peace”. So, the Canadian government, apparently taking this statement at face value, has put his claim in review. Why would he need refugee status if his government says that you all live in perfect harmony?

The legitimacy of Huntley’s claim aside, I find the statement made by the S.A. government to be just a tiny bit ludicrous. Is there a population in ANY country where an entire demographic of people live in total peace with one another? Moreover, why hasn’t the mainstream media picked up on the larger story? If the government is seriously saying that the white population of South Africa lives in peace, are they not indicating that white people are immune to the corruption and turmoil that has existed in South Africa for so long?

It seems to me that this is a topic that should be questioned endlessly – else we conclude that the most overt example of white-skin privilege can be found in South African, and be endorsed by our own government as it tosses out a refugee claim because Huntley is white – and therefore “lives in peace”.

Any thoughts?

Regina has had a whole host of amazing events this summer, from classical performances to AC/DC. The problem is that it often costs a great deal of money to attend. They are exclusionary when they are supposed to bring people together. While events often have larger corporate or business sponsors, for the first time Regina’s city council stepped up to the plate to the tune of $25,000.

Kudos, city council, kudos! This is exactly the type of event that the city needs to not only encourage, but also facilitate. Free presentations of the arts, no matter what the medium bring out the vibrancy of this city. It is my fervored hope that the City of Regina uses the success of this event as a reason to support such endeavors in the future. I think it’s fantastic that our municipal politicians felt it worthy to invest in a great event that was open to everyone. A tip of my hat to all those involved in putting on Symphony Under the Sky, and for making it such an enjoyable day – the rain that fell during the outdoor performance was just as classic as the Symphony itself!

As a longtime resident of downtown Regina, let me tell you what this means – it signifies the closure of the last book store in the downtown area. That’s right, you didn’t hallucinate that last sentence, and it’s not a typo. If you want to BUY A BOOK you must leave the downtown area.

Of course, we still have the main branch of the public library downtown, and it remains a magical place. But what if you don’t have access to the library? Or better yet, what if you wish to support the author by actually purchasing their book? What if you simply desire a copy of a book that you don’t have to return? What if the book is a new release? Point is, there are a dozen or more reasons to go to a book store as opposed to a library, and if you live in downtown Regina it just became very difficult to buy a damn book!

What does this mean? Am I to take this as a reflection of how downtown and its residents are viewed? Now, to be fair, I’ll confess a bias. I love to read and I love living downtown. I also don’t have a car. One of the perks of living downtown is that I can walk just about everywhere and am close to major bus routes. If I want to go to a book store, it’s now a major excursion; it takes me two hours just in travel time between waiting for and riding the bus. Is this a conspiracy? Has some secret society decided that downtown residents should work a little harder to buy books?

Okay, now I’m being specious. I want someone to blame for this! The illuminati seemed like a good choice. All joking aside, this is a real setback for rejuvenating downtown Regina. We have wonderful local businesses that receive little support from the city; we have a beautiful downtown area that would be vibrant if the majority didn’t shut down by 7pm; and now we have no bookstores. Downtown revitalization does not just mean more condos and parking lots; it stands for the need to facilitate positive changes for residents and business owners alike. More affordable housing; increased rental space; building successful and sustainable local businesses; and making downtown Regina a more vibrant and positive place for everyone.

There’s a new buzz word that I really dig that’s being used to describe this conundrum – eco-discrimination. The hot topics of the day, such as the unanimous (albeit grudgingly) support in the Saskatchewan Legislature of nuclear power, or the equally hot debate surrounding Regina’s new stadium, often neglect that massive amounts of discrimination go into decisions like these. Especially when it comes to location – and the consequences are grave.

There’s a reason that Regina’s landfill is located just outside the city, right by our penitentiary. No one wanted a damn landfill in his or her neighbourhood. The consequences? Environmental standards require that garbage dumps be built on top of at least 8-10 feet of clay when they’re in proximity to a water supply or aquifer. Regina’s landfill is built above only 2 feet of clay, putting an aquifer that supplies vast numbers of Regina citizens with water at risk. It was viewed as the only acceptable place… and we will pay the price.

Mosaic Stadium, home of the Saskatchewan Roughriders, was built in one of the lowest income communities in Regina. Why? Because these citizens had little means of protesting it – unlike the successful protests that prevented the stadium being built elsewhere. Moreover, let’s set aside the accompanying noise levels for a moment. Stadiums have the ability to bring communities together with sport and cultural events – if they can afford to go to them. So, how nice for little Timmy or Suzie, getting to watch all the people going to events in the stadium across the street that they don’t have the money to attend. Does anyone else see the irony here?

As a last example of eco-discrimination, take the Saskatchewan government’s newfound collective support for nuclear power. Numerous Indigenous communities are bracing themselves for the inevitable battle for environmental and human rights. The fact remains that many lucrative, beneficial, yet environmentally invasive projects are situated incredibly close to Indigenous communities whose opinions are neither valued nor wanted by industry or government. One needs only to look to natural resource industry for existing examples.

Location matters – both of those making the decisions, but also the communities that will be affected. We must think critically about why certain locations are chosen for projects like stadiums and power plants, and who comprises the communities that live in proximity. Eco-discrimination takes many forms, but the underlying commonality is that it takes advantage of communities with little recourse to defend their rights. If you are in favour of Regina’s new stadium or prospective nuclear power plant, I ask you – whose backyard should they be built in?