an Australian take on homelessness:
Thanks. Yes I saw that. I'm really still hoping to find a clearly written description of the difficulties of getting photo ID in New Zealand if you're in certain circumstances.
The thing that's been bothering me in both Bennett and Key's comments on the housing crisis is their "oh, there have always been people with these problems". The language they use (surely deliberately) echoes the "The poor you will always have with you..." line. Of course, the second half of that phrase is "...but you will not always have me." I can only hope that's a promise.
They are of course almost right. There have always been people with poor housing, even in the halcyon days of state housing. Certainly our housing has been cold for a long time, and at least on that front we're hopefully slowly improving in the battle between improvement and degeneration. But affordability has been getting worser and worser. And just because a crisis has built up slowly doesn't mean there's not a crisis.
You just need to lose your wallet which contains the only photo ID and all the money you have.
I've been ridiculed, put down, advised by consultants that my trust is not corporate enough for government funding. But they just don't get it. Government should be funding these small grassroots trusts. They are the lifeblood of society.
The consultants want flash signs at the gate, a reception area with serenading fish tank, and cold glass-tabled boardrooms. They see the smaller rooms, tattooed clients and the high-risk neighbourhood as flaws.
We need to stop contracting consultants on huge retainers. We need to listen to and encourage those at the frontline who have the skills and knowledge to contribute solutions.
Yes, excellent interview about what it is like in the real world.
The consultants want flash signs at the gate, a reception area with serenading fish tank, and cold glass-tabled boardrooms
Translation "government funding to mitigate homelessness should go to wealthy parasites".
It's very John Key, isn't it. I have exactly the opposite approach when I donate to charity - I prefer to see the money go to people working at ground level rather than paying rent on a nice office. There's definitely a place for nice offices, unfortunately, because not everyone thinks like I do. But I'd rather those people paid for it. I'll keep trying to point my donations at the coal-face (so to speak... we need a modern version of that for a "we have decided to mitigate global warming" world... mirror-face?)
Translation “government funding to mitigate homelessness should go to wealthy parasites”.
Interesting speech at the March for Moko event in Hamilton yesterday from the missioner from the local Anglican Action. Karen Morrison Hume spoke about the "village" and the "village" being "pillaged" by material and corporate greed. She had more than a little dig at the Chief Executive Officers that have the power.
I was bursting into spontaneous applause, while most seemed to miss her point.
This is from a paper she gave to the prison forum...
In order to re-image, re-frame and re-create a new prophetic vision of the work that is done in the community, post-prison, we need to determine to change the language in describing community-based organisations.
Anglican Action does not talk about itself in “non” terms. We are not an NGO (non-government organisation). To use this description immediately talks about what we are not, rather than what we are.
Anglican Action is a “justice through service” mission. This makes a positive identity statement about who we are and what we are committed to. Claiming a positive and substantive identity immediately positions us as an entity, a subject, and in turn makes it possible to be considered as a potential legitimate collaborator rather than an object that simply co-operates.
Anglican Action is a “justice through service” mission. This makes a positive identity statement
I like that. And I can sympathise with having a dig at the pillagers.
One thing that still amuses me is "social justice warrior" used as a pejorative by mostly US geeky bigots. I always go "I fight for social justice, yes, and that's a good thing". Possibly because a very similar term is used affirmatively in green movements, a quick search for "Environmental Warrior" produces a lot of positive hits. And interestingly the cruches have started to realise that AGW has social welfare implications.
Maybe Danielle Bergin lacks the “tertiary educated” credentials, a commerce degree, or at least a BA with some social science qualifications, to be taken seriously enough by the establishment. I notice this all the time, the government and its ministries and agencies are staffed with the “studied” ones, the “experts” who live on another level of “awareness” and “up there” in society, any person coming to talk with them, must be able to show some similar “value” or is simply ignored or treated with a kind of condescending attitude.
As all that counts is now run along business lines, so she had this uphill struggle, no matter how much experience she had in her own life and working at the coal face of things.
The coal face is rarely seen by those who make the big decisions. Even ones that may once have been there, see a Ms Bennett from “the West”, once they join the upper ranks, they forget where they came from.
The world is simply a nasty place, it seems, that is if you come from the bottom and try to fight for those at the bottom. That may also be why Sue Bradford finally gave up fighting for changes through the parliamentary system.
simply ignored or treated with a kind of condescending attitude.
Credibility outweighs integrity.
Had Danielle the appropriate degree or qualification...who knows?
The fact that what she does and how she does it works is immaterial...to many she'll be nothing more than a well intentioned amateur.
Likewise the Anglican Action missioner...Karen Morrison Hume...she can speak the 'language'...but at heart she is solid grassroots.
There may be hope.