My Brothers Keeper... Which ones?

[mrrnice2 157005]

Today the Canadian government committed to a 3.5 billion dollar funding program that I am quite confident will have two diametrically opposed views, both of which are arguable and both of which are probably correct.

 

The funding is a Canadian commitment to global maternal, newborn and child health with the goal of ending the preventable deaths of mothers and children under the age of five. I say Canadian government as opposed to the Harper government because my guess is that it will be supported by all political parties, although I have not yet read any reaction to this initiative.

 

My initial thought is this, however politically incorrect it may be. No one, and no government can take care of others until they first take care of themselves. Perhaps this money could allow every single Canadian woman that is pregnant, access to milk and a proper diet that would translate into a healthier child. Perhaps this funding could supplement the 1 in 7 Canadian families that live in poverty in this great country. There are so many valid and critical areas in Canada that could use Canadian government support.

 

I really do have difficulty with the idea of helping others around the world when we have so many here in this country that need help and I also realize how callous that sounds. Over the last few years at Christmas I have given a friend a goat, and have received a goat in return, with the goats being provided to a family in a foreign country as a means of providing them both food and milk and an income. This year I shall probably look for something in Canada that will help a Canadian that is truly in need.

 

I believe that the fact of the matter is in this, as in so many areas, that though needs are HUGE everywhere, are we spreading our gifts and money so thin that we in reality are NOT making a real difference?

 

Food for thought.

[fortunateone 156618]

I think the problems come in the fact you have to rely on the country's organizations to distribute this help. As we well know, often what was meant to be free ends up in the market, for sale, and not always helps the ones in need.

 

Recently i read a story about what happened to an orphan in India, when she was 17, just hanging out with friends, before she became an sp later in life. One of the anti trafficking groups actually picked them up, and locked them up at their building, in order to fill out a report about them, as more numbers of 'rescued child sex workers". When donors came to visit, they were trotted out and introduced, her as being 12, her 23 year old friend being 17. They were not allowed to leave, and had to actually bribe the guard with sexual favours, even tho they were not sex workers, in order to get what they need to call home, which for her was an orphanage. Eventually they were able to escape the Rescue organization, of all things.

 

maggie macneils blog has the story of Molli Desi, I had the link somewhere, but faster to just post here, and let you google it. It's very revealing.

[mrrnice2 157005]

maggie macneils blog

 

Thanks for posting that. The blog is in two parts and may be seen here.

 

Part One http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2014/05/12/guest-columnist-molli-desi-part-one/

 

Part Two http://mollidesidevadasi.com/blog/

 

I saw in todays press release that the government will be accepting proposals from NGO's to distribute the funding.

[fortunateone 156618]

thanks! That's the one. I was glad i ran across the article, i had been reading tweets from Molli Desi that showed up on #notyourrescueproject and other sex work related accounts.

 

I am not a tweeter tho :)

[MightyPen 67414]

I believe that the fact of the matter is in this, as in so many areas, that though needs are HUGE everywhere, are we spreading our gifts and money so thin that we in reality are NOT making a real difference?

 

I get what you're saying. But there are three reasons why I'm cool with lobbing some cash outside our own borders:

 

a) Bang for buck. When people are crushingly poor, even small and cheap improvements can make an enormous difference. Just clean water and a little education, some bags of rice. Maybe a little micro-credit to help people get small self-helping projects off the ground. Relatively tiny sums of money can make a big difference to the lives of a half-dozen, tens, or hundreds of people at a time.

 

b) Budget allocations. I certainly agree we should spend most of Canadians' money taking care of Canadians; but if you've allocated (just making up figures here) 95% of your budget to Canada and its mothers and children, putting 5% aside for the desperate outside our borders seems totally cool to me. We don't have to keep every single crumb of our pie for ourselves.

 

c) Self-interest: Moral and (less compellingly) security and economic payoffs. It makes Canada a good global citizen to help the less fortunate members of our vast human family. I'm not much into absolute "us" and "them"; we're all just lucky to have been born here instead of there.

 

Plus, if we help improve the conditions and prospects for the desperate, then they're less likely to turn to violence to secure any kind of future for themselves. Economic disparity carries real risk. Finally, way down the road, the stable and growing nations that could result from aid make better markets for our stuff than millions of starving people locked in civil wars and food riots.

 

Those last two are my weakest points: to get from subsistence aid to the desperate all the way to stable and peaceful market-nations is a long stretch. But I think it can't hurt to nudge the arc in that direction.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

If you think of your country as your family, should you not give to those outside your family?

I say, let's be glad that we have 3.5 Billion to donate. But, I do understand the impulse to keep it within the "family".

[Ice4fun 78396]

In Canada we are extremely lucky to live in a wealth prosperous country that has the ability... if not the willingness... to provide support and care for all if it's citizens.... do I think we can do a better job of allocating funds within our budget if course... but that said the true test of a country, in my opinion, is not just how it uses its wealth to look after its own citizens but also how it contributes to our global community. If we wait to support others around the world until everyone every need in Canada is met it really just means we will never do anything on the world stage.

 

The 3.5 billion which we contribute will not mean people in Canada will suffer it means many people in other countries will suffer less.

 

My only concern with this announcement is the fact that the Harper Government will apply it's right of Centre approach which will mean that certain important parts of this issue like family planning will never be funded. Otherwise I applaud Canada for renewing this initiative.

 

Just my opinion.

[mrrnice2 157005]

If you think of your country as your family, should you not give to those outside your family?

I say, let's be glad that we have 3.5 Billion to donate. But, I do understand the impulse to keep it within the "family".

 

Understood and I agree with that. However if we continue to use that analogy, if I only had so many resources to help with and a family member were in trouble, that's where my help would go, not outside the family. In our Canadian family the infant mortality rate of Aboriginal women is similar to that in some of the underdeveloped countries that this funding is meant to help.

 

Additional Comments:

 

My only concern with this announcement is the fact that the Harper Government will apply it's right of Centre approach which will mean that certain important parts of this issue like family planning will never be funded.

 

You are right on with this. I read today that 1 out of 4 maternal deaths in the third world are caused by botched abortions. The Harper government has already previously stopped funding the international agencies that promote family planning.

[Katherine of Halifax 113932]

This is an eye opening thread for me MN2.

 

I give a good chunk of money to my church and much of this money is for " missionaries". To those people that are not familiar with church giving, this is money sent to other countries " way far away". This has never made sense to me, all my money was being sent away and I live in an area that the amount of cash I contribute would make a difference right here in Halifax.

 

MN2 I also have a friend that I give a goat or trees or something that is sent to another country. Thank you for this interesting and thought provoking thread, I am now re thinking where my dollars will go this year.

[mrrnice2 157005]

This is an eye opening thread for meM2. I am now re thinking where my dollars will go this year.

 

My intention here is NOT to persuade anyone to change their giving patterns. If a goat or chickens or fruit trees are REALLY helping people then it's an awesome charitable gift. Perhaps my issue is with the lack of personal certainty that either small gifts or large multi billion dollar grants in fact get to where we want it to go? In it's simplest form I think that I just wish our funding, from whatever source, IS making a difference, a REAL difference.

[Ice4fun 78396]

Accountability for good usage of funds donated is important and I encourage people to do their research to ensure that the money they donate goes to the need they wanted to address....

 

That said.... charities and supporting needy causes is imperfect....

 

It's wise to push for accountability but we should not use the imperfect nature of charity as an excuse to not help.

 

Just my opinion.

[Guest *Ste***cque**]

Hi MN2,

 

I tend to use analogies to make a point sometimes. Maybe family symbolizing country wasn't a good one but I'll stick with it until someone thinks of a better one to illustrate my point.

 

I won't dispute your point of view but my POV comes from seeing many "well off" people who decide that they need a bigger house or newer car and convince themselves that that is a greater need than the people living under a bridge down the road. When I hear them say they don't give to charity outside the "family" because they still have a mortgage or their child plans to go to University it affects my opinion of them. I feel like saying "no one ever became poor by giving to those less fortunate" but I don't. Maybe I should?

 

Canada is well off comparatively and we can afford to help non Canadians. Waiting until there are zero problems at home is just an excuse, in my opinion. No offence intended but I do feel strongly about your topic.

[CristyCurves 169032]

Hi MN2,

 

I feel like saying "no one ever became poor by giving to those less fortunate" but I don't. Maybe I should?

Yes you should, no one can speak to much when it comes to helping those less fortunate, here or abroad. It is giving to charities that makes you wealthy, wealthy in spirit, which has a far greater pay off than a cheque.

I don't donate to very many human charities, anymore for my own reasons , although I do volunteer. I do donate to animal charities and causes globally.

I am a firm believer if you have what you need and can afford to give, then do so, that's compassion.

But many North Americans appear to have the attitude I had to do it my self, I had to work hard to get where I am, so can they.

[peacectryguy 12533]

I too, like that we are trying to help in some way outside our country. I do agree with you though that we also need to address similar problems right here in our own country. I think, for the most part, Canada does a pretty good job of this but unfortunately, it sometimes appears to not be enough.

My biggest problem with trying to help others is that often they don't or won't help themselves. There will always be that small percentage that abuse the systems in place and /or cause many of these problems that put the children at high risk. I don't mean to be callous here but it just is what it is. I see far too many young women who get pregnant and won't alter their lifestyle (even temporarily) in the best interest of the fetus. It's the old adage of a few bad apples but there is some selfish behavior out there and there is only so much a government, charity group or medical professionals can do.

As for trying to help in third world countries, again admirable and well intentioned and if the funds are there, at least try. The problem here is how often the funds don't reach their intended target. The donations of charity sometimes are diverted from the governments and leaders of those countries who need it because the leaders prefer to live like kings while their citizens die in poverty.

I am not saying don't. I think it's great to make the effort. I am just playing "devil's advocate" here and saying the human race is very flawed and all our good deeds are balanced by all the evil-doers.