Skip to content

S-CAP 11 case adjourned until Dec. 17

The case against a group calling themselves the S-CAP 11 has been adjourned until Dec. 17. The Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty (S-CAP) members made a brief court appearance Nov.
191112_HU_Protesters_Court_1
Phillip Marsh, one of the S-CAP 11, speaks outside of the Sudbury Courthouse Nov. 19. Photo by Heidi Ulrichsen.

The case against a group calling themselves the S-CAP 11 has been adjourned until Dec. 17.

The Sudbury Coalition Against Poverty (S-CAP) members made a brief court appearance Nov. 19, responding to trespassing charges laid against them after a sit-in at Sudbury MPP Rick Bartolucci's office earlier this month.

Technically, the court appearance only involved 10 of the 11 people charged after the protest. Clarissa Lassaline, who uses a wheelchair, and was not brought to jail after the incident, will be dealt with separately.

Laurentian University sociology professor and S-CAP member Gary Kinsman said the group's lawyers are fighting to have Lassaline appear with other group members.


The S-CAP members were protesting the elimination of the Community Startup and Maintenance Benefit, which is planned for January 2013.

The $114-million benefit helps people on social assistance pay for emergency housing costs, such as first and last month's rent, rent and utility arrears or household items such as furniture.

In its place, about half of the money normally allocated to the benefit will go towards a new housing and homelessness program to be run by municipalities.


The group pleaded not guilty to the charges, Kinsman, who was one of those arrested at Bartolucci's office, said.

“We don't think we did anything wrong,” he said, speaking at a press conference held outside of the courthouse after the court appearance.

“We think it's really important for people to be speaking out and struggling against this cut. It's going to be putting more people on the streets. It's going to be creating major difficulty for women and children living in poverty.”

The fact that former Ontario Premier Mike Harris, remembered for his cuts to social assistance in the 1990s, never touched the Community Startup and Maintenance Benefit is telling, Kinsman said.

“The Liberals now think they can go after this type of benefit,” he said.


Many of the S-CAP 11 members wore T-shirts decorated with the words “Rabble Rouser,” referring to Bartolucci's comments in an interview with Northern Life, where he called the protesters rabble-rousers.

“His description and characterization of us as rabble-rousers is in some ways quite comic,” Kinsman said.

“What a rabble-rouser technically means is someone who tries to rouse the rabble, which is the people ... I think it's a nice thing to be called that we're trying to rouse the everyday, common people to speak out and protest injustice.”

S-CAP and the North Shore Tribal Council are also jointly organizing a Nov. 22 rally against cuts to the Community Maintenance and Startup Fund. The rally will get underway at 11:30 a.m. outside of the Sudbury Arena.

“I think it will be a massive show of opposition to what the provincial Liberal government is trying to do,” Kinsman said.

“It will also show indigenous communities and other people living in poverty and our allies and supporters, all coming together. It will be a really important day.”

Phillip Marsh, also one of the S-CAP 11, said he's opposed to the elimination of the benefit “out of compassion and love for the poor.”

“Public authorities are bound to provide living conditions for the poor that respects their dignity,” he said. “Cutting this program deprives the poor access to what is needed to live a truly human life.”

Although not one of those who participated in the protest, Rick Desormeaux told those gathered at the press conference what the benefit has meant to him. He and his wife, Pierrette, are Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) recipients.

On one occasion, the couple used funds from the benefit to help cover moving costs, and on another to purchase a refrigerator. Desormeaux said it would have been difficult to cover these costs without the benefit.

He said he doesn't agree with the benefit's impending elimination. 

 

“It's wrong,” Desormeaux said. “It's just wrong.”


Comments

Verified reader

If you would like to apply to become a verified commenter, please fill out this form.




Heidi Ulrichsen

About the Author: Heidi Ulrichsen

Read more