![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Here's something from January that I meant to post, but never got around to it.
Back in January, a co-worker sent the following email to me:
(The rest of this entry is spent debunking what the email says.)
"Does anyone know if this is true??? If so, that really sucks for all the
retired Canadians!
It's really not fair at all...............
>>Canadian Government Policy
>>
>>It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee
>>with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional
>>$580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 .
>>
>>This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to
>>the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only
>>receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension AND Guaranteed
>>Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!
>>
>>Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can
>>get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to
>>$2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to
>>Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years.
>>
>>Please forward this to every Canadian you know to expose what our elected
>>politicians are doing
>>to over-taxed Canadians."
Soon, I heard voices discussing plans to move to repressive dictatorships and then gain refugee status in Canada. Of course, being the cynical leftie that I am, I realized that this had to be BS. (More worrying no one around here twigged onto the fact that Canada's population of pensioners vastly outnumbers our population of refugees. And that a payment switch would drive taxes sky high.) So, I found some corrections online. It's not hard with my journalism and library background to do this sort of research, but it is depressing how many people just accepted what they were sent in email.
When told the truth, the co-worker who sent this around suddenly felt that refugees were earning too little.
When I was researching this, I found some blogs that attributed all this to a Toronto Star news story. Other blogs claimed that the MSM (mainstream media, for those of you not conversant in the acronyms of odious right-wingers) would ignore it. As I told one such blog, actually the mainstream media has covered and debunked this story. But over a year later it is still making the email rounds. Lies and distortions long outlive any attempts at correction.
I will reprint a Toronto Star article on the subject. This is, of course, a breach of some kind of copyright. But as the Star is often cited as endorsing the bigoted tripe above, I doubt they will mind very much. In fact, the ombud did say "please tell your friends". (And please, if someone sends you an email on this topic, copy the message below and ask them to send it around to all the people they spammed with their anti-immigrant tripe.)
Can we dispel this urban myth?
Don Sellar
Toronto Star (Canada); 11/27/2004
Section: National Report, pg. H06
Today's rather sad and twisted tale began last March when the Star
published a feature about plans to settle hundreds of African refugees
in smaller Canadian cities.
It was a simple story: Canada and the United Nations were flying
asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp to new lives in centres such
as Hamilton.
As immigration/diversity reporter Nicholas Keung wrote, immigration
officials hope to encourage (but not force) refugees to make new lives
outside the magnet cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.
"We hope by relocating them all together and resettling them as a whole
to the same community, we can create a positive environment to help them
integrate into the Canadian society successfully," an immigration
official explained.
Fine and dandy. But halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen
trouble was lurking.
In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890
from Ottawa as a "start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social
assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find
employment."
In addition, they get "a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed
from the government," the story said.
In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer.
Actually, the $1,890 "start-up allowance" - including a $580 monthly
social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic
household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is
used.
In quick order, two things happened after the article ran.
First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things,
it said charity begins at home and Canada should not "roll out the
welcome mat" for refugees.
The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect
$2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners.
More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of
whom likely spread the word to wider audiences.
Ah, the wonders of the Internet!
Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It
was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had
changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred.
The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 "compares very
well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and
development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of
$1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. "Maybe our
pensioners should apply as refugees?" reasoned the writer.
Readers may not realize that fact checking of letters to the editor is
nearly impossible at most daily papers, given limited staff resources
and unforgiving deadlines.
Although many mistakes are caught, the occasional doozer gets through.
That was definitely the case here.
Over the next several months, it became increasingly clear a disturbing
urban myth had been born.
Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the
world, usually one or two a week.
Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying
degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger.
"Let's send this to all Canadians," one e-mail roared, "so we can all be
p----- off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the
pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to
submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years."
In hindsight, the ombud now wishes he'd issued a speedy clarification to
help set the record straight.
But with information (and misinformation) moving at warp speed on the
Internet, I doubt there was a silver bullet for the problem.
Maybe this column can help dispel a damaging misperception about
refugees and pensioners. Please tell your friends.
ombud @ thestar.ca
Back in January, a co-worker sent the following email to me:
(The rest of this entry is spent debunking what the email says.)
"Does anyone know if this is true??? If so, that really sucks for all the
retired Canadians!
It's really not fair at all...............
>>Canadian Government Policy
>>
>>It is interesting that the federal government provides a single refugee
>>with a monthly allowance of $1,890.00 and each can get an additional
>>$580.00 in social assistance for a total of $2,470.00 .
>>
>>This compares very well to a single pensioner who, after contributing to
>>the growth and development of Canada for 40 or 50 years, can only
>>receive a monthly maximum of $1,012.00 in old age pension AND Guaranteed
>>Income Supplement. Maybe our pensioners should apply as refugees!
>>
>>Let's send this thought to as many Canadians as we can and maybe we can
>>get the refugees cut back to $1,012.00 and the pensioners up to
>>$2,470.00, so they can enjoy the money they were forced to submit to
>>Canadian government for those 40 to 50 years.
>>
>>Please forward this to every Canadian you know to expose what our elected
>>politicians are doing
>>to over-taxed Canadians."
Soon, I heard voices discussing plans to move to repressive dictatorships and then gain refugee status in Canada. Of course, being the cynical leftie that I am, I realized that this had to be BS. (More worrying no one around here twigged onto the fact that Canada's population of pensioners vastly outnumbers our population of refugees. And that a payment switch would drive taxes sky high.) So, I found some corrections online. It's not hard with my journalism and library background to do this sort of research, but it is depressing how many people just accepted what they were sent in email.
When told the truth, the co-worker who sent this around suddenly felt that refugees were earning too little.
When I was researching this, I found some blogs that attributed all this to a Toronto Star news story. Other blogs claimed that the MSM (mainstream media, for those of you not conversant in the acronyms of odious right-wingers) would ignore it. As I told one such blog, actually the mainstream media has covered and debunked this story. But over a year later it is still making the email rounds. Lies and distortions long outlive any attempts at correction.
I will reprint a Toronto Star article on the subject. This is, of course, a breach of some kind of copyright. But as the Star is often cited as endorsing the bigoted tripe above, I doubt they will mind very much. In fact, the ombud did say "please tell your friends". (And please, if someone sends you an email on this topic, copy the message below and ask them to send it around to all the people they spammed with their anti-immigrant tripe.)
Can we dispel this urban myth?
Don Sellar
Toronto Star (Canada); 11/27/2004
Section: National Report, pg. H06
Today's rather sad and twisted tale began last March when the Star
published a feature about plans to settle hundreds of African refugees
in smaller Canadian cities.
It was a simple story: Canada and the United Nations were flying
asylum-seekers from a Somali refugee camp to new lives in centres such
as Hamilton.
As immigration/diversity reporter Nicholas Keung wrote, immigration
officials hope to encourage (but not force) refugees to make new lives
outside the magnet cities of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.
"We hope by relocating them all together and resettling them as a whole
to the same community, we can create a positive environment to help them
integrate into the Canadian society successfully," an immigration
official explained.
Fine and dandy. But halfway through the 1,500-word article, unforeseen
trouble was lurking.
In paragraph 16, the story said single refugees are eligible for $1,890
from Ottawa as a "start-up allowance, along with a $580 monthly social
assistance, depending on how soon the person is able to find
employment."
In addition, they get "a night lamp, a table, a chair and a single bed
from the government," the story said.
In painful hindsight, those details could have been clearer.
Actually, the $1,890 "start-up allowance" - including a $580 monthly
social assistance cheque from Ottawa - was a one-time payment for basic
household needs such as furnishings, pots and linens. The furniture is
used.
In quick order, two things happened after the article ran.
First, a reader sent a nasty e-mail to the reporter. Among other things,
it said charity begins at home and Canada should not "roll out the
welcome mat" for refugees.
The e-mailer assumed - erroneously - that the refugees would collect
$2,470 a month. They'd be better off than Canadian pensioners.
More worrisome, the polemicist sent his rant to 100 recipients, some of
whom likely spread the word to wider audiences.
Ah, the wonders of the Internet!
Alarmed by the e-mail, reporter Keung tried to contact the sender. It
was too late. Having spread the misinformation, the e-mailer already had
changed his address. At the same time, a second development occurred.
The Star ran a letter to the editor that said the $2,470 "compares very
well to a single pensioner who after contributing to the growth and
development of Canada for 40 years can only receive a monthly maximum of
$1,012 in old age pension and Guaranteed Income Supplement. "Maybe our
pensioners should apply as refugees?" reasoned the writer.
Readers may not realize that fact checking of letters to the editor is
nearly impossible at most daily papers, given limited staff resources
and unforgiving deadlines.
Although many mistakes are caught, the occasional doozer gets through.
That was definitely the case here.
Over the next several months, it became increasingly clear a disturbing
urban myth had been born.
Various offices at the Star have been getting e-mails from around the
world, usually one or two a week.
Many quote from the erroneous letter to the editor, expressing varying
degrees of curiosity, dismay, envy or anger.
"Let's send this to all Canadians," one e-mail roared, "so we can all be
p----- off and maybe we can get the refugees cut back to $1,012 and the
pensioners up to $2,470 and enjoy some of the money we were forced to
submit to the government over the last 40 or 50 years."
In hindsight, the ombud now wishes he'd issued a speedy clarification to
help set the record straight.
But with information (and misinformation) moving at warp speed on the
Internet, I doubt there was a silver bullet for the problem.
Maybe this column can help dispel a damaging misperception about
refugees and pensioners. Please tell your friends.
ombud @ thestar.ca
