By – Kendall Worth!
I want to start this BLOG post by providing a bit of background on the title. I met recently with a group of income assistance who told me that for a variety of reasons, they wish they could live day to day life wearing body cameras. The Income Assistance recipients I spoke with, who gave me the idea for this post, are some of the exact same people, who in the past, I interviewed on the topic of Inappropriate Body Language. For more see https://worthmatters.blogspot.com/search/label/inappropriate%20body%20language and to illustrate another example that made the case for the need for income assistance to wear body cameras, I took a moment to look at this post: https://worthmatters.blogspot.com/2021/12/dont-call-911-on-inappropriate-body.html
And I just want to be Clear that yes these Body Cameras I am proposing are the same type of Body Cameras I am proposing are the same as police wear.
Of course, wearing body cameras is not going to stop people in public from going to security or the police and complaining about them feeling threatened and uncomfortable with an income assistance recipient’s 's body language. Also, in the case of that second BLOG post linked above, even though I myself did not call 911 on the person, someone else may have done so when they saw the person fidgeting in public. Wearing a body camera in his case, and in some other cases would been a benefit, because in that person’s case, 911 did get called about him. The person I refer to in the second linked BLOG post would have had the opportunity to also get a video recording of a visit to the QE#2 emerg, because 911 was called about his fidgety behaviour, but did nothing for him. The idea is that the video recording would prove that. Depending on hiscircumstances, a visit to the QE#2 Emergency dept. for that reason, would have done him no good. Say, if his reason for fidgeting was because this happened to have been on a Sunday afternoon and he was doing it because he had no invites to go to a friend’s place or to the home of a family, and we have got to remember when this BLOG post written nothing like the Mitigating Social Isolation Project (For more see https://worthmatters.blogspot.com/2023/06/june-12th-event-by-mitigating-social.html) even existed yet. Anyway, he would have had the opportunity to get a video recording, of the mental health professional raising their voice and telling him there is nothing to be done after he complained about not have any friends. instead of the mental health professional at least trying to direct him to resources, which is what happens when you visit the emergency dept. due to loneliness.
And the above is just one major example of a benefit.
However, before moving on to talk about other benefits this would have, I want to add a paragraph about this idea of IA recipients wearing Body Cameras not being a 100% capacity. As a matter of fact, there is a belief, expressed by others that I talked to, that this could potentially cause more problem then it would solve. First – Considering that these Body Cameras cost $800.00 say if an income assistance recipient wears the body camera during their Annual Review? This could make an Income Assistance Caseworker raise the question , considering that we do not cover the cost of the cameras as a special need, where did you get the money from for that body camera? By the Income Assistance recipient answering this question saying it was given to them as a gift might put the recipient at risk of having considered it an overpayment on their Income Assistance cheque. Second – According to some experts, there is ample evidence out there that body cameras do not change police behaviour.
They all told me that, if they, as income Assistance recipients, could start wearing body cameras in their day to day lives, they might experience a world of differences.
The Group of Income Assistance Recipients I met with about this idea was very clear on the following, if they could access body cameras:
They only want to wear and have the cameras recording when they are out in public places.
They will not be wearing or recording with the cameras while present at home,while present at their part-time jobs, for the couple who said they do work part-time.
They will not be wearing and recording with the body cameras while present at Souls Harbour, Hope Cottage, standing in line at their Food Bank, Etc.
Q – So where do they say they will be wearing and recording with the body cameras?
While present at their local DCS Offices for their required Income Assistance Annual Reviews, or attending other meetings at DCS.
On Income Assistance cheque day when they have to go to places like shopping malls or public buildings to do their cheque day errands.
On other days when they have to go to public places for things like doctors appointments, Etc.
If they decide to, during the summer months, go to the free events/ festivals.
In the Event that 911 gets called on them because someone says they are suicidal or other mental health reason, recording their visit at the QEII emerg.
Note – These same Income Assistance Recipients did say they not be recording their visits to the QE#2 Emerg when they go for other types of non-related medical reasons.
There are several factors I can bring up as to why it would be a benefit for Income Assistance recipients to wear body cameras in their day to day lives. The following 2 paragraphs illustrate the most major factors.
First – and as linked above, I have, in several of my past posts, illustrated the stories of a small population within the income assistance recipient community, who have had issues with being harassed when all they were doing was sitting or standing. minding their own business, and not causing trouble. They got approached by police or security who accused them of something based on complaints of performing Inappropriate Body Language. In this post, https://worthmatters.blogspot.com/2023/01/open-letter-to-employers-of-private.html I have written an open letter to Private Security Firms to address this. Even though I got no formal response as you will see in this BLOG post: https://worthmatters.blogspot.com/2023/02/loitering-question-that-arose.html an employee of ICS Security contacted me and suggested that maybe the people I advocated for were “loitering” when security approached them. However, as you will see in that second BLOG post, loitering was not the case. They suggested that if they were wearing body cameras, at the time, then they would have had video evidence to prove that there was no reason to complain.
Second – one person I interviewed included a person who I also interviewed in the past for the Nova Scotia Advocate https://nsadvocate.org/2018/06/25/kendall-worth-why-people-living-in-poverty-miss-out-on-summer-time-fun-and-relaxation-and-a-wonderful-idea/ . In this Nova Scotia Advocate article, one factor which is included, is how one income assistance recipient back in 2018, got stigmatized one day after running into some people he went to school with, by telling them he is on income assistance. If he was wearing a body camera, he could have gotten a recording of that stigma. When an welfare recipient does get stigmatized, right to their face , by someone -- yes I agree that if the opportunity arises to record those conversations, it should happen.
Also, what builds the case for Income Assistance recipients to wear body cameras is when they go to see their professionals like psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, and counsellors, and talk to the professionals about stigma or harassment from private security guards, the professional will tell them, that is not their place to phone private security companies and explain, on behalf of the Income Assistance recipients, that being spoken to, for that reason, is hurting the mental health of the IA recipient. When the Income Assistance recipient complains themselves the security guards will not listen and or do anything about the complaint,
One more benefit would be – If the Income Assistance recipient could wear a body camera during their required once a year Annual Review, at their local office of DCS, they could get a video/audio recording of their Annual Review to help prove the Income Assistance Caseworker behaviour during the review. During my writing for the Nova Scotia Advocate I had an income assistance recipient who once wanted to provide an audio recording of their Annual Review, to be posted, but, my editor, at that time, Robert Devet, would not post it, saying it is a breach of privacy.
And yes there is the question of who will pay for the body cameras?
Well one idea to look at here is maybe some organizations could get together to raise money to cover the cost of Body Cameras. There are some stand alone systems (not connected to a cloud based server directly, and not as robust as the police) that are each about $350.00 (including tax) with 4+ hours of storage in the camera chip. Just to think about, say if we could find a way to cover the cost for the total of 10 Income Assistance recipients I met with about this article, $350 x 10 = $3500 would have to be raised. Can it be done? However if places like Food-banks for example has them available to hand out as donations, then this is one way the $350 Body Camera, could be protected from getting clawed back from an Income Assistance cheque.
So this is where is where we have to think about benefit VS concern, but looking at this idea in principal I think it is a great idea.
Comments
Post a Comment