Because Kim received student loans while she was receiving social assistance (misnomer of course), the same province that created the criminally irresponsible welfare rates, chose to prosecute her for receiving $13,300 in welfare payments. She entered a guilty plea, and was consequently convicted of welfare fraud. She was then sentenced to a 6-month conditional sentence [which is supposed to have been an alternative to imprisonment -- and we should all continue to question why a jail sentence should be attached to this "offence" in the first place] and a restitution order to repay the provincial government the full $13,300 in welfare that she had received. Knowing she would be unable to seek any employment, not only because she was pregnant, but, most significantly, because one of the conditions of her sentence was that she could not leave her house -- Ontario then also terminated her welfare payments.

Although a legal challenge resulted in the reinstatement of her welfare "benefits", the Ontario government continues to enforce its policy to terminate benefits and permanently disentitle from receiving welfare anyone convicted of welfare fraud. In fact, other provinces are now also following suit. The appeal of her conviction and sentence had not been heard before she died.

We all must act to interfere with these draconian, destructive and -- we argue -- illegal practices. These approaches are not only criminalizing the poor, but are sentencing them to destruction. Just exactly how does anybody think that someone sentenced to a jail sentence in their own home can support themselves [and their children, in the case of many single and sole support Moms] after they are permanently barred from obtaining social assistance. It is a complete and utter set up. If they leave their homes to obtain work or any other means of support, they may be subject to a further criminal charge of breaching the conditions (ie. the confinement part of the house arrest) of the conditional sentence. Such a breach will automatically result in a jail sentence. The logic is stunningly absent and the stupidity abundantly clear. Who says there is no war against the most dispossessed, especially the poor?

To make it worse, Kim Rogers was subjected to a set-up to which the judge, prosecutor and defence counsel were all privy in Kim's case. As the transcript of her sentencing reveals, all three not only knew she would be cut off welfare, but they also did the calculations and asserted that even if she did receive welfare, after she paid her rent and mandatory repayment, she would be left with $18 per month with which to feed, clothe and otherwise support herself.

Again, the judge and lawyers recognized this impossible task and essentially concluded that she would have to obtain resources elsewhere - the perfect set-up to ensure that she could again be criminalized for welfare fraud since any monies she might receive would have to be claimed and likely deducted from her welfare payment. If she did not so declare any income and it was otherwise discovered, she would again be subject to charges for welfare fraud. Moreover, anyone placed under house and arrest who leaves home to obtain work or any other means of support, they may be subject to a further criminal charge of breaching the conditions (i.e. the confinement part of house arrest) of the conditional sentence. Such a breach will automatically result in a jail sentence. The logic is stunningly absent and the stupidity abundantly clear. Who says there is no war against the most dispossessed, especially the poor? We need to push for the development of resources for women in the community.