The parade returns from one year to another, each time arousing the usual criticisms. At the low point of January, when the euphoria of early winter wears off and the light of spring seems out of reach, telecommunications giant Bell deploys its communications machine to raise awareness of the taboo surrounding mental illness. , on the occasion of its “Bell cause for the cause” day.
This year, the campaign seems redundant, when there is already a lot of talk about the distress caused by the last twenty-two months; months of isolation, anguish and general weakening of social ties. Moreover, this week, the Government of Quebec unveiled its Interdepartmental Mental Health Action Plan, precisely to improve access to mental health care and services, both in the public network and in the community.
It is now obvious: the pandemic has revealed that in terms of mental health, the pitfalls to be overcome are not limited to the stigmatization of people living with mental illness. There is also a real problem of access to help and support resources. However, when the telecommunications giant puts on its charitable clothes for its annual “talk”, we notice that its approach misses the mark on both counts.
First, there is the criticism of the use of philanthropy to meet needs that require coherent public policies and adequately funded institutions. In this regard, during the Bell cause day, the association Médecins québécois pour le régime public (MQRP) also launched a counter-campaign to draw attention to the risk of letting private charities interfere in the financing of the system. health. “It is simply undesirable for care to depend on the media and commercial interests of private companies,” recalled MQRP, adding that philanthropy in health actively contributes to weakening the democratic organization of care and services.
It’s nothing new, but while we’ve been toying with the dream of a major “refoundation” of the health network lately, let’s say that it’s not superfluous to remember that the methods are not equal all when the time comes to inject new resources into the institutions.
Strictly speaking, one could say that it is exaggerated to confuse all these evils with a communication campaign which, basically, aims to transform the way we look at mental illness — nothing more. No one is against apple pie. Except that while Bell “talks” on one side, she drives the point home of prejudice on the other.
On Monday, community groups working in mental health organized a public event to demand the withdrawal of the airwaves of Bailiffs, a program broadcast on Noovo and produced by Bell Media. Broadcast for five seasons, this show, closer to reality TV than to a service show, tries to humanize an unloved profession, by following judicial officers in the field.
Except that over the episodes – at least, the dozen that I could listen to – there is a strange confusion. Small and large crooks are constantly confused with vulnerable people or people in crisis, who are evicted from their homes without affect or ceremony, in front of the shameless lenses of the cameras. The groups mobilized to protest against the broadcast of the program are not exaggerating in asserting that Bailiffs takes a dehumanizing look at people who are already fragile, even as they go through a particularly difficult time.
Almost every episode features at least one tenant eviction. Each time, however, it appears that the story to be told is rather on the side of the ousted than on the side of the bailiffs who execute the mandate. By presenting things in a clinical way, we convey the idea that justice is nothing more than a judgment well executed, a “debtor” duly dispossessed, and we erase the social drama that is nevertheless taking place under our eyes.
At Monday’s event, Carole Lévis, president of the board of directors of the Regroupement des ressources alternatives en santéALE du Québec (RRASMQ), expressed concern about the impact of the show on the prejudices experienced by people living with a mental health problem. Above all, this kind of television staging omits the intertwining of mental health issues with broader dynamics: “We individualize social problems such as poverty, such as the housing crisis and the weak support for people in distress”, decided Carol Levis.
In this, Bailiffs paradoxically reveals all that is omitted when we agree to “talk for the cause” without engaging in a more serious discussion about the social determinants of mental health. People’s misery then becomes a spectacle to which we resign ourselves, while we rejoice at having filled up with good feelings.