No longer can the homeless be told to move along

[Odinson]

Good point.

Perhaps the business owners should submit documented proof of a decline in business due to the homeless camping in front of their businesses and then the government can subsidize them to make up for the lost business. After all its just tax dollars. ac_rollseyes

Haha, some people are very generous with other people's money.

lol it is so.

[Leopardsocks]

My heart breaks for people suffering and few are suffering more in this country than those that do not have a roof over their heads..



But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..



What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..



It seems to be a lose-lose situation.

 ac_umm

Exactly my point...but I was relating it to a broader scale.



Apparently the Debating Queen (that's RW, who thinks she is the best debater on the forum) missed the bigger picture!!!



No-one wins when we condone, tolerate, encourage, abet or simply ignore something that is WRONG!!!



No-one asks why these people are "homeless". In my experience, they are homeless for one of two reasons...they are mentally handicapped and cannot assimilate into what we call a standard lifestyle, or cope with the dilemmas and stresses of feeding, managing a house or finances. They are to be pitied...and their situation is irresolvable whilst we acknowledge they have human rights, and thus should not be incarcerated for their own good.



The others are shitbags. By choice, and by intent. They are not to be pitied. They are the masters of their own demise, and thus choose to live a life that is incompatible with our overall community living standards.



To compare these with the underclass of nations such as India is facile. Those in that nation have no choice, are given no incentive and certainly have no opportunity.



But thats what we do...we compare them with the abandoned souls of third world countries and categorise them in the same way. That's bullshit. They had EVERY chance and opportunity, but fucked it up. Now they litter our streets and want sympathy.

[RW]

No, it precisely isn't.  The topic is the right to access public spaces and the extent of discriminatory practises when dealing with the homeless. I didn't recall seeing an invitation to rant about lefties.

Because, as you well know...it is LEFTIST ideology and policy that drives these "leave them alone, we'll deal with it" strategies.



The Court decision reflects that ideological irrationality perfectly. No wonder your State government are appealing.



What this demonstrates is the leftist tendency to "protect" the underclass...or put another way, create the underclass to show how society is divided and only socialism can fix. Allowing "the homeless" to lurk wherever they choose at the expense of the greater good is the issue...and this leniency extends to all societies wastrels.



Nothing good comes of leniencies such as these. Nothing at all. It creates more homeless people, and generates more conflict in a society already struggling to handle the existing inequities and inanities it has created.



Like "domestic violence", "homelessness" is just another piece of socialist nonsense designed and intended to create the political divide that essentially divides us all.

Oh what a load of horse puckies!



The left did not create the underclass.  That is absolutely ridiculous.  



There is no debate that a bigger problem needs to be addressed.  That doesn't mean the symptomatic issues can't be addressed as well - you know, the ones that have a hope in hell of seeing resolution.



The homeless, as outlined come from various backgrounds including the mental health system.  It wasn't the left that shut down mental hospitals here.  



If you truly want to see who is creating the divide look to your capitalist right.

[RW]

My heart breaks for people suffering and few are suffering more in this country than those that do not have a roof over their heads..



But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..



What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..



It seems to be a lose-lose situation.

 ac_umm

Exactly my point...but I was relating it to a broader scale.



Apparently the Debating Queen (that's RW, who thinks she is the best debater on the forum) missed the bigger picture!!!



No-one wins when we condone, tolerate, encourage, abet or simply ignore something that is WRONG!!!



No-one asks why these people are "homeless". In my experience, they are homeless for one of two reasons...they are mentally handicapped and cannot assimilate into what we call a standard lifestyle, or cope with the dilemmas and stresses of feeding, managing a house or finances. They are to be pitied...and their situation is irresolvable whilst we acknowledge they have human rights, and thus should not be incarcerated for their own good.



The others are shitbags. By choice, and by intent. They are not to be pitied. They are the masters of their own demise, and thus choose to live a life that is incompatible with our overall community living standards.



To compare these with the underclass of nations such as India is facile. Those in that nation have no choice, are given no incentive and certainly have no opportunity.



But thats what we do...we compare them with the abandoned souls of third world countries and categorise them in the same way. That's bullshit. They had EVERY chance and opportunity, but fucked it up. Now they litter our streets and want sympathy.

What percent are "the others"?

[Anonymous]

My heart breaks for people suffering and few are suffering more in this country than those that do not have a roof over their heads..



But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..



What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..



It seems to be a lose-lose situation.

 ac_umm

Exactly my point...but I was relating it to a broader scale.



Apparently the Debating Queen (that's RW, who thinks she is the best debater on the forum) missed the bigger picture!!!



No-one wins when we condone, tolerate, encourage, abet or simply ignore something that is WRONG!!!



No-one asks why these people are "homeless". In my experience, they are homeless for one of two reasons...they are mentally handicapped and cannot assimilate into what we call a standard lifestyle, or cope with the dilemmas and stresses of feeding, managing a house or finances. They are to be pitied...and their situation is irresolvable whilst we acknowledge they have human rights, and thus should not be incarcerated for their own good.



The others are shitbags. By choice, and by intent. They are not to be pitied. They are the masters of their own demise, and thus choose to live a life that is incompatible with our overall community living standards.



To compare these with the underclass of nations such as India is facile. Those in that nation have no choice, are given no incentive and certainly have no opportunity.



But thats what we do...we compare them with the abandoned souls of third world countries and categorise them in the same way. That's bullshit. They had EVERY chance and opportunity, but fucked it up. Now they litter our streets and want sympathy.

Just because I do not feel this ruling will help homeless people does not mean I lack empathy or I am incapable of feeling sympathy for them..



The opposite is true..



But a ruling that is bad for two sides is still bad.

[Odinson]

Most of these homeless people are lost causes.



Have been homeless in a foreign but I look like I belong to somewhere and thats why I have got a place to stay.

[Leopardsocks]

My heart breaks for people suffering and few are suffering more in this country than those that do not have a roof over their heads..



But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..



What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..



It seems to be a lose-lose situation.

 ac_umm

Exactly my point...but I was relating it to a broader scale.



Apparently the Debating Queen (that's RW, who thinks she is the best debater on the forum) missed the bigger picture!!!



No-one wins when we condone, tolerate, encourage, abet or simply ignore something that is WRONG!!!



No-one asks why these people are "homeless". In my experience, they are homeless for one of two reasons...they are mentally handicapped and cannot assimilate into what we call a standard lifestyle, or cope with the dilemmas and stresses of feeding, managing a house or finances. They are to be pitied...and their situation is irresolvable whilst we acknowledge they have human rights, and thus should not be incarcerated for their own good.



The others are shitbags. By choice, and by intent. They are not to be pitied. They are the masters of their own demise, and thus choose to live a life that is incompatible with our overall community living standards.



To compare these with the underclass of nations such as India is facile. Those in that nation have no choice, are given no incentive and certainly have no opportunity.



But thats what we do...we compare them with the abandoned souls of third world countries and categorise them in the same way. That's bullshit. They had EVERY chance and opportunity, but fucked it up. Now they litter our streets and want sympathy.

Just because I do not feel this ruling will help homeless people does not mean I lack empathy or I am incapable of feeling sympathy for them..



The opposite is true..



But a ruling that is bad for two sides is still bad.

That is consistent with what I am trying to say. GBB played the "empathy" card, and that ruffles my feathers. We ALL empathise. But pandering to their utter inability to make an effort to rehabilitate and re-start a broken life is NOT in their best interest.



We need to start sending different messages to the "feral" community. Single motherhood is not good. Have a baby without a responsible father, it is fostered. You may have your child when you prove you can care for it according to proper standards.



Drug addiction is not good. Don't present at hospitals affected by drugs, or alcohol. If you die in the street, you made a dumb choice.



Gambling your money away is dumb. If you throw your money down slot machines...eat from dumpsters.



Safety nets are a must for those who try, who have contributed, who have made an effort. Not for fucktards that give no fuck what happens to themselves.



This socialist nonsense must end. You help by NOT helping.

[Leopardsocks]

No, it precisely isn't.  The topic is the right to access public spaces and the extent of discriminatory practises when dealing with the homeless. I didn't recall seeing an invitation to rant about lefties.

Because, as you well know...it is LEFTIST ideology and policy that drives these "leave them alone, we'll deal with it" strategies.



The Court decision reflects that ideological irrationality perfectly. No wonder your State government are appealing.



What this demonstrates is the leftist tendency to "protect" the underclass...or put another way, create the underclass to show how society is divided and only socialism can fix. Allowing "the homeless" to lurk wherever they choose at the expense of the greater good is the issue...and this leniency extends to all societies wastrels.



Nothing good comes of leniencies such as these. Nothing at all. It creates more homeless people, and generates more conflict in a society already struggling to handle the existing inequities and inanities it has created.



Like "domestic violence", "homelessness" is just another piece of socialist nonsense designed and intended to create the political divide that essentially divides us all.

Oh what a load of horse puckies!



The left did not create the underclass.  That is absolutely ridiculous.  



There is no debate that a bigger problem needs to be addressed.  That doesn't mean the symptomatic issues can't be addressed as well - you know, the ones that have a hope in hell of seeing resolution.



The homeless, as outlined come from various backgrounds including the mental health system.  It wasn't the left that shut down mental hospitals here.  



If you truly want to see who is creating the divide look to your capitalist right.

And here we have the leftists mantra..."Capitalism created poverty".



Poverty existed LONG before capitalism dear. LONG before. Modern poverty is more likely a consequence of socialism than capitalism. Trade unions in industrialised countries have pushed for higher and higher wages, with little or no regard for capitalism to pay for those wages, or to be able to reduce them when economic influences wane.



So, employers faced with a larger and larger wage bill are simply reducing it by reducing their workforce numbers.



Got a 5% pay rise? The number of unemployed rises by 5%.



We probably agree on those afflicted with mental health incapacitation...for obvious reasons...we are not doing enough to care for them for fear of impinging on their human rights, thanks to socialism once again. Their health and welfare are NOT trumped by this silly concept of human rights. In fact, they have the right to be cared for, and we are letting them loose in the street. THAT is a breach of human rights.

[RW]

And them being on the streets is not a result of those who subscribe to socialism.  The mentally ill homeless are a result of fiscal conservatism - who gives a fuck, save a buck.



Minimum wage tends to chase inflation btw - not vice versa.



Poverty existed before socialism as well.  DERP.

[Odinson]

They arent a result of anything but weakness and being lazy...

[Anonymous]

That is consistent with what I am trying to say. GBB played the "empathy" card, and that ruffles my feathers. We ALL empathise. But pandering to their utter inability to make an effort to rehabilitate and re-start a broken life is NOT in their best interest.

You and me both dude. People like gbb are ENABLERS.

[Odinson]

You use fancy words. :D

[Gay Boy Roberto]

I think I need to read the case decision because this isn't making sense to me as a human rights issue.

Your wish is my command:



 http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm">http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC0534.htm">http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm

[Anonymous]

I think I need to read the case decision because this isn't making sense to me as a human rights issue.

Your wish is my command:



 http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm">http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC0534.htm">http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm

Hello gbb, I can tell your heart is in the right place.

 ac_hithere

[Anonymous]

I think I need to read the case decision because this isn't making sense to me as a human rights issue.

Your wish is my command:



 http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm">http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/ ... SC0534.htm">http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm

Hello gbb, I can tell your heart is in the right place.

 ac_hithere

No, it isn't. You've probably given more of your time and financial resources to helping the most useless sacks of shit in our society than bullshitter Bob has in his entire life. He's all about self-indulgence and you are about serving others. Don't fall for his BS ffs!! acc_angry