No longer can the homeless be told to move along

[Gay Boy Roberto]

The ruling involves PUBLIC property... not privately owned places like supermarkets.



The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association.  That is just wrong.

Why is it wrong?

Private security guards can tell people to move along on private property. The homeless are part of the public, and they have as much right to be on public property as anyone else, IMHO

If someone is loitering in front of shops bothering people who enter and leave that store then they should have the right to tell that person to move along. That shop owner is responsible for snow removal of that area in front of their store. They are responsible for keeping it free of dog's using it as a toilet or any other debris. It seems they should at least be allowed to remove human debris that affects their business. Just my two cents.

Most homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted or both. To call them 'human debris' shows a lack of empathy

[Anonymous]

Most homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted or both. To call them 'human debris' shows a lack of empathy

So is forcing hard working small biz owners to go into the red so those social parasites can chase away their customers.



When you open a store, I will be the first one there harrassing anyone entering it. Sound fair?

[Anonymous]

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.

[Gay Boy Roberto]

We enter a very slippery area when we begin to dehumanize others. The 20th Century had many examples.

[RW]

I have stopped patronizing places that have had a person sitting outside of them after enduring repeated comments.

[Gay Boy Roberto]

The issue is not simply about homeless people hanging around stores, or the front of stores. It is about discrimination against the homeless for simply being in public areas.



Here is a fuller account of the court decision:



A B.C. Supreme Court judge says a street patrol program funded by a downtown Vancouver business group discriminated against homeless people by moving them out of public areas.



Justice Neena Sharma ruled Friday that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal erred in 2012 when it dismissed a claim by the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users that the Vancouver Ambassadors program was unfairly targeting the homeless, who are disproportionately aboriginal, mentally ill or suffering from addiction.



"The Tribunal's approach to this case did not give sufficient weight to the social context of this case. The people on whose behalf the claim was brought are some of the most marginalized, vulnerable and poor members of society," Sharma said in a 45-page written ruling.



"The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence proving that individuals were subjected to adverse treatment because of their race or physical or mental disability. However, that conclusion was drawn without sufficiently taking into account the nature of the adverse treatment and the social environment in which it was taking place."



The Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association's Ambassadors program started in 2000, with "ambassadors" patrolling the streets to assist and greet potential customers, but also attempting to do crime prevention, Sharma noted.



For a year, the City of Vancouver chipped in funding so the Ambassadors could work overnight.



"I find that the tribunal erred because it did not apply the correct legal test to the facts before it. It applied a standard of proof to the claim that was too strict and inconsistent with leading Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence," she said.



She noted that "the program focused on the same behaviours that are the focus of legislation aimed at the street homeless. At the very least, that raises a presumption that the program would affect street homeless more than other members of the population."



VANDU lawyer Jason Gratl said Friday that his client is very happy with the ruling because it accepted that "if you discriminate again a homeless person, it is (likely) you are discriminating against a person with a mental or physical disability or who is aboriginal."



http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Vancouver+ambassadors+told+homeless+move+along+discriminated+judge+rules/10962308/story.html">http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/ ... story.html">http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Vancouver+ambassadors+told+homeless+move+along+discriminated+judge+rules/10962308/story.html

[Leopardsocks]

Most homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted or both. To call them 'human debris' shows a lack of empathy

I love it when lefties accuse those that dispute their doctrines and dogma as lacking in empathy. Left leaning proponents have long been the experts in demonising those that don't view the world the same way they do. From the extremities of dictatorial communist governments persecuting, incarcerating and executing those that lacked "empathy", to the banner carrying loudmouths denigrating their opposition as "sexist", "racist" or "fascist".



Presumably, spouting epithets at those with contrary views is a means of stifling debate, and trying to claim moral high ground by denigrating their opponents as lacking some element of what they believe is required to be called "human" has been fine tuned into an art form by socialists.



Let me cite 2 examples of what the left in Australia believes evidences the fact that their political opposites "lack empathy".



Prior to the last federal election, Australia was inundated with illegal immigrants arriving by boats from Indonesia. The boats were frequently about as seaworthy as a brick, but due to the "empathic" policy of the leftist government, the risk was considered worthwhile, because their chances of being accepted and granted asylum was almost certain. In other words, our socialist government held the door open and kept the porch light burning.



It is estimated that about 3,000 people died at sea trying to reach Australia. That is what empathy delivers. Since a change of government, and a policy of "Sorry, but we are closed to illegal immigration" has been enforced not ONE fatality has been reported.

[Leopardsocks]

Example 2.



Chloe Valentine was a pretty, cute 3 year old who lived with her drug addled mother. The policy of the leftist government is to show "empathy" towards people like Chloe's mothers and assist them with encouragement, and guidance and advice...and every other stupid remedy left wing politics invents. Chloe was an on-running case with the Family Affairs Department...with the bureaucrats making every possible error of judgment imaginable to try and keep Chloe with her vile and reprehensible parent.



Chloe died aged three, after being forced to ride a small motorcycle for hours, to appease her mother's latest fuck. They took video, and laughed as this poor little girl kept crashing on her tiny vehicle.



She was killed by "empathy", viz;http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/chloe-valentine-inquest-findings-handed-down-by-sa-coroner-mark-johns/story-fni6uo1m-1227296561371">//http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/chloe-valentine-inquest-findings-handed-down-by-sa-coroner-mark-johns/story-fni6uo1m-1227296561371



"Empathy" as defined by left wing politics, is just another term for "Government control", and is a root cause of terrorism, illegal immigration, battered and murdered children and dysfunctional education systems.



By giving these "homeless" people "empathy", you will simply create a system of proliferation, until your "empathy" results in the death of one or more of these mendicants due to exposure, violence or lack of medical care.



I am not empathetic to life's losers. I've seen them exploit and manipulate "empathy" too many times, as much to their own demise as others.



Society is being bullied by leftards into believing that not demonstrating empathy is a "crime against humanity". It is the grand deception of the modern era, when we are convinced that doing the right thing...intervening, acting, de-motivating...is abhorrent, and that fostering the circumstances whereby these losers suffer and die at a greater rate is humanistic and showing "empathy".



Welcome to the world of "1984" and the proliferation of double-speak.

[RW]

Intriguing Leo...and off topic.



The thing that gets me GBB, is by default the homeless would be targeted because they are the ones loitering in front of businesses.  The general population of non-homeless tend to not sit, lie, eat, etc on the street.  So I am not sure how thus qualifies as a human rights issue.

[Gay Boy Roberto]

The thing that gets me GBB, is by default the homeless would be targeted because they are the ones loitering in front of businesses.  The general population of non-homeless tend to not sit, lie, eat, etc on the street.  So I am not sure how thus qualifies as a human rights issue.

RW: Not all of them congregate outside (or in front of) businesses.The point is that these folks were 'moved along' from public areas.



Here's an example of how NOT to treat the homeless:



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tim-hortons-apologizes-after-water-poured-on-sleeping-homeless-men-1.2949742">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.2949742">http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tim-hortons-apologizes-after-water-poured-on-sleeping-homeless-men-1.2949742

[RW]

I agree GBB.  What that Tim Horton's employee did was disgusting.



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

[Leopardsocks]

Intriguing Leo...and off topic.



The thing that gets me GBB, is by default the homeless would be targeted because they are the ones loitering in front of businesses.  The general population of non-homeless tend to not sit, lie, eat, etc on the street.  So I am not sure how thus qualifies as a human rights issue.

I'm sorry. Was it the big words?



It is precisely THE topic. It is based on the principle, rather than the detail.



I know you despise debating me...but that comment was ludicrous.

[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.

[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.

[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