No longer can the homeless be told to move along

[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

[RW]

What bullshit Shen?

[Leopardsocks]

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.

It is no surprise that people who have been unjustly ostracised, persecuted and vilified...not to mention discriminated against..take up the cause of other groups they perceive as being a common ally.



Their quest for equity becomes a crusade, and thus we see activists for women's rights aligning with their counterparts in multiculturalists and asylum seekers, and of course the trade union movement. It is this sort of political subversity which has wielded too much influence for far too long.



Their blunt weapon is guilt. They are masters of the art of engendering guilt in the greater community. The rise in poverty is YOUR fault. The juvenile crime rate is YOUR fault. The plight of the homeless is YOUR fault. Easy accusations to make.



Socialism seeks to disempower the individual in lieu of state control. What better way to do so than convince the individual that the misery of the homeless poor is THEIR fault.



That is The Great Lie. And bullshit.

[RW]

WTF does your rant have to with telling homeless people to move along?  What does it have to do with the discrimination of a select group on public property?



Care to get on topic?

[Leopardsocks]

It has to do with people deciding that its NOT OK to tell them to move along?



Why is THAT a breach of their human rights?



Big picture.



Get some.

[RW]

You don't even know what side of the argument I'm on because you can't see past your nose.



Why is it a breech of their human rights?  Read the case findings.

[Renee]

Uh-oh, lovers quarrel in process. ac_popcorn

[Leopardsocks]

A "breech" is what you load bullets in, inside a gun.



I assume you mean "breach".

Advocates reacted by saying the decision, which overturns a 2012 tribunal ruling dismissing wide-sweeping complaints of prejudice, should serve as a warning that human rights for homeless people must be upheld.

Is that clear enough for you? I will go out on a limb here, and assume that if you act against the ruling, you are NOT upholding their "human rights".

[RW]

What is not clear is your point as it pertains to this case...

[RW]

The Issue

The allegation is that ambassadors actively dissuaded the "street homeless" from occupying public space, which resulted in discrimination because people with Aboriginal ancestry and/or mental or physical disabilities were disproportionately subjected to that adverse treatment.  The original complaint was filed on behalf of "individuals who are or appear to be street homeless and/or drug addicted and engaged in rough sleeping, sitting or lying down in public spaces, panhandling, vending, begging or binning, or other behaviours related to those personal circumstances.



The Action

A private group of "Ambassadors" set up by the business community, engaged in the following:



a.     Telling people who are sitting or lying down on the sidewalk to move along;



b.     Waking up people who are sleeping on the street and telling these people to move along, regardless of location or circumstances;



c.      Driving along slowly beside or behind people who are walking down the street or in back lanes, and telling people to move along if they stop, sit down or lie down;



d.     Patrolling back lanes and telling people to stop searching for recyclables in garbage cans, telling people doing so to move along;



e.     Identifying particular individuals as undesirable and telling them that they are not allowed within a particular geographic area ("no go areas");



f.       Following or staring at individuals identified as undesirable;



g.     Taking photographs or notes in order to collect information about people on the street which has the effect of harassing and humiliating the individuals photographed and "observed", all for an unknown and potentially illegal purpose.



The Legal Test

"Legal Basis" of this case as follows:  "on the facts found by the Tribunal, the [Ambassadors] have discriminated against individuals on the basis of race, ancestry and physical and mental disabilities, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.  



Section 8 states:



8  (1) A person must not, without a bona fide and reasonable justification,



(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or

(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public

because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons.



The Tribunal stated that the prima facie test requires a claimant to prove three things: (i) that members of the class belong to a protected group under the Code; (ii) that members of the class have experienced adverse treatment with respect to a service, facility or accommodation customarily available to the public; (iii) that there is a connection or link between the adverse treatment and the protected grounds (the correct wording of this third step is the main issue in this case).



The Findings

When analyzed under the correct legal test, [the above actions] do constitute prima facie discrimination.

[RW]

A couple additional things to note from the decision:



"The root causes of homelessness are complex and multi-dimensional." (That one is for you Leo.)



"Neither homelessness nor social condition is a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Code, but race, ancestry, colour and disability are."

[RW]

Do you agree with the findings of this case on a philosophical level?

[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

I do not know gbb and I will not assume that about him.

[Gay Boy Roberto]

I do not know gbb and I will not assume that about him.

Sometimes, I think this board should be called "Rush To Judgment"   ac_cool

[reel]

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.

[/quote]



Just because they stopped reporting them doesn't mean that people aren't still dying.