Homelessness? Breach of the Charter?

[RW]

Homeless denied day in court

Charter challenge dies as Supreme Court of Canada refuses to hear the landmark case arguing that homelessness violates the right to "security of the person."



A landmark Charter challenge on the right of homeless people to affordable housing is dead.



The Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday that it would not hear an appeal of a lower court's decision to quash the case, essentially upholding the view that legislatures, not the courts, are the place to fight homelessness.



"It think it's fair to say we are all shocked," said lawyer Tracy Heffernan, of the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario, one of several lawyers acting for the applicants on the case.

"The decision has denied hundreds of thousands of visible and invisible homeless across the country the right to be heard," she said. "But the court has also sent a clear signal to government: It is time to step up and take action to address this national emergency."



The Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation (CERA) and four homeless and precariously housed Torontonians launched the Charter challenge in May 2010.



They claimed homelessness and inadequate housing violate human rights under sections of the Charter that guarantee "security of the person" and the right to equality.



By failing to implement policies that would reduce and eventually eliminate homelessness and substandard housing, they argued, Ottawa and Queen's Park are violating the Charter.



As a remedy, they wanted the court to order governments to develop national and provincial housing strategies to address the crisis.



In a motion to block the case from going forward, the federal and provincial governments argues that the Charter does not include a general right to housing or oblige governments to provide social assistance and housing support. Moreover, economic and social policies are political matters beyond the scope of the court, they added.

Ontario's Superior Court agreed and dismissed the case in September 2013. The Ontario Court of Appeal upheld the ruling last December.



Although Thursday's decision was a blow to the national "right-to-housing" movement behind the Charter challenge, it puts the spotlight back on government to address the crisis, Heffernan said.



"We really hope to see the crisis in homelessness and affordable housing squarely on the political agenda," she said. "Part of that means that whoever wins the (upcoming federal) election really needs to draft a national housing policy."



Ontario has vowed to eliminate homelessness as part of its latest anti-poverty strategy, announced last fall.



Ottawa has argued it is addressing the problem in partnership with the provinces through its Investment in Affordable Housing program.



An estimated 235,000 people are homeless on any given night in Canada, according to a recent report. Many more "hidden homeless" are living in inadequate or unstable housing.

1. Do you feel access to affordable housing for homeless people is necessary in fulfilling the "security of person" Charter right?

2. What rights, if any, do we have to keep homeless people safe from the elements or safe on the streets from abuse, etc?

3. If the government has no responsibility in keeping homeless people safe, who should be responsible for the care of these people?  Non-profits?  Charities?  Churches?

[Anonymous]

No about this failed legal challenge, but I saw on the news there are 2250 homeless veterans in Canada.

 

[Bricktop]

1. Do you feel access to affordable housing for homeless people is necessary in fulfilling the "security of person" Charter right?



No. Their plight is their own responsibility. It is not incumbent upon us to compensate them for being irresponsible and stupid.



2. What rights, if any, do we have to keep homeless people safe from the elements or safe on the streets from abuse, etc?



None. See above. Its THEIR choice, not yours.



3. If the government has no responsibility in keeping homeless people safe, who should be responsible for the care of these people?  Non-profits?  Charities?  Churches?[/quote]



THEY are responsible for their own fate!!!



BUT, it must be clear that we need to distinguish between homelessness through reckless stupid, and homelessness due to mental illness. Yes, the demarcation line is not always distinct, but we DO need to do more to help those who can not, as opposed to will not, help themselves.

[RW]

I was going to say...



Mental illness is related to homelessness.  Addiction is also considered an illness.  As Fash pointed out about veterans being homeless - how many of those are drowning their PTSD with a bottle.  Who should help those people and should they be entitled to access housing?

[RW]

Also is shelter not a basic human right?

[Bricktop]

There are many basic human rights. The right to vote, for example. But not all humans avail themselves of such rights. A right is not an obligation.



The government should assist and support the mentally ill with specialised housing and accommodation. That is an obligation. The government should not be assisting those who have failed themselves.

[RW]

Where do you draw that line?  Where does addiction fall?



Voting is also not a basic human right.  We're talking food, shelter, water...

[Anonymous]

I was going to say...



Mental illness is related to homelessness.  Addiction is also considered an illness.  As Fash pointed out about veterans being homeless - how many of those are drowning their PTSD with a bottle.  Who should help those people and should they be entitled to access housing?

The homeless, drug addicts and lunatics(often one is all 3) should be used for medical and industrial research. Give back to society for once in their fucking miserable taker lives.

[RW]

Like those Veterans?

[Anonymous]

Like those Veterans?

I didn't say that.

[Anonymous]

There are many basic human rights. The right to vote, for example. But not all humans avail themselves of such rights. A right is not an obligation.



The government should assist and support the mentally ill with specialised housing and accommodation. That is an obligation. The government should not be assisting those who have failed themselves.

Then churches, private businesses, citizens, NGO's and charities must do it, but these people need a roof over their heads or they will die.

 

[Anonymous]

There are many basic human rights. The right to vote, for example. But not all humans avail themselves of such rights. A right is not an obligation.



The government should assist and support the mentally ill with specialised housing and accommodation. That is an obligation. The government should not be assisting those who have failed themselves.

Then churches, private businesses, citizens, NGO's and charities must do it, but these people need a roof over their heads or they will die.

 

Only if the roof over their heads is covering the places where their bodies are used for live medical and industrial research.

[Anonymous]

There are many basic human rights. The right to vote, for example. But not all humans avail themselves of such rights. A right is not an obligation.



The government should assist and support the mentally ill with specialised housing and accommodation. That is an obligation. The government should not be assisting those who have failed themselves.

Then churches, private businesses, citizens, NGO's and charities must do it, but these people need a roof over their heads or they will die.

 

Only if the roof over their heads is covering the places where their bodies are used for live medical and industrial research.

 :001_rolleyes:

[easter bunny]

Homelessness? Breach of the Charter?

I say yes.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

It's absurd that murderers get a warm place to sleep but those who wouldn't hurt a fly have to freeze to death outside.

[Anonymous]

Homelessness? Breach of the Charter?

I say yes.

12. Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

It's absurd that murderers get a warm place to sleep but those who wouldn't hurt a fly have to freeze to death outside.

I say no.



Wouldn't hurt a fly? They'd slit ur throat for your phone, a bottle of big bear or to fuck ur sister. They're animals who serve no useful purpose other than to keep emergency services unnecessarily busy.