Homelessness brings out the need for compassion
Iain Hunter, Times Colonist
Published: Saturday, October 18, 2008
Why are Victoria city councillors insisting that the city's homeless must not be allowed to protect themselves from the rain and cold when they bed down on city grass and mud?
Why are they appealing the decision of Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross that they should be allowed tents, tarps or whatever over their sorry heads when they've no place but public land to lay them?
Why do they presume that a city bylaw putting the homeless at risk trumps the Constitution that guarantees the right to life, liberty and security of the person to anyone else?
Why are they more concerned for the security of the Yellow Montane violet than that of human beings like Amber Overall, Alymanda Wawai and David Arthur Johnston?
Lawyers for governments have to use any argument they can to protect the public interest as defined by statute or bylaw. But do they have to be so zealous about it?
I wish, as a citizen of British Columbia and a resident of one of Victoria's bedroom communities, that someone would call "Enough!"
Some of the arguments put forward by the city and the province on my behalf offend me. The judge didn't find them very impressive either. For instance:
- Being homeless is a matter of personal choice for some. True, but as the Mayor's Task Force on Homelessness found, they're a small minority.
- The deprivation of the charter's guarantee of the right to life, liberty and security of the person has to be a result of action by the state: The anti-shelter bylaws didn't cause people to be homeless, governments argued. True, but the bylaws make it impossible to get adequate shelter on their own, and they're acts of the state municipal.
- What the homeless are really claiming is that the city should provide them a benefit -- adequate alternatives to sleeping outside. Wrong. The homeless aren't trying to compel the city to provide adequate shelter; only arguing that where there are more homeless than shelter spaces, the city is violating their constitutional rights by preventing them from providing adequate shelter for themselves.
- The claim is really about property rights, which aren't protected by the Constitution; the homeless want to appropriate public property for private use. No, they don't. They're not claiming the right to set up a permanent camp, like the one at Cridge Park in 2005 -- though some of them don't seem to realize this -- but to sleep under temporary shelter anywhere that can be dismantled each morning.
- The homeless under shelters would deprive others of the use of public parks. How? One use doesn't preclude others. There aren't many kiddies on the swings in Beacon Hill Park after dark. And why does the ban apply to public land that isn't parkland?
- There's no evidence that the prohibition risks harm. That's a rich one. Anyone knows lying on wet ground without shelter in the rain is bad for health. Medical testimony in court showed exposure to elements, particularly in winter, can cause illness, even death.
- The city allows the homeless to cover themselves with anything that doesn't have to be erected, like a tent, or strung from trees: Technically, the only thing it doesn't allow is "string." Is that meant to be serious?
- The objective of the bylaws is to maintain the environmental, recreational, social and economic benefits of parks and the economic vitality of adjacent communities. In other words, bums and hobos should move on.
- Allowing people with mental health problems or addictions to live in parks is unsafe for them as well as others and creates an "unhealthy mess."
- Striking down the ban on overhead shelters would promote "drug abuse, crime, self-destruction, disease and death." Or, as the judge put it, "chaos."
- Rare flowers like the Yellow Montane violet are being trampled by campers. Why haven't they been asked to camp somewhere else then?
Victorians and British Columbians are not devoid of compassion. Those involved in the Coalition to End Homelessness are developing a housing strategy that the city has dedicated funds to. People accustomed to the street or shelters are finding accommodation.
Why, then, is the city fighting in court to make the lives of those who are still without homes as miserable as possible? I'm afraid I know why.
cruachan@shaw.ca
because the city is run and owned by a bunch of old blue blood christian english victorians that have been weaned since birth that it is their royal right to inflict their morality towards the rif raf because the old skinny white men absolutely must WIN.
Craig, is there something wrong with being Christian, White or english speaking in your mind? You're full of anger and need to calm down before you hurt yourself. Alan Lowe, Mayor - Chinese. Charlene Thornton-Joe, city council - Native and Chinese. Your racial slurs make you look like an ignorant moron and hold no substance. All these associations (aside from Cool-Aid) are church run. If they are so evil in your mind, maybe you shouldn't be allowed to use them.
It is, like it is, white people run vicoria. and voted for harper. PERIOD. So what, there are a few token positions given to minorities. the skinny white men who are all city paid lawyers will one day go the way of shakespeares philosophical quote. Your assumption that I use church services is wrong. Whether someone needs their authority for using their services is an interesting thing to say about them. Nor did I say that they are evil, or give racial slur, your assumption that I am angry and might hurt myself is BUNK. They are blue blood elitists and if you have ever met them they would happily say that about themselves to your face without reservation. Your naivetevity is unbelievable. Why dont you go watch animal farm and get back to me.
Oh Craig, you're going to get an ulcer with all that anger inside you. You're probably bent out of shape just thinking that a "skinny white man who voted for Harper" is here on your homeless nation website. Guess what my dear friend...without people like me who are trying to learn about the issues and road blocks that affect people like you and work towards solutions...you are all on your own (and as history as my witness, you can see how well you've progressed over time). No need to hate so much.....I'm here to learn, understand and hopefully help. It's people like you who make it unpleasant for people like me to even want to think about tossing a dime in your direction. Lucky for me, I know I'm above getting in to immature dialogue with you. Put your typing skills to better use and find a job and maybe you would be so down on your luck...either that or leave your anger in the tent.
hey working guy dont bother sending me any more messages you are bothering me and I care not to waste my time their are many intelligent people on here that I would rather read and write to.
Whoa guys - let's try and keep away from personal attacks and focus more on the discussion - which I can see that you both want to have.
From my experience, Craig is a great guy, with good ideas, and a lot of compassion. Sometimes his retorts can be a little strong, but being hot-blooded can be a good thing now and then.
WorkingGuy is new to the site and very curious about everything that's going on, especially tent-city. Sometimes what he posts is in stark contrast to what we're used to reading on the site but that doesn't mean he's stupid or arrogant. He's got a different viewpoint and is interested in learning more.
cant we all just get along. if we did maybe things in this world would be a lil different eh. peace love unity andRESPECT.....
did you all miss the title of this blog? Homelessness brings out the need for compassion. debate is good, personal attacks are bad.
It seems to me like some of you have not considered the perspective of the local government. The issue, from their point of view, is purely economical. A considerable chunk of the city's income is from tourism. All questions aside of whether or not there is anything wrong with being homeless, tourists don't like seeing homeless people. I mean, has anyone ever been to Mexico? You can't walk 2 meters without being accosted by a different beggar. I don't even have money, but I was wearing a clean shirt, and I'm white.. Apparently that means I'm rich. Anyway, I digress. The point is, if any group of people, for any reason, threaten the economic livelihood of a city, it's not surprising that the local government retaliates.
i think you bring up a really good point regarding economics and homelessness. i think you are absolutely right.
the issue is that government could solve the problem.
large amounts of money are being spent on the tourism expected for the 2010 games, the government has a 2 billion dollar surplus, we just spent tons of money on an election that yielded little change... so if the government's position is rooted in economics (and i agree with you it generally is) then in my opinion it makes good sense to create solutions for the homeless issue.
dont want the tourists to see our city's homeless problem? do something about it, have that be our legacy, imagine the world recognition for accomplishing that goal.
the DTES is currently known the world over as Canada's poorest postal code. the images flash on tv screens, news, documentaries, internet...so let's do somethings, lets build more housing and increase services such as addiction detox and treatment. if it is purely economic think of the money that could be saved on health care and law enforcement alone. this stat is a few years old but the concept is the same:
for every $2 spent on addiction services, $7 is saved on law enforcement. that just makes good economic sense.
It's good to see that the article opens discussion!