Charter Challenges
The Mayor of Victoria is wary of the recent court battles concerning the right of homeless people to set up camp in city parks at night. "In the city's 2008 budget, $114,000 was earmarked specifically to deal with homeless campers and the debris they leave behind." Personally, that does not sound like a huge and lamentable financial sacrifice to me, and the obvious and smart thing to do would be to invest that money into building more shelters, hence people would not be required to camp in parks and this would not even be an issue. I don't know what you are expecting people to do in a community where there are "only 170 shelter beds for a homeless population of 1,200 or more." "tyee.ca"
However, I do not think it is outside the realm of sanity to ask people, homeless or not, to clean up after themselves after camping at night. Should people be given that right, cleaning those areas should be part of the deal. It shows respect for the community. Littering those areas is not only disrespectful and asinine but it just adds fuel to the fire for those who wish to condemn and stereotype the homeless as irresponsible and messy. I implore those who sleep outside to take the time to clean up after themselves. On the flip side, funneling enough money into the system that shelter spaces meet the demand would show the homeless that the community (of which we are all a part) respects them. Fight the stereotype by proving that civilized, self-sustaining homeless communities (be they shanty towns or not) by cleaning those spaces after you use them. It is important because it truly is Everybody's Planet, regardless of economic status.
It looks like this issue is going to heat up even more because "...depending on how far the case proceeds, the federal government might also want to get involved in the case." Hopefully, the authorities will continue to see that "prohibiting "temporary abodes" such as tents and large tarpaulins for shelter in parks and public spaces interferes with homeless people's security of person, a right guaranteed under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms." "VTC"
If the Feds decide to outlaw camping without giving an alternative, we have to just keep appealing and appealing; because it is a matter of right and wrong. The Charter overrides any other laws, so we cannot allow a law that defies our most basic of rights to stand. Thankfully, we live in a country where people or groups have the freedom to appeal government actions. That is one of the greatest legacies of this country.
For an eye-opening look at Australian homelessness, please visit "Homeless People and Houselessness" It helps to reaffirm that no matter where you are on Earth, the homeless share the same struggles, needs, and wants.
News and Views for British Columbia
Homeless by Choice?
A Victoria court challenge depends on what's voluntary and what's not.
By Andrew MacLeod
Published: March 7, 2008
TheTyee.ca
The provincial government this week lost its bid in the British Columbia Supreme Court to quash a constitutional challenge to Victoria's anti-camping bylaws, but not before it became clear much of the case will revolve around whether the choices homeless people make are voluntary or involuntary.
A loss in the case, which is scheduled for five days of trial in June, would set a precedent that could see homeless people free to set up tents across B.C. and the rest of Canada.
"We're very, very pleased," said Catherine Boies Parker, a lawyer representing the campers. Justice Victoria Gray made the right decision, she said. "We think the court made it clear we have a serious constitutional issue."
The case stems from an October 2005 City of Victoria injunction against people who were camping in Cridge Park, a city-owned property a block away from the provincial legislature. Lawyers for the campers challenged the injunction, arguing people had no choice but to camp when there were only 170 shelter beds for a homeless population of 1,200 or more.
It's unconstitutional, they argued, to prosecute people for failing to follow laws they cannot comply with.
Since the case involves constitutional questions, both the federal and provincial governments were given the opportunity to intervene. The federal government declined, but the province got involved in September 2007. The province will remain involved as the case goes to trial, confirmed Veronica Jackson, a lawyer representing the provincial Attorney General's Ministry.
Choice of shelter
During Jackson's closing remarks on the second day of the hearing, she spoke about the difference between voluntary and involuntary actions. "It's acknowledged at some point a body falls asleep," said Jackson. "It's involuntary. You are not making a choice."
Since sleeping is involuntary, it is protected by Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, she said, and people have a right to sleep outside. It would therefore be allowed under the city's bylaws, and in fact the city did change its bylaws last year to allow sleeping in public.
"While it may be the case for sleeping," Jackson continued, "That's not the same for having shelter."
Having shelter is something people can control, she said. "I'm suggesting it's not on the same footing as 'involuntary' because involuntary is something you can't control." They are making a choice to erect tents, she said, and that should not be protected under the charter.
"There is no, in this case, government legislated, and certainly not a constitutional, right to shelter," she said.
Right to wake
"It has to be the right to fall asleep and wake up," said Boies Parker outside court. If people have the right to sleep outside, she said, surely they also have the right to protect themselves from the elements while they do it. "Taking care to make sure after you go to sleep, you wake up, don't freeze to death, that's voluntary?"
The city's current policy is that people are allowed a waterproof sleeping bag or a tarpaulin, but not a tent. It is unclear, however, whether police are following the policy. "We're not really sure what's allowed and what isn't allowed," said Boies Parker. The policy needs to be spelled out in the city's bylaws, she added, not left up to the police.
And if setting up a tent is a choice, would the province not argue that people are also choosing to be in the park? Or even to be homeless?
Asked on March 5 about the government's position, Attorney General Wally Oppal said, "I don't know enough about the case." He needed time to review it, he said. "Call me." But the following day he was unavailable.
The minister responsible for housing, Rich Coleman, was also unfamiliar with the case. "I really don't have an opinion," he said. "I'd have to read it."
So, in his view, is being homeless voluntary? "A person can decide where they live," he said. "It's a free country." He added, "We don't force people into shelters." A community court might tell someone where to sleep, but in general the government does not. "We don't say you have to go anywhere."
'Where you lay your head is home'
Asked if homelessness is a choice, a man who goes by Ancient and who has been in court observing the case, said, "For some." It is for him, he said, but for many it is not. He also pointed out, "Technically it should be called houselessness, not homelessness, because wherever you lay your head is your home."
"No, no one's homeless by choice," said David Arthur Johnston, a man who has been in and out of court and jail the last few years as he's tested the city's bylaws by sleeping on public property. (There will be a screening of a film about his fight and discussion of the charter challenge at 12 noon on March 14 at the Our Place drop-in centre at 713 Johnson Street in Victoria.)
A Victoria activist who has at times been homeless in the past two years, Rose Henry said, "No. For over 50 per cent of the people, it's not by choice."
There are many factors that affect homelessness that are outside an individual's control, she said, such as housing programs being cut, landowners hiking rents or banks increasing mortgages. People who are aboriginal are overrepresented on the streets, she said. "We're not by choice," she said. "They're forcing us out into a world that's not friendly."
That echoes comments Boies Parker made in court. People are homeless at least in part because of membership in groups protected under the charter, she said. "There is a really disproportionate impact on homeless people from this bylaw," she said. That group includes many people with disabilities and mental illness, and Aboriginals, who are explicitly protected by the charter. "This isn't a happenstance.... There's a linkage among these groups."
Positive obligations
In her ruling that the case may proceed, Justice Gray noted the Charter of Rights and Freedoms may soon be used to require governments to provide for citizens' basic needs.
Summarizing government lawyer Jackson's arguments, Gray said, "She argued there's no obligation on a state to provide anything to anyone."
However, Section 7 of the charter says, "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person, and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice."
"The full extent of Section 7 has not yet been determined," said Gray. She referred to a ruling by Canadian Supreme Court Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin that said one day the section may be interpreted to include "positive obligations."
Related Tyee stories:
* Homeless, Housing Stats Disputed
Minister Coleman's figures are 'bogus' says NDP critic.
* Unspent Millions in Housing Fund
Most of small payout from $250 million goes to burn facility.
* No New Homes in Premier's Homelessness Plan
Coleman challenges cities to "step up."
Andrew MacLeod is The Tyee's legislative bureau chief in Victoria. Reach him here.
Back to Homeless by Choice?
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 11:28:09 -0700
To: Times Colonist
From: janine bandcroft
Subject: to the editor of the tc
Do you believe global warming, or some global climate change, is real?
Did you hear about the horrors inflicted on the people of New Orleans by authorities after their disastrous hurricane?
I do not believe that the Right to Sleep Charter Challenge will result in hordes of homeless people suddenly pitching tents in public
parks. The homeless people I know enjoy privacy and security, especially while they're sleeping, as much as the rest of us. The
Charter Challenge is about allowing already homeless people, forced to sleep outside because of a dire lack of affordable housing and
shelter space, an opportunity to protect themselves from the elements, and from each other, when there are no other options.
Why are some authorities encouraging us to be afraid of this?
Many, around the world, are seeing the consequences of hundreds of years of industrial society in drastic climate changes. What's really
frightening is the continued destruction of our earth for profit.
Forests give way to housing developments and highway expansions, and all those monster homes will use monstrous amounts of water and other
precious resources.
In reality, the day may come when we're all victims of a global warming inspired storm. If you find yourself forced to live outside,
even for a short time, wouldn't you feel less afraid if you're able to pitch a tent? Do you want to be arrested simply for trying to
survive outside when there are no other options?
Janine Bandcroft
Victoria BC
Monday March 10, 2008
Camping case has does effect on everyone just like Homelessness, poverty, health care and the lack accessability to education does.
Cities across Turtle Isalnd should be watching the outcome of a court case which will determining whether people can sleep out doors with a
tent our not.As the law stands right now it is legal for people to sleep out doors with only a rain proof sleeping bag to protect them
from the elements. It is not legal for anyone to have a cardboard to sleep on or use it to cover themselves or keep them of the ground.
Even having a tarp is considered an illegal item if it is going to used as a protective gear which might be tied to a tree.
I agree with our Mayor when he states that there is a lot at stake because it is a human life that is a stake. As it is right now in
Victoria the average age for a homeless person is 44 years of age.
Most of whom are dying of nymonia.
I think society needs to have a change of thinking when they are reflecting of camping. For some people camping is considered a
recreational or luxury action..But for a few it is away of life. For a few more it is their only way to exist. These are the truely
homeless.They have no choice to camp out doors.
The courts do not really want to have to continue to deal with people who are suffering from being homeless so yes the courts want to
finally deal with this issue after the homeless people in Victoria have had to wait two and a half years to have their day in court. The
courts also understand the in the Canada Charter of rights every Canadian does have the right to have a place to call home.So the
courts still recognize the homeless as Canadians and there fore they should be intitled to have thier day in court.
As for the city they have court really entered into this court challenge willingly.
Yes camping in parks by homeless people has contributed to ongoing operational costs for the city, but it sure alot cheaper then housing
them(not!!). It has been estimated that it cost about $55,000 a year to maintain a homeless person out on the streets verses providing them
with housing (an estimate $22,000.00) after they have been housed.
Rose Henry
Victoria, BC
This ia a letter to the editor of the mainstream newspaper. Rob is one of our allies who attends our weekly adoc committee to end all homelessness weekly meeting.
I too am born and raised in Victoria so as long as we're offering "a homegrown opinion here is my reflection on some of what she had to offer.
First of all I don't believe that our native Victorian status gives our opinions any more validity than someone from say.....Alberta. To further my point I will make reference to the sparing in the local media re: the protest @ the interchange in Langford. Various Lanford residents (and in fact the Mayor himself) would have us believe that if we don't reside within the municipal boundaries of Langford, we have no right commenting on "their business".
If you fly over the area it becomes immediately apparent that though these "boundaries" are well delineated on a surveyors map, from our birds eye view one would be hard pressed to determine where say Colwood begins and Langford ends.
What happens within the boundaries of Langford does not occur in a vacuum! The urban sprawl and traffic congestion is having and will continue to have a measurable effect on everyone in the Greater Victoria area. As such I submit that we all have the right to voice our opinion whether we live there or not.
That the writer disagrees with the choices leading up to Mr. Johnson's challenge of the city's bylaw is irrelevant, rather than seeing this stand as " becoming a nuisance" she might consider the courage and personal integrity required and appreciate that there are those willing to challenge the status quo.
Homelessness is not a "problem" for those of us that have homes; rather it is an issue that profoundly affects those who don't. It (homelessness) is not going away, the problem is that whether you want help or don't there are inadequate resources available which just feeds the hopelessness of those in need. I always hear what a "giving community" we have when various charitable foundations are in need, well it is not enough to make the "United Way" contribution and walk away hugging yourself.
The people on our streets need to be seen as part of "the community" and supported not as some sort of scourge to be eradicated at all cost.
2010 will soon be upon us, and the "eyes of the world" will be focussed on BC (or at least that small portion where significant public money is being directed) what would we like them to see when they take their day trip to Victoria? A community that demonstrates an innovative caring & compassionate solution to those without a home, or do they go home remembering the hanging baskets being overshadowed by the fact that in those same streets people are dying with no hope of help.