I find it interesting how some people cannot wrap their head around the idea that a person should have the legal right to exist in space, especially public space.
There’s obviously nuances to this specific case, and I suspect the judge’s ruling will be overturned on appeal, but on paper homeless people should absolutely be allowed to camp on public land if the system that the public has cultivated fails to house them
green_tory on
The court found that homelessness is analogous to disability. Which seems reasonable to me; not having a home is a debilitating experience.
>Homelessness is immutable, except that it isn’t, but it should be treated as though it is. The judge has redefined “immutable” to mean its opposite.
Many disabilities can be mitigated with modern technology or social assistance.
This could be done with homelessness as well, by offering adequate supportive, social, and *also* affordable housing. And please don’t mix them all together in one spot,[ that has disastrous consequences.](https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7176362)
GonzoTheGreat93 on
They tried to FINE homeless people $5000 if they didn’t vacate, and were *baffled* when that didn’t work?
That’s **much** more absurd than “designated class” status.
StatisticianLivid710 on
Natpo calls it absurd, but the judge just said “you have to find somewhere for them to go, you can’t just constantly kick them out of wherever they end up camping,”
Which makes sense, it’s not like they have somewhere to go, so the region needs to find somewhere, not just pass the buck to next month.
But I never expect anything rational, or considerate from Natpo.
calimehtar on
There’s a well-documented housing shortage across the country. Not only have our governments failed to address it, they have continued to make it harder to build by adding regulations and taxes. What did they think the result of a housing shortage would be? Massive failure of simple logic all around.
6 Comments
Some key arguments from the decision related to section 15 of the Charter [here](https://x.com/DianaCMcNally/status/2057804953637306633)
I find it interesting how some people cannot wrap their head around the idea that a person should have the legal right to exist in space, especially public space.
There’s obviously nuances to this specific case, and I suspect the judge’s ruling will be overturned on appeal, but on paper homeless people should absolutely be allowed to camp on public land if the system that the public has cultivated fails to house them
The court found that homelessness is analogous to disability. Which seems reasonable to me; not having a home is a debilitating experience.
>Homelessness is immutable, except that it isn’t, but it should be treated as though it is. The judge has redefined “immutable” to mean its opposite.
Many disabilities can be mitigated with modern technology or social assistance.
This could be done with homelessness as well, by offering adequate supportive, social, and *also* affordable housing. And please don’t mix them all together in one spot,[ that has disastrous consequences.](https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7176362)
They tried to FINE homeless people $5000 if they didn’t vacate, and were *baffled* when that didn’t work?
That’s **much** more absurd than “designated class” status.
Natpo calls it absurd, but the judge just said “you have to find somewhere for them to go, you can’t just constantly kick them out of wherever they end up camping,”
Which makes sense, it’s not like they have somewhere to go, so the region needs to find somewhere, not just pass the buck to next month.
But I never expect anything rational, or considerate from Natpo.
There’s a well-documented housing shortage across the country. Not only have our governments failed to address it, they have continued to make it harder to build by adding regulations and taxes. What did they think the result of a housing shortage would be? Massive failure of simple logic all around.