Can People Be Forced Into Shelter?
Published September 21, 2009 @ 08:04PM PT
Should homeless individuals be forced to take refuge in shelter? If legislation proposed by B.C., Canada government officials is passed, police will be able to use force move people indoors during extreme weather conditions. While civil liberties activists are up in arms over the proposed legislation, others are wary of the government's motivation for the bill.
Last year, a British Columbia homeless woman died during a deep freeze after lighting a fire to stay warm. This, officials claim, is the primary reason for the bill. The legislation would allow authorities to make a declaration of extreme weather, which would then allow police to "use force" to get homeless individuals into shelters. Those who resist will have to take an entirely different kind of shelter - behind bars.
The Canadian version of the ACLU, the BC Civil Liberties Association, insists that this legislation is more about "saving face for the government than saving lives on the street." Perhaps the timing of this legislation is no mistake; after all, the 2010 Winter Olympics are just around the corner. Many believe that in preparation for its moment in the world spotlight, city officials are crafting ways of forcing the area's homeless into hiding. After all, if they are hidden, they cannot be forced into shelter.
If B.C. goes through with this proposed legislation, they'll join the ranks of cities that have used extreme and cruel measures in an effort to clear the streets of those without a home for a high-profile event. Who could forget Denver distributiing museum tickets to its chronically homeless population during the DNC. And then there was Tampa Bay, arresting homeless individuals and holding them in jail during January's Superbowl.
People should not be forced to seek shelter against their will. If a person chooses to stay on the streets rather than take refuge in a shelter during extreme weather situations, they probably have a good reason for doing so. It could be due to a pet. It could be shelter policies that limit the number of personal belongings one may bring. It could be for safety reasons.
Besides, just because someone has lost their home, it does not mean they've lost their free will.
Image from CTV.ca.
Share this Post
Facebook
Twitter
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
EmailComments (13)
Comments on Change.org are meant for further exploration and evaluation of the ideas covered in the posts. To that end, we welcome constructive comments. However, we reserve the right to delete comments that are offensive, abusive, or off-topic; that contain ad hominem attacks; or that are designed to subvert or hijack comment threads rather than contribute to them. Repeat offenders may be permanently removed from the site at our discretion.
Author
-
Shannon has worked in homeless shelters and service organizations in San Francisco, the Triangle region of North Carolina, and currently in the greater Boston area. She is a graduate student studying housing and urban policy at Tufts University.
Featured Homelessness Actions
-
-
Tell Seattle Officials to Stop the Sweeps!
352 People
-
Tell Seattle Officials to Stop the Sweeps!
-
I couldn't agree more with the poster's opposition to forcing homeless into shelters. When did it become OK to consider kidnapping individuals "for their own good"? Offering assistance and mandating it are two different animals. I shake my head at the audacity of some of our "public servants".
In my youth I have slept outside in sub zero weather for most of a winter, granted it was out of choice, not out of necessity. My high school friend and I fancied ourselves mountain men after watching Jeremiah Johnson. We spent most of a year living in a lean-to next to a small lake in preparation for our next step which was to live off the land in Alaska.
This would simply be another step toward criminalization of the homeless and further eroision of their rights.
Posted by brax peace on 09/21/2009 @ 09:55PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This all boils down to the efforts that are being amde in the result of the current economic crisis that this nation is facing as of now. People are stressing that there is not enough effort that is being taken to help people in need, well leave it to uncle sam to let it be known that if you want help then you are going to have to abide by certain conditions and seemingly one is that you 'have' to be in some sort of shelter legally.
As stifiled the current socioeconomic systems are this may just be the answer that is needed to keep a handle on the budgeting and funding considerations that are currently under fire as of now. It seems that we have stretched the limits of monetary assumptions that may be taken into consideration of help/assistance that comes from government funded programs.
I'm not a fan of the eroision of a persons rights, beliefs, and practice of freedom. However, it should be understood that if you really are a person in need of help/assistance then you would place yourself in a position to receive that help/assistance.
Posted by Aaron Shaw on 09/22/2009 @ 07:24AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As I commented in response to the flue posting this is, indeed, a dangerous type of development. No matter that it comes wrapped in "compassionate" coloring, and even though there be truth to that, it's the "legal force" element that over-rides all else.
I happen to know for a fact that there are both civic and business persons, including those missioned with "the homeless issue" locally (even those that are designated to be "helpers"), that candidly are crafting plans to essentially do the same. Yes, this is veiled in various "criminalizing" and "enforcement" of things that aren't apparently for that purpose, as such, but have the effect of reducing any other options but to revert to the existing shelters and "services."
And all this, despite the rawer fact that there are not enough beds in the shelters for the real number of people out there, and that the "services" are largely worse than a joke.
Even all the housed people have good cause to be concerned about ANY laws that allow people to be rounded up and, essentially, "incarcerated" like that.
Posted by SlumJack Homeless on 09/22/2009 @ 08:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
"I'm not a fan of the eroision of a persons rights, beliefs, and practice of freedom. However, it should be understood that if you really are a person in need of help/assistance then you would place yourself in a position to receive that help/assistance." Aaron Shaw
So let me understand clearly, although you value freedom, and personal rights, you believe one should be willing to give them up for assistance?
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
Benjamin Franklin
braxpeace.blogspot.com
Posted by brax peace on 09/22/2009 @ 08:59AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
is that not what we are stating as a reformed nation. We give up certain rights each and every day in order to receive what, a nation that is economiclly oppressed and in need of change itself.
You must hold on to what is right and try to make peace with what may not feel comfortable.
Right now I', in a postion due to my unemployment where my own family overlooks my every day needs to make themselves look right and they aren't even in a position to be even coming to terms of such mearsures. we all are homeless under certain standards and none of us have jobs. I put up with this in order to stay out of trouble for the time being and to stay off the streets.
Now if that is not giving up freedoms under any assumption of the expression then i don't know what is.
Posted by Aaron Shaw on 09/22/2009 @ 08:45PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Depending on the spin the media could put on this ("for their own safety, because we care"), it could ALMOST sound as if the Canadian government could have a leg to stand on, until you throw the 2010 Winter Olympics in the mix, that is. The agenda is shameful. What happens after the Olympic Event and all of the press attention and tourist traffic to the area that stems from it? Will the homeless be tossed aside once again like trash? It's along the same lines as those who donate/volunteer only during the holidays as any effort can be positive, but it's a long standing issue that requires more than temporary attention.
Although it sounds pretty basic, I think the government may need to be reminded that what/who we are debating about are PEOPLE, not animals and they are in fact a government and not animal control.
In my opinion there really is nothing to debate here. Its just wrong. The bigger question should be, WHY are each of them living on streets and how can we (the people AND the government) help.
Posted by Lisa Sullivan on 09/23/2009 @ 12:38PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Philadelphia has a "Code Blue" which forces the homeless into shelters when the weather is below freezing. See http://www.kyw1060.com/pages/1630916.php?
Some people who are against this include http://www.defenestrator.org/ppd_harrass_homeless.
The city of Philadelphia has claimed that many homeless people are mentally disturbed and cannot fend for themselves. Although this may be true for a small number of the homeless, I believe the majority are just down on their luck. We should help the homeless but not force our way upon them.
British Columbia is wrong to force people into shelters to make the city look good to visitors.
Posted by jack barr on 09/23/2009 @ 01:46PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I just think that nobody should be forced to do anything and that is a fact no matter the reason. The only reason in my mind would because if the weather is so bad there is nothing else that could be done to save lives but for the Olympics I don't think so that is bottom line stuff and that is not right.
Posted by Carol Hill on 09/23/2009 @ 04:36PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
In a country that spends trillions on weapons and defense, if we would take a portion of the wasted money and spend it on insuring that every person has a standard basic living standard that included housing and food we would not need to have debates over issues like this. I think that ones free will and self determination needs to be respected to the utmost. I'm all for offering help to those stranded in unbearable situations, as long as their wishes are respected.
I believe a fraction of the bureaucratic waste in most developed countries would pay for private housing costs of most of the homeless.
braxpeace.blogspot.com
Posted by brax peace on 09/23/2009 @ 05:34PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
This is nothing but a political move. As mentioned in the article, the death of a homeless woman last year, AND the winter Olympics being held here (Vancouver) this coming February are the true reasons the government is looking into (as it has not been legislated yet) making this into law.
http://gregspoliticalviews.blogspot.com/
Posted by Gregoire Savoie on 09/24/2009 @ 10:13PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
I am confused aren't the Homeless Shelter's in BC, just as full as the American one's Often through out the NE Shelters turns away 2 to 3 times the amount they serve.
I have callers from Maine who would LOVE to be in a shelter-if their were space. Anyone Change.org members in PA with information how cold blue is working?
Until society fixes the homeless thing, We need More shelters.
To test the quality of a nations freedom, see how fairly it treats the least of us.
Posted by jan Lightfootlane on 09/25/2009 @ 08:19AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
Well, yeah. We're all pretty much stalled out on such paradoxical dilemmas.
There IS no real "solution" existing -- meanwhile "the problem" keeps forcing lousy, even worsening, problems.
What resources and recourses there HAVE been are dwindling and exhausting, even as more people have been reduced to need.
And winter will be upon us soon enough.
Yes! It IS a problem! A most serious one.
Posted by SlumJack Homeless on 09/25/2009 @ 08:40AM PT
You must be signed in to report content.
As previously noted, this is strictly a political and public relations move by the BC government.
If they do go through with this, they would have to create new shelters (temporary ones as it is for times of "extreme weather conditions").
What they (conveniently) omit to say is that they would only force those in the city of Vancouver (IE. Where the Olympics are being held).
They won't do jack for those in Kelowna, Kamloops or Prince George (which by the way much colder weather than Vancouver).
This government is actually in it's 3rd term. Yes, 3rd term, which means they have been governing for over 8 years, and NOW WITH THE OLYMPICS HERE they suddenly decide they'll "help" the homeless.
Beyond hypocrisy.
Posted by Gregoire Savoie on 09/25/2009 @ 01:10PM PT
You must be signed in to report content.