Canadian homeless encampments have become increasingly visible in recent years, and those residing within them have faced a fair bit of variation in how local governments react to their presence. Today, let’s look at a remarkable legal case that may change the game regarding how homeless encampments are considered under Canadian law and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
This is an interesting case and is sensible. I mean, people have to sleep somewhere.
This is a multi-faceted problem, though. Encampments grow massively in the summer and shrink in the winter. Conversely, the shelters empty out in the summer and fill up in the winter. Why is that? It’s because many homeless people actually do have an indoor place to stay and/or access to a shelter space, but prefer to camp out when the weather is nice. I don’t blame them for that. People are handing out free tents, sleeping bags, and meals where I live. Would you rather sleep on a cot in a big room full of farting, snoring people, or in a nice private tent? However, the ruling doesn’t really apply to people’s preferences. The court ruling is about the struggle for shelter to protect oneself from the elements, not to create a right to camp wherever and whenever they want to because they feel like it.
I’m a big believer in affordable public housing. I think we also need institutions to house people who are not capable or willing to live independently without destroying the home they are given. I’m also in favour of wet shelters for those who are hopelessly addicted to alcohol or drugs. I’m also a believer in shelters to temporarily house people who are transient or waiting to get an affordable home. I’m not a believer in allowing shanty towns to grow unchecked, nor in allowing people to camp wherever and whenever they want to. If there is a shelter bed available, they must use it and too bad about their preferences. No shanty towns. That is just plain unacceptable in a modern developed nation. And, I suspect that 95% of the Canadian population feels the same way.