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.

  • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    edit-2
    11 hours ago

    Fucking good, our “housing policy” is complete Boomer bullshit and needs to be dismantled and rebuilt. Housing needs to be a human right, if you get it for doing bad things, you should get it for being normal or good and incentivize people to at least have or get their shit together in the comfort of their own place.

    So much of that self-reinvention can only happen when one can get away from their previous life and social graph

    • jerkface@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      9 hours ago

      I know the rhetorical point you are making, but prisons are not free housing. In Ontario, they are terrifyingly outdated, under regulated, unsupervised hellholes.

      • Soup@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        5 hours ago

        Man, I’m 100% sure that your interpretation was correct but I read it at first as how fuckin’ parasites seem to be able to buy up all kinds of housing but good, or even just normal people, are constantly struggling to even pay rent. We’ve built the rules so that cheating is how to win and it’s fuckin’ bullshit.

      • cheese_greater@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        8 hours ago

        The point I’m making is housing is going to cost us no matter what so it just depends if we want to incentivise crime and desperation or incentivise economic productivity and improved mental health/resillience among the population.