Human Rights - LEaning in and LEarning
Key prinicpals chart - with my notes of questions
Information as consolidated for & with the aid of the members of the Human RIghts Approach PECH Prototype Group
PRINCIPLE 1: RECOGNIZE RESIDENTS OF HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS AS RIGHTS HOLDERS
Questions:
Are our local governments and community ready/committed to recognize these individuals rights?
Are our local governments and community ready/committed to recognize these individuals rights?
PRINCIPLE 2: MEANINGFUL ENGAGEMENT AND EFFECTIVE PARTICIPATION OF ENCAMPMENT RESIDENTS
Sourced from Page16, Section 44:
"Participation processes must comply with all human rights principles, including non-discrimination. Compliance with international human rights law requires:
"Participation processes must comply with all human rights principles, including non-discrimination. Compliance with international human rights law requires:
- Provision of necessary institutional, financial, and other resources to support residents’ right to participate
- In order to participate in decisions that affect them, encampment residents should be provided with financial and institutional resources (e.g., wifi/internet access, meeting spaces) that support their active participation in decision-making. Such supports should include, but are not limited to: legal advice, social service supports, Indigenous cultural supports, literacy supports, translation, mobility supports, and transportation costs to attend consultations or meetings. (49) These resources should support democratic processes within the encampment, including community meetings, the appointment of community leaders, and the sharing of information. (50) Residents must be granted a reasonable and sufficient amount of time to consult on decisions that affect them.
- Provision of relevant information about the right to housing
- Encampment residents must be provided with information about their right to housing, including information about procedures through which they can hold governments and other actors accountable, as well as specific information about the rights of Indigenous Peoples. (51)
- Provision of relevant information concerning decisions that affect residents, ensuring sufficient time to consult
- Encampment residents must be provided with all relevant information in order to make decisions in matters that affect them (52)
- Establishment of community engagement agreement between homeless encampment residents, government actors, and other stakeholders
- In order to facilitate respectful, cooperative, and non-coercive communication between residents, government, and other stakeholders, government may seek to collaborate with residents to create a formal community engagement agreement (when appropriate and requested by residents). (53) This agreement should outline when and how encampment residents will be engaged, (54) and should be ongoing and responsive to the needs of the encampment residents. (55) It should allow the residents of homeless encampments to play an active role in all aspects of relevant proposals and policy, from commencement to conclusion. Residents should be able to challenge any decision made by government or other actors, to propose alternatives, and to articulate their own demands and priorities. Third party mediators should be available to protect against power imbalances that may lead to breakdown in negotiations or create unfair results. (56) Relevant government authorities and professionals should also be provided with “training in community engagement and accountability.” (57)
- Provision of equitable opportunities for the meaningful participation of all encampment residents
- As a matter of human rights law, particular efforts must be taken to ensure equitable participation by women, persons with disabilities, Indigenous Peoples, migrants, and other groups who experience discrimination or marginalization. (58) Where possible, members of these groups should be afforded central roles in the process. (59)"
Questions:
Points of note in application:
Points of note in application:
PRINCIPLE 3: PROHIBITION OF FORCED EVICTIONS OF ENCAMPMENTS
Current local neo-vagrant bylaws merriting potential review to better realign with a Human Rights approach (?)
- Region of Waterloo
- Cityf Cambridge
- City of Waterloo
- City of Kitchener
- Alternate municipal approaches being taken elsewhere that could potentially be enabled? (In parts or in full replication of)
- What are other municpalities doing? In each "silo" thereof (Municipalities, grassroots...), how are others "functioning" the moving parts to work together better? What ideas within these do we think could work well for us locally? A few I like:
- Peterborough - Parks bylaw "clause" that allows some flexibility to permit exceptions to disallowance of erecting structures in moments of exceptional circumstances - could be a quick motion and method, but the duality of governance locally poses added challenge. Where could we begin though - and perhaps in this way?
- London - I'd like to learn more about their approach - seems to hold many positive factors - could we embed some portions here? Which could work?
- Ottawa - Recently taken response measures - Yet needing to better look at, but struck me as holding many things we could replicate VERY quickly in response to current escalting crisis - if we chose to that is - Will we?
- What are other municpalities doing? In each "silo" thereof (Municipalities, grassroots...), how are others "functioning" the moving parts to work together better? What ideas within these do we think could work well for us locally? A few I like:
- Definition of and method/weighing of "public interest"? Resources and information relative to fuller comprehension?
- "Acceptable risks" and to/by whom? Weighing of - balancing considerations/inputs to reflect the inherent power inbalances within the situations dynamics
- "Acceptable loss" definitions in terms of public health crisis or erp escalation/enactments? Have we not crossed these already?
- Region of Waterloo "safety evaluations" (I forget the right name for these - that evaluation chart) - reflect a one sided lens of the definition of safety - residents are in harms way situationally, and due to collective failure to provide for one another, not of their own accord and desire. Yes, some live outside by choice, but such too is their right, and in balancing the rights of the many, regardless of this minimal sub set in the demographic, the larger and dominant issue is a lack of obtainable and adequate housing, not this lessor number of individuals identifying they are content to remain living outside. "Fractions of the equation" are often similarily used to "justify" decisions and in such we miss the target. We cannot continue to justify non response to our current ever growing crisis and its depth and impact on the backs of stigmas and liabilities.
PRINCIPLE 4: EXPLORE ALL VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO EVICTION
- What does our current process in this sense incude?
- Are we offering the supports needed in order to diminish the impacts/stressors leading up to determing it necessary to evict? (ie fire safety tools, garbage removal, pest control, basic needs supports)
- What are the "before eviction" peices needing deeper identification, outline, transparency or exploration?
- How are residents being consulted and included in the surrounding conversations leading up to and determining potential eviction?
- What is the expected chain of communication when an eviction is decided? Both within the decision making and the relay needed to the residents, supports and outreach?
PRINCIPLE 5: ENSURE THAT ANY RELOCATION IS HUMAN RIGHTS COMPLIANT
(Below sourced from page 22-23)
"59 If, in the exceptional case there is no viable alternative to eviction by authorities, eviction must be compliant with all aspects of international human rights law.71 Compliance with international human rights law requires:
Prohibition against the removal of residents’ private property without their knowledge and consent
The removal of residents’ private property by governments and those acting on their behalf, including the police, without their knowledge and consent, in strictly prohibited. 72 Such actions are contrary to the rights of residents and may contribute to the deepening of residents’ marginalization, exclusion, and homelessness.73 Governments and police must also seek to actively prevent the removal of homeless residents’ private property by private actors or any other form of harassment.
Adherence to the right to housing and other human rights standards when relocation is necessary or preferred
Adequate alternative housing, with all necessary amenities (particularly water, sanitation and electricity), must be in place for all residents prior to their eviction. 74 Alternative housing arrangements should be in close proximity to the original place of residence and to services, community support, and livelihood.75 It is critical that all encampment residents be allowed to participate in decisions regarding relocation, including the timing and site of relocation. 76 A full hearing of the residents’ concerns with the proposed relocation should be held, and alternatives explored.
Relocation must not result in the continuation or exacerbation of homelessness, or require the fracturing of families or partnerships
Relocation must not result in the continuation or deepening of homelessness for residents.77 Relocation must not require the separation of families or partners, as defined by rights-holders themselves, including chosen family and other kinship networks. 78 Governments should engage encampments with a view to keeping the community intact, if this is desired by the residents.79 Governments should also ensure that relevant housing policies are supportive of the ways in which rights-holders define their own families, partnerships, communities and extended Indigenous kindship structures, and accommodate these whenever possible in public or social housing.
Access to justice to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with all human rights
Access to justice must be ensured at all stages of government engagement with encampment residents, not just when eviction is imminent.80 Access to justice and legal protection must meet international human rights law standards,81 including the provision of due process, access to legal aid, access to fair and impartial legal advice, and the ability to file complaints in a relevant forums (including Indigenous forums) that are geographically proximate. 82
"59 If, in the exceptional case there is no viable alternative to eviction by authorities, eviction must be compliant with all aspects of international human rights law.71 Compliance with international human rights law requires:
Prohibition against the removal of residents’ private property without their knowledge and consent
The removal of residents’ private property by governments and those acting on their behalf, including the police, without their knowledge and consent, in strictly prohibited. 72 Such actions are contrary to the rights of residents and may contribute to the deepening of residents’ marginalization, exclusion, and homelessness.73 Governments and police must also seek to actively prevent the removal of homeless residents’ private property by private actors or any other form of harassment.
Adherence to the right to housing and other human rights standards when relocation is necessary or preferred
Adequate alternative housing, with all necessary amenities (particularly water, sanitation and electricity), must be in place for all residents prior to their eviction. 74 Alternative housing arrangements should be in close proximity to the original place of residence and to services, community support, and livelihood.75 It is critical that all encampment residents be allowed to participate in decisions regarding relocation, including the timing and site of relocation. 76 A full hearing of the residents’ concerns with the proposed relocation should be held, and alternatives explored.
Relocation must not result in the continuation or exacerbation of homelessness, or require the fracturing of families or partnerships
Relocation must not result in the continuation or deepening of homelessness for residents.77 Relocation must not require the separation of families or partners, as defined by rights-holders themselves, including chosen family and other kinship networks. 78 Governments should engage encampments with a view to keeping the community intact, if this is desired by the residents.79 Governments should also ensure that relevant housing policies are supportive of the ways in which rights-holders define their own families, partnerships, communities and extended Indigenous kindship structures, and accommodate these whenever possible in public or social housing.
Access to justice to ensure procedural fairness and compliance with all human rights
Access to justice must be ensured at all stages of government engagement with encampment residents, not just when eviction is imminent.80 Access to justice and legal protection must meet international human rights law standards,81 including the provision of due process, access to legal aid, access to fair and impartial legal advice, and the ability to file complaints in a relevant forums (including Indigenous forums) that are geographically proximate. 82
Questions:
- What do human rights compliant relocations look like?
- Whereas the Region has created the policy (Dec. 15, 2021 Draft Policy) regarding removals from regional lands, why was this priniciple approached as one of the few portions of this "continuum" necessitating consideration ("site safety" evaluations/criteria/escalation "stuff" aside)?
- While well intended, this policy ultimately fails to respond according to a Human Rights approach in many facets. Where does it fail? Where does it succeed? Can it be altered/reviewed to ammend and better align with a HR approach, or is repeal and from start drafting of a new outline needed? What would a "end goal" version of operational guidance contain? How is the goal best obtained - revision of current procedures or repeal/restart from beginning on outlining the processes to be followed?
PRINCIPLE 6: ENSURE ENCAMPMENTS MEET BASIC NEEDS OF RESIDENTS CONSISTENT WITH HUMAN RIGHTS
- Locally, have we assured basic adequacy standards are being met for local unsheltered residents? Do these fellow humans currently have:
- access to safe and clean drinking water
- access to hygiene and sanitation facilities
- resources and support to ensure fire safety
- waste management systems
- social supports and services, and guarantee of personal safety of residents
- facilities and resources that support food safety
- resources to support harm reduction
- rodent and pest prevention
- How can we best assure local provision of these items to encampments residents?
- What has worked well?
- What is needed yet?
- What is unknown in approach, residents desires, and ability to enact solutions?
PRINCIPLE 7: ENSURE HUMAN RIGHTS-BASED GOALS AND OUTCOMES, AND THE PRESERVATION OF DIGNITY FOR ENCAMPMENT RESIDENTS
What documents has Canada ratified and needing to adhere to in their progression of evolving governing structures? (Links to related to this ones)
What Charter and Provincial Legislations pertaining to human rights as well require consideration and adherance to in development of approaches?
Housing first approach - Have we yet come to the point within our definitions of housing first where the overlap into a human rights approach is recognizably a needed step? Among the many variables posing challenge atm, we lack for outputs to alternate housing for many supports and services to outflow into. This results in low turnover in service rates. It as well results in the existance of encampments as a method to survive given no other choice available. In failing to be able to provide adequate housing of alternate types, albeit imperfect by societal standards, these spaces have become "home" to those with no other. Unless we have options to offer of adequate nature, regardless of desire or preference, it must be recognized that these homes are at least for now, part of the housing continuum. This is not to suggest that it should be this way, nor that we must be content to allow these neighbours to be subject to the risks and strains they are being handed, moreso, looking to identify the realities of the situation as they are so as to progress further towards a positive space for all to safely reside.
PRINCIPLE 8: RESPECT, PROTECT, AND FULFILL THE DISTINCT RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES IN ALL ENGAGEMENTS WITH ENCAMPMENTS
