A coalition of advocacy organizations is taking a previously proposed Barrie bylaw amendment to the United Nations as an example of a policy that criminalizes homelessness in Canada.
In May and June, the city north of Toronto proposed and then walked back two bylaw amendments that would have made it illegal for people and charitable groups to distribute food, literature, clothes, tents and tarps to unhoused people on public property.
The proposal was sent back to staff for review in June but was discussed again at a community safety committee meeting on Tuesday. A date for another council vote on the bylaw has yet to be set.
After Tuesday’s meeting, the Canadian Drug Policy Coalition and Pivot Legal society sent the proposed bylaw amendments to the UN’s rapporteurs on the right to adequate housing and extreme poverty. The intergovernmental agency has put out a call for laws impacting unhoused people for a report on decriminalizing homelessness, with a submission deadline of early October.
Why is the word choice more important than the issue? You’ve certainly spent more time worrying over that than the issue of laws being targeted at homeless people.
Yes, when someone invents a fake narrative it gives pause. Perhaps I should not be concerned about the issue as it wasn’t seen as important enough to tell as it is? After all, if it were important, it would be a good story all on its own without having to make things up.
Targeting vulnerable populations with laws intended to make their lives specifically worse is obviously bad. You shouldn’t even need a story to understand that that’s bad. So you’re giving off the strong impression that your actual problem here is that anyone is questioning the targeting of homeless people with the law.
Removed by mod
It’s a feeling I have. We are in a lemmy forum and not a moderated debate stage so I’m not sure why you think calling logical fallacy is going to separate me from my intuition.
What does a moderated debate have to do with anything? It is a fallacy because it is nonsensical. Even if what you say is true (sadly, you got it wrong, but that’s par for the course), it changes absolutely nothing about the conversation. It is equivalent to you adding “And the sky is blue!”
You can say it if you want. It’s just not clear what value you think it adds. It indicates absolutely nothing.
I’m just noting the impression that you’re giving me. That you are pro targeting vulnerable populations with the law.
I read what you put, but you have not made it clear why you thought it would be useful to note. Where is the value in “And the sky is blue!”?
You can – and did. But why?
It suggests the kind of values you have and, in turn, how much value I ought to give your input.