As the winter Olympics of 2010 in Vancouver approach, the Canadian government finds themselves in a debacle. Similar to Beijing’s attempts to rid the city of the intense pollution, Vancouver finds itself in a position in which they desire to remove the homeless from the streets. A provincial law has been proposed that would accomplish that task. A similar act, the Mental Health Act, has already allowed for the removal of those folks deemed incompetent and incapable of rationalization. The new proposal targets the homeless that do not fall in to the medically insane category. Debate is beginning to increase in parliament as to whether or not this law would actually be a violation of the Canadian charter.
What would the Rawlsian principles suggest about this forced removal of those who no doubt would be considered the least advantaged? In considering the original position and the idea of removal of the least advantaged, I think it would violate the justice as described by Rawls’ theory of justice. The principles that result from the original position seek to advance the minimum conditions of those who are the worst off. The difference principle, as Rawls outlines, promotes opportunity for those in this category. Removing these people ignores their membership in this society all together as they are clearly neglected to the extent in which they are thrown out.
However, the question can be brought up as to whether or not these homeless people are members of the society. What qualifies someone as a member of the Rawlsian society? Take for instance the plausible circumstance that some homeless people migrated to Vancouver from another city due to its more pleasant weather and the chance at greater opportunity for work. Not being original members of this society would lead us to a position in which we would need to evaluate the rights of a foreigner in the society. Rawls theory of justice does not cover this, but I would suggest that if they are not part of the society, then they do not have the basic liberties of the rest of the members of the society and thus can be removed from the city.
I presume that if a homeless person is indeed a member of this society (based off of what definition, I cannot provide) then it is unjust for their removal. However, if some homeless person, deemed a migrator, is not part of the society, then the local government has the just ability to have them removed to some other location.
http://www.straight.com/article-258818/province-targets-homeless
2 comments:
Your report presents an interesting issue. That Vancouver is willing to sacrifice human costs for economic benefits is a grave injustice and an affront to the citizens of that city who would probably seek better responses to alleviate the plight of the poor in their own backyard. However, I find an issue with your justification of the policy on the grounds of migratory status. Presumably, if peoples did enter the city in hopes of better economic opportunities, they did so legally. That they fell into poverty is an unfortunate reality and bears no implications for perfectly legal processes. If a country is to consider itself respectful of global standards (surely a country that hosts a global event such as the Winter Olympics is), then it should similarly be respectful of those in the ranks of its own inhabitants who hail from different lands.
I'm curious as to what said removal of the homeless actually implies. I find it unlikely that the government would just round them up and literally remove them from the city - dumping them at the border of some other town or something to that extent. Is there no rehabilitation or reintegration plan in place? That seems to be the most logical way to remove the amoral aspect of this plan.
As for the situation in the way pperdue portrayed it, one can draw similar parallels to New York City when the government was preparing for the World's Fair in 1964. The crackdown on the homeless, gay bars and other 'undesirables' was incredibly intense and may have begun the practice of police crackdowns that eventually led to the Stonewall Riots.
Post a Comment