Safe Streets Act Essay

Ontario, Canada, boasts of tis statue, the Safe Streets Act, 1999 (SSA). The safe streets act in Canada was enacted by the progressive conservative government of Mike Harris as a result of addressing the challenge of having squeegee children on the streets of Ontario. The various incidences of panhandling and squeegeeing have reduced for some time now. However, even as this positive measure is seen, the number of tickets issued continues to rise. Therefore, ticketing encompasses a lot of visibility and status of people who experience homelessness instead of their infractions. Most of these homeless children would solicit motorists for some little cash for survival. The British Colombia district again created a similar version of the act in 2004. The act, which received a royal assent on December 14, 1999, prohibits the solicitation of people at various public locations along with the disposal of dangerous items at designated places. Also covered in the act is the regulation of activities on roadways, hence; an amendment of the Highway Traffic Act. The SSA was affirmed by the court of appeal on constitutional change even as the supreme court of the area rejected an application for review.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Various critics have revealed themselves in regards to this act. One of them is the OCAP (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty) group. These critics term the act as too strict in the definition of aggressive panhandling (Safe Streets Act, n.d). According to the bill, an aggressive manner would mean a manner that can cause an individual to be concerned for their safety or security. However, aggressive has varying definitions depending on how the compromised individuals perceive the situation. Another critic is the homeless hub, which claims that issuance of tickets to homeless people is not a viable way of dealing with poverty since the homeless persons do not have access to fines. Actually, a lot of tickets were issued as a result of 'aggressive solicitation' whereas the other tickets were being issued on the basis of non-aggressive acts that are criminalized under the SSA. At least 13,023 tickets were issued in Toronto in 2009. The value of tickets that year is a rough estimate of $781,380 and that for the children of more than 11 years was $4,043,280. Considering that this is a burden for the homeless, it can be seen as a large burden. Furthermore, many who are unable to raise the amounts prefer to accumulate more of the fines. Many of them then opt to commit themselves to crimes and their involvement in the Criminal Justice System hence, making it even more difficult for the homeless to engage in education, training and see themselves in working environments. The law only increases homelessness, the exact opposite of the aim of implementation. The law should only be implemented at places where there is a clear danger to an individual or the entire public, for instance, a case where some people ask for cash at the highways. All these unnecessary punishments tend to create other barriers for the already disadvantaged group of people, especially when there are other laws that are aimed at addressing conduct and raise the legitimate public safety issues.

The homeless find it challenging to find jobs as a result of convictions for panhandling. When they are sentenced for panhandling, these homeless children tend to lose the hosing that they have hence, are forced to the streets once more hence, increasing their homelessness. The homeless tend to panhandle because of their lack of money. Seeing fines of up to $500 for the first crime and for imprisonment of up to 6 months and an additional $1000, the act seemingly does not favor the homeless (Tickets, n.d). As a result, these homeless individuals also lose social connection with their peers hence; loses any connection that could be of assistance to them. Therefore, more people are forced back onto the streets. The homeless Hub also states that the SSA is not cost-effective. The Act is expensive to implement. In fact, the Toronto Police Serves used about $936,019 between the years 2000 and 2010. No fines are ever collected as a result of panhandling even though taxpayers continue to pay for the courtroom and other services such as testimony and prosecutor services. These critics emphasize that poverty is not a crime and that the poor should not be criminalized. Even with the growing lack of affordable housing along with inadequate support for those dealing with health issues, violence, addiction and disability, homelessness still remains an issue of concern to the Canadians. The act has been challenged by the Fair Change Community Legal Clinic since it unfairly discriminates even the people with mental health issues. This dispute has been led by Gerry Williams, who at one point was homeless and had fines accumulating to $65000 for over 9 years as he strived to maintain his well-being (Mathieu, 2017). He was charged with loitering, trespassing, drinking in the public and even littering. In his efforts to panhandle with the aim of surviving, he was given at least tickets worth $10000. Williams has ever since been employed and has a home as compared to his situation before. He had been suffering from addiction to alcohol and had some undiagnosed mental health issues. He, however, is a different person today and even before he could get any assistance, he had to suffer. Willuams is a constitutional challenge to the SSA, an act filed by the clinic he has patnered with to critic the situation. Additionally, many other people are forced to inhabit public places to meet some needs including making an income. The only way to deal with the civic and economic challenges is to make sure that more people can access affordable housing and the support to maintain the housing. It is a bad practice to use law enforcement to curb poverty.

The major aim of the act is to sweet the citizens who feel uncomfortable when they see or meet in public places. As a result, homelessness, especially in Toronto could be reduced even though there were troubling provisions that made a threat to the homeless children to access public areas. Homelessness could be termed as a result of the government's stringent economic policies that make the public see the homeless population as an inferior society. The law is aimed at promoting the well-being of the people in charge while discriminating various people especially those living in poverty. However, the act is particularly subjective since it is the public that can only decide whether to charge or not. For this reason, everything is left up to the public to decide, making the law arbitrary and unjust at particular times.

Poverty still remains an issue of concern in Canada and there is no law to fix the situation (Mathieu, 2017). Even though the SSA has had a purpose, its implementation has not yet addressed any aggressive panhandling and soliciting. The existing laws only tend to criminalize people in poverty instead of ending the situation. The government promised the right to drive on the road and walk down on the streets even though that is a flawed approach to criminal justice. The Ontario SSA has no benefit to the people even as there are similar laws on the books that protect the people against any other harassments of threats to public safety. The act only pushes people away from social involvement through actions such as involvement in the criminal justice system.

The SSA only benefits the people's vague sense of protection and the need to penalize instances of poverty. It is not right to implement one law to deal with other people in a mix of other innocent ones (Coalition, n.d). Doing so infringes the rights of the marginalized and the innocent people in the society. What should be done is the implementation of an act that can repeal the law rather than criticize it. The Ontario administration system has the best opportunity to repeal the act and despite the evidence of the reasons to repeal the act, it has only chosen to remain silent. One of the promises of fair change is that it challenges the law and terms it as the worst law, that which impacts the marginalized and imposes a lot of cost to the public. As soon as the law is countered by such campaigns, many people could see a rise in their credit scores, attain driving licenses, housing and good jobs.

References

Coalition for the Repeal of Ontario's Safe Streets Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://homelesshub.ca/safe-streets-act

Safe Streets Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://homelesshub.ca/blogs/safe-streets-act

Tickets...and More Tickets: A Case Study of the Enforcement of the Ontario Safe Streets Act. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/tickets...and-more-tickets-case-study-enforcement-ontario-safe-streets-act?_ga=2.204786448.1826015239.1528029901-888731327.1528029901

Mathieu, E. (2017, June 22). Safe Streets Act to be challenged in court. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/06/22/safe-streets-act-to-be-challenged-in-court.html