Biased Calgary Bylaw Passes: Reaction

Thanks again to everyone at CHAI for their hard work, for taking up an issue that meant a lot to me, and for allowing me, an inexperienced activist, to join you. Thank you also to the wonderful support we had from Calgarians, whether from agencies, NGOs, concerned Calgarians or those most affected by the Bylaw. We will continue to collect the remainder of the petitions we have not received, and we will look into our options.

As a recap, our position was that a great deal of the bylaw targets the homeless. Parts about loitering, loitering and obstructing, putting feet up on a bench, and urinating on public property make it illegal to huddle, panhandle, sleep outside, and obey the body’s natural functions when no public restrooms are provided. The steep fines for these activities are not affordable to anyone living on the street, and they will be put in jail for up to six months instead. We felt that the City must build more shelters and provide more affordable housing before considering passing such a bylaw, since those on the street haven’t been any other choice but to commit those offences that are now, as of yesterday evening, illegal. Considering the fallout of the economic boom has brought a great deal more poverty to Calgary, and with it a crisis for those who can’t find shelters beds or a place they can afford to live, we felt that the timing of this bylaw was indeed in very poor taste. We begged the City to have a conscience and not pass the bylaw.

City Council finally got around to Public Behaviour Bylaw #54M2006 at about 8:00 p.m. at their meeting last night. There were several Land Use applications to consider that took up a great deal of time, and though they had taken supper and other breaks, Council was visibly tired since they had convened at 1:00 p.m. Alderman Joe Ceci, the chief voice at Council against the Bylaw, attempted to put through an item of Urgent Business. This Urgent Business was to have the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, as laid out by the Fair Calgary Policy accepted by Council on November 13, be applied to the Bylaw.

Council rejected the Urgent Business in a vote, and then voted to make the Bylaw final. They went from a 7-11 split in favour of the Public Behaviour Bylaw at the second reading, to a 7-7 tie last night. Still, the bylaw went through. Close as it was, I'm sure if the media had faithfully reported all the inclusions of the bylaw sooner instead of repeating over and over again the parts about spitting, fighting, and carrying a knife, we could have been up at arms fast enough to effect an outcome in our favour. From now on, we will certainly be keeping a closer watch over the Council’s minutes on the City of Calgary website and not relying on the media to relay information.
The majority of Calgarians we spoke to realized the bias of the bylaw once they were made fully aware of its contents and applications.

After the Bylaw went through, Alderman Farrow put forth a 'motion arising' that passed easily. It was ‘to ensure that Law Enforcement refer to the Fair Calgary Policy when implementing the Bylaw’. This helps, but unfortunately it is not a real solution, since there is no active enforcement of the Policy by Council over Law Enforcement. Everything is still left up to Officer Discretion. This frightens me: given the biases average citizens have towards the less fortunate, police who have had unhappy dealings with homeless people in the past will certainly have strong prejudices and may see the bylaw as a method of exercising those prejudices or even getting revenge. If the extremely prejudiced officer I spoke to on Sunday night serves as an example of a certain faction of the Calgary Police Service, and he probably does, we have much to worry about. One wonders if the Policy will even find its way, physically, into the hands of individual officers.

It was a long day for Council; again, they were visibly drained and bored. The only reason not to subject the Bylaw to the provisions of the Fair Calgary Policy was Council’s unwillingness to go through the whole process again from the beginning, after so many attempts were made at amendments in the past by those Aldermen who were on side with CHAI. Had that Urgent Business of Ceci’s gone through, the Bylaw would have been tabled, re-written according to Fair Calgary principles, and subject again to 3 readings and attempts at amendments.

It should be noted for those who couldn’t be present that Alderman McIvor stood up 3 times to say sarcastically that he ‘Admired his fellow Alderman’s tenacity’. Then he said that he thought ‘Calgarians don’t care about Fair Calgary policies or Bylaws; they just don’t want to step in someone else’s defecation’. Personally I think that McIvor ought to give Calgarians more credit. I think Calgarians might get the credit they deserve from McIvor once they eventually get him out of Council, or at least let him know that in fact they do care what Councils plans are for average citizens – in particular, they care when they realize that human rights are to be violated right here in Calgary.

Alderman Ceci responded that his colleague gave him too much credit as a conniver; that really, it was not a sneaky move, but instead, he just cared about the repercussions that Bylaw would have.

I’m so upset that the bylaw passed. We did the best we could on such short notice after the 2nd reading in terms of the petition and protest, and tried to emphasize that what we had managed, given the short notice, was only the tip of the iceberg – an indication that once eyes were opened to the ramifications of the bylaw, Calgarians did indeed care – but we could have done much more. Again, if I hadn’t relied on the media to tell me about all of the aspects of the bylaw, the true nature of it and implications of it could have been brought to the attention of more Calgarians while there was still time to stand up at Council and object to it.

Misinformation and corruption won the day yesterday. But beginning today we will watch Council like hawks, so that tomorrow we’ll be much more prepared for the City’s next discriminating move towards denying citizens of low or non-existent income their basic human rights. Instead of funding shelters, they take away their buildings. Instead of building more shelters, they sign away big parcels of land for development as rich gated communities at the very same meeting in which they pass a bylaw that will jail those who have nowhere to go.

As members of the crowd cried at yesterday’s protest, Shame! It is a shame the bylaw passed, it is a shameful move by the City to pass it, much of our news media should be ashamed of themselves for concentrating mainly on innocuous parts of the bylaw and thereby misrepresenting it, I am ashamed that we could not do more to stop it. But I am not ashamed of trying to stop it, and proud as hell of all those who tried too. It is easy to give up hope in a super conservative city that citizens of conscience will ever influence a corrupt Council, but if we do we'll never get anywhere.

Meanwhile, we at CHAI will certainly be doing our homework to find out if there is anything to be done at this stage, now that the bylaw has passed. It could even involve a human rights lawyer. Please stay tuned and join us if you can. See www.housingaction.ca

Statement about Calgary's Public Behaviour Bylaw 54M2006

Statement

Those who accept the Public Behaviour Bylaw clearly don't understand the ramifications of it. The media has been concentrating on the innocuous aspects that we can all agree on: don't spit, don't fight, don't carry a knife.

The truth is, the parts of the bylaw about loitering and obstructing, putting feet up on a bench or public structure, and urinating or defecating in public are designed to put the homeless in jail. When you look closer, you see that they make it illegal to huddle, panhandle, sleep outside, and use the bathroom when no public washrooms are provided. The fines carried for these items ($300-$10,000) would be impossible for those less fortunate to pay; instead, they would face a jail sentence of up to six months.

In a time of extreme crisis, when there are not enough shelters or affordable housing and not enough being done by the City to provide these necessities, it is reprehensible and without conscience for City Council to decide that the solution to these problems is to create a bylaw that effectively gets rid of the homeless by putting them in jail.

As citizens, we can do much better for the poor in our community than to allow the City to do this to them. We must put a stop to it, and demand that the City move more quickly to provide more shelters andmore affordable housing in this time of crisis. With our petition and our protest on Monday November 20th, we will make our voices heard.

Laurie Fuhr
November 17 2006