Does Toronto Criminalize Homelessness?

Society has always implemented various forms of social regulations in order to control the behaviors of its people. Such regulations are usually meant to serve the purpose of dissuading behaviors that are seen as threats to health and well-being or socially undesirable. However, a closer look might reveal that powerful bodies often use social regulations as tools for facilitating harmful agendas that attack and blot out the lower class. This paper argues that social regulations in Toronto work to target homeless people by limiting their consumption of public space, by increasing their vulnerability to violence and crime, and by creating barriers that prevent them from transitioning out of homelessness. These work together to erase homeless people completely, ultimately making their struggle harder to contest. It is worth noting how some formal social regulations (laws) have historically targeted the poor and the homeless before diving into more complicated ways in which social regulations work to reproduce poverty and homelessness.

Patterns of discrimination against homeless people can be traced back to thirteenth century France, when beggars and people without allegiance to a Lord (vagrants) were the predominant targets of repressive initiatives of social control (Jackman, 2014). England later adopted similar vagrancy laws in 1349, “making it a crime to give alms to any who were unemployed while being of sound body and mind” (Jackman, 2014). It was during this time that the associations between criminality, laziness and homelessness emerged. The English statute clearly stated that those who begged were refusing to work and were “giving themselves to idleness and vice, and sometimes to theft and other abominations” (Jackman, 2014). After the Black Death swept through Europe in 1347, killing millions of laborers, and with the abolition of feudalism, the aggressive adoption of vagrancy laws can be noted. There is a clear connection between the adoption of these vagrancy laws and the social and economic needs of the time (Jackman, 2014). Canada adopted its first Vagrancy Act in 1869. It was later succeeded by the Canadian Criminal Code in 1892. This Criminal Code addressed multiple social issues relating to labor (including not being willing to sell one’s labor), mischief (including petty crime), morality (including making income via prostitution), and other related acts (including loitering) (Jackman, 2014). The criminalization of the homeless is particularly perverse because instead of acknowledging structural causes such as the economic changes (that led to unemployment and displacement), it blames the homeless for their predicament. As a result, homeless people become targeted and are seen to be eliminated from public spaces.

Vagrancy regulations not only blame the homeless for their condition, but it aims to limit their consumption of public spaces. Previous research reveals how anti-homeless laws function to produce various types of punitive interactions that limit homeless people’s access to housing, jobs and services, while impairing their health, safety, and overall well-being (Herring, 2020). These regulations often take the form of move-along orders and citations. While measuring the effects of policing on homeless people, Herring et al. (2020) reveal how often homeless people had been forcibly moved and displaced by city officials. Of the 351 people they surveyed (people who had experienced homelessness in the past year of the study), 70 percent of respondents had experienced move-along orders, over one third had experienced it once a month, and 20 percent experienced it weekly (Herring, 2020). Being homeless in public places positively correlates with more frequent citations and this highlights that vagrancy regulations criminalizes homeless people (Herring, 2020). Homeless survey respondents reported that move-along orders made them more susceptible to personal danger or property loss (Herring, 2020). Things become even more difficult for the homeless if move-along orders are paired with citations since most homeless people cannot afford the fines. At an average price of $150 per fine, survival becomes more challenging especially when trying to save to exit homelessness. Ninety percent of survey respondents reported not paying their most recent citation and are ultimately confronted with more penalties and bureaucratic processes (Herring, 2020). Move-along orders and citations work to displace the homeless by constantly moving them around, worsening deprivation and reproducing homelessness in cycles of seclusion and exclusion. All without properly addressing the root causes of homelessness (Herring, 2020).

In the case of Canada, the current Safe Streets Act targets homelessness without addressing its underlying roots. Ontario’s Safe Streets and Communities Act dictates that soliciting while intoxicated by alcohol or drugs is strictly prohibited. The act also states that no one should dispose of a used condom, syringe (new or used) or a broken glass in any outdoor space (Ontario.ca, 2018). This Act does not consider that homeless people often reside in public outdoor spaces not usually meant for residency and that oftentimes, these people struggle with substance abuse. The act also does not define the word drug and as a result does not consider that many homeless people rely on various substances to cope with their mental illness, even though a large portion of the homeless population are challenged with mental illness (Piat, 2014). The most common fine issued under the Safe Streets Act is related to the “solicitation of a captive audience” (panhandling) in British Columbia and to squeegeeing in Ontario (Chesnay, 2013). While squeegeeing and panhandling are common survival strategies for the poor and homeless, critics have asserted that the Safe Streets Act operates to limit the visibility of homeless people in public spaces (Chesnay, 2013). The relatively lower number of fines issued for threats to public safety due to aggressive solicitation, compared to the relatively high number of fines issued for homeless people’s survival strategies highlights this assertion (Chesnay, 2013). Similar to other countries that have employed vagrancy acts, Toronto appears to employ vagrancy acts for the benefit of increasing its economic performance.

As a global city, Toronto is oriented towards the global economy and actively pursues foreign business investments. Toronto tries to attract foreign investment by presenting itself as the revanchist’s city (Teelucksingh, 2023). Toronto appears tough on crime and appears to provide heavy policing because it wants potential foreign investors to know that it is a safe city for them to do business. Older research has also shown that globalization has significantly contributed to the crisis in homelessness in Canada, and around the world (Piat, 2014) and that intensified policing stems from processes of gentrification (Herring, 2020). In this case, the policing of the homeless. However, this excess policing of the homeless makes the homeless more vulnerable to crime and violence.

Previous research demonstrates that homeless people battle to avoid violence and crime, and struggle to maintain stability, sobriety and wellness (Quirouette, 2016). Homeless people tend to report greater levels of fear of violence than the general public due to the unprotected nature of their daily lives (Sadiki, 2021). Recent research found that 52.9 percent of its homeless respondents had been victimized since becoming homeless, most commonly via theft and physical assault (Sadiki, 2021). It is likely that these numbers do not come close to accurately depicting the rate in which homeless people are victimized since homeless people tend to under-report their experiences (Sadiki, 2021). Homeless people are typically excluded from victims of crime surveys since they do not have a fixed address (Sadiki, 2021). It might also be worth noting that homeless people might not report their suffering since they know they are stigmatized and blamed for their conditions. Homeless people experience more or less crime depending on their location.

The environment and relating factors may influence a homeless person’s level of fear of crime. Sadiki et al.’s research reveals that homeless respondents report feeling most safe during the daytime in public areas (Sadiki, 2021), even while being shunned from these public spaces. The surrounding people in a homeless person’s life may also influence their level of fear of violence. Previous theory suggests that the chances of victimization decreases when a homeless person spends time with family and friends (Sadiki, 2021). It can also be argued that spending time with family and friends at night can serve to protect a homeless person against potential threats (Sadiki, 2021). However, homeless people still face very high amounts of violence, partly due to the narrative they are painted with. Instead of being prioritized, social regulations demonize them and make them more vulnerable to victimization. Furthermore, it is particularly problematic that the services that protect people from crime are the very services that target them.

Homeless people tend to be unwilling to contact the police due to the complex relationship they both share. Sadiki et al. (2021) found that 76 percent of their homeless respondents did not report their experiences of being robbed, and 80 percent did not report their experiences of being assaulted (Sadiki, 2021). Homeless people experience a strained relationship with the police. Sadiki et al. (2021) found that 60 percent of their homeless respondents reported being harassed by police (Sadiki, 2021). Move-along orders and citations not only work to deprive homeless people of the right to take up public space, but they serve to make homeless people more exposed to crime. Homeless people often feel pressured to choose between the threat of contact with the police in a well lit public area or the threat of being assaulted in a less lit, more secluded areas where police patrol less (Herring, 2020). Of the 23 women that Herring et al. interviewed, two reported being sexually assaulted immediately after a move-along order (Herring, 2020). Homeless people report feeling “less safe” and report an increase in violent altercations after move-along orders (Herring, 2020). Public space regulations ultimately work to prevent homeless people from transitioning out of homelessness.

While investigating pathways out of homelessness, Quirouette et al. (2016) highlight multiple factors that are necessary for Canadian youth to disengage from street culture (Quirouette, 2016). These include (but are not limited to) stable housing, income, motivation and social support (Quirouette, 2016). Conflict with the law disrupts these factors and actively serves to create practical barriers for homeless people. While cities continue to issue citations to homeless people as a tactic to limit their consumption of public spaces, research highlights the futility of such fines because of the debt they produce (Quirouette, 2016). The debt produced by unpaid citations can get people jailed and/or it can affect their credit ratings. Credit ratings affect a person’s access to housing and their ability to engage in certain transactions like taking out a phone line. Subsequently, homeless people’s access to stable housing is diminished. Quirouette et al. (2016) wrote that, “housing stability can also be directly jeopardized by even the most minor contacts with the law. The young people in our sample were particularly vulnerable to unlawful evictions and landlord problems because they often lacked legal knowledge and supports” (Quirouette, 2016). Furthermore, not having a phone line for receiving communications from potential employers presents itself as another practical barrier. Criminalizing the homeless has yet more dangerous impacts.

Homeless participants revealed that they were often harassed by law enforcement and that this inturn affected the way they viewed themselves (Quirouette, 2016). Experiencing consistent negative interactions with law enforcement while being stigmatized and shunned by the general public can foster negative self-imagery among homeless individuals. Homeless participants also revealed that they were made to feel alien, undervalued and unworthy of fair treatment and protection (Quirouette, 2016). These feelings cause homeless people to feel unmotivated, discouraged and unable to escape street life (Quirouette, 2016). It becomes evident how homeless people’s disadvantageous circumstances can become legitimized with self sabotaging beliefs and behaviors. Homeless people have also expressed that feelings of respect, love and care were essential for them when coping with the stresses and setbacks that are inherent to exiting homelessness (Quirouette, 2016). However, they are left without these as society shuns homelessness.

The homeless may become more and more isolated as they are shunned from public spaces, adding to cycles of destitution. While examining pathways into homelessness, Piat et al. (2014) found that being homeless isolated individuals from mainstream society (Piat, 2014). The narratives painted about homeless people influence the general public to avoid homeless people and to even be disgusted with them. However, research shows that homeless people who have someone in their lives to provide emotional and material support are better able to acquire stability when trying to leave street life (Quirouette, 2016). Society shunning the homeless from public spaces may also result in the homeless developing a lack of distrust for mainstream society. For example, while exploring the impacts of system avoidance, research has found that homeless people experiencing increased surveillance by authorities tend to develop feelings of resentment towards other systems, including those that provide shelter and healthcare for the poor (Quirouette, 2016). Quirouette et al. (2016) also wrote that “adding to the threat of being unjustly stopped and searched, young people in our sample often resided in neighborhoods that were heavily policed, contributing to the feeling that law is all around them and working against them” (Quirouette, 2016). Homeless people have even pointed out that they would never rely on the police, even in the face of threat and violence (Herring, 2019).

Social regulations have been used to discriminate against the homeless in public spaces for centuries. Statues in Toronto target homeless people by limiting their use of public spaces (via move-along orders and citations), by creating spaces for them to be victimized without protection, and by producing barriers that prevent them from acquiring self motivation, stable housing, employment and social support. These statutes are particularly perverse because they do not eliminate homelessness and instead work to produce and reproduce poverty. These policies work to make the social and economical causes of homelessness vague by blaming its victims for being lazy or immoral (Jackman, 2014). Therefore these policies also serve as a justification for the mistreatment of the poor and the denial of human rights typically granted with citizenship. Social policies should not strip any individual’s human rights away and should instead be revised to allow for compassion and care of societies’ vulnerable groups. Since punitive approaches yield counterproductive results, social policies should instead facilitate the transitioning out of homelessness by developing intervention programs for reintegrating homeless people into safe affordable housing, employment and into the general mainstream society. Social policies should also offer protection to the homeless and focus on fostering trust and other social support.

References

Chesnay, C. T., Bellot, C., & Sylvestre, M.-È. (2013). Taming disorderly people one ticket at a time: The Penalization of Homelessness in Ontario and British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice, 55(2), 161–185. https://doi.org/10.3138/cjccj.2011-e-46

Herring, C., Yarbrough, D., & Marie Alatorre, L. (2020). Pervasive penality: How the criminalization of poverty perpetuates homelessness. Social Problems. https://doi.org/10.1093/socpro/spz004

Jackman, M., & Porter, B. (2014). Challenging discriminatory and punitive responses to homelessness in Canada. Advancing Social Rights in Canada (pp. 155–186). essay, Irwin Law.

Ontario.ca. (2018). Safe Streets Act. Retrieved March 22, 2023, from https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/99s08

Piat, M., Polvere, L., Kirst, M., Voronka, J., Zabkiewicz, D., Plante, M.-C., Isaak, C., Nolin, D., Nelson, G., & Goering, P. (2014). Pathways into homelessness: Understanding how both individual and structural factors contribute to and sustain homelessness in Canada. Urban Studies, 52(13), 2366–2382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014548138

Quirouette, M., Frederick, T., Hughes, J., Karabanow, J., & Kidd, S. (2016). ‘Conflict with the law’: Regulation & homeless youth trajectories toward stability. Canadian Journal of Law and Society / Revue Canadienne Droit Et Société, 31(03), 383–404. https://doi.org/10.1017/cls.2016.26

Sadiki, L., & Steyn, F. (2021). Destitute and vulnerable- fear of crime and victimization among the homeless in urban and rural settings in South Africa. ProQuest, 43(1). https://doi.org/10.35293/srsa.v43i1.367

Teelucksingh, C. (2023) "The Global City Lecture". February 13, 2023. SOC470, Toronto Metropolitan University.=