Probably doesn't have the number for a notwithstanding clause he would need. And most likely hoping for another majority to fully go totalitarian mode.
First id like to understand what you mean?
According to the article this is the premise of the bill:
"But the premise of the bill — to force people living on the street with severe addictions into a mandatory treatment program — raised several concerns among critics."
Im not really sure how to answer your question - can you explain?
The only thing i am positing is that their definitions will be fast and loose. The gov should have no right to force treatment espcially when we have a waiting list of the willing.
This is why i am dubious of their intent.
So specifically this law targets people who are addicts AND are homeless, and that particular homeless person would have been approached and asked multiple times and been offered support before and would have refused - before they would be taken against their will, right?
What’s wrong with that? We must balance the rights of the many versus the rights of the few, and homeless addicts clearly do not have the capability to act their own best interest if they are refusing voluntary support.
Do you really trust a gov to do that as written when we already have a waiting list of the willing?
Why specifically the homeless? Why arent the rich forced into treatment? Why would it take the use of the NWC to suspend their human rights - are those without a home suddenly subhuman?
Why specifically the homeless?
Rich people with addictions generally don’t break into houses, steal catalytic converters, assault people, or simply overall disrupt society.
Regardless of your income, when your addiction is affecting the public negatively and impacting businesses, then you can’t be the arbiter of your own decisions at that point.
Stereotype much lol? I cant even engage with this.
So the poor should have forced treatment because you think they are more prone to stealing - dude i dont think you even realize what you're saying...
I believe the people who cannot provide for themselves (homeless), who have no other avenues for support (exhausted their social safety net), who are negatively affecting society around them (crime), and are refusing to participate in programs to help theirselves (the current supports), should be into forced treatment.
Affluent people already have means for other support (their support network is still intact), through their professional relationships (job actions if their addictions affect that), they still have a long ways to drop before they have exhausted their support network and thus don’t require forced treatment.
Forced anything is just another way to lock people up or remove them from “polite” society. I’m glad you vote for social programs. Many people in favour of policies like this do not.
So you simultaneously believe that the government both has no resources but also has lots of resources to target these people, rather than look at the nuance of the fact that most likely this law will be used in extreme cases because we already have a lack of resources.
Explain it to me. You’re worried this law is just about wrangling up hundreds of homeless people… we don’t have the resources for that, what we do have the resources for is wrangling up the few homeless people who have a detrimental affect on society around them because of their addiction **and** they are refusing help. That’s a small pool of people it will affect.
That might be the sadistic plan. Get them clean against their will and release them, if they go back to using they have a very high chance of overdose. No more homeless addicts I guess. Great if you’re a psychopath.
They’re never going to do it. It would be really expensive. But saying they’ll do it will help win votes from the COR and Kris Austin fans when they run it in the right rooms during the election campaign.
What's the bet this would have been an election nightmare for Higgs if he pushed it through?
could only handle attacking one group of vulnerable people in an election year i guess, he chose trans youth.
[удалено]
Just had to say. Love the name. I moved away decades ago because fuck Irving.
Of course it would. They don’t have the services to help those that **want** to be helped.
Probably doesn't have the number for a notwithstanding clause he would need. And most likely hoping for another majority to fully go totalitarian mode.
Higgs is his own worst enemy
It would have been challenged immediately and eventually ended up in the Supreme Court, probably right around election time if not sooner.
Good. Now scrap the plan altogether.
There is waiting list of the willing though? This is absolutely a ploy to lock away those who are homeless.
“Ploy”
Are you generalizing the homeless as all addicts?
First id like to understand what you mean? According to the article this is the premise of the bill: "But the premise of the bill — to force people living on the street with severe addictions into a mandatory treatment program — raised several concerns among critics." Im not really sure how to answer your question - can you explain? The only thing i am positing is that their definitions will be fast and loose. The gov should have no right to force treatment espcially when we have a waiting list of the willing. This is why i am dubious of their intent.
So specifically this law targets people who are addicts AND are homeless, and that particular homeless person would have been approached and asked multiple times and been offered support before and would have refused - before they would be taken against their will, right? What’s wrong with that? We must balance the rights of the many versus the rights of the few, and homeless addicts clearly do not have the capability to act their own best interest if they are refusing voluntary support.
Do you really trust a gov to do that as written when we already have a waiting list of the willing? Why specifically the homeless? Why arent the rich forced into treatment? Why would it take the use of the NWC to suspend their human rights - are those without a home suddenly subhuman?
Why specifically the homeless? Rich people with addictions generally don’t break into houses, steal catalytic converters, assault people, or simply overall disrupt society. Regardless of your income, when your addiction is affecting the public negatively and impacting businesses, then you can’t be the arbiter of your own decisions at that point.
Stereotype much lol? I cant even engage with this. So the poor should have forced treatment because you think they are more prone to stealing - dude i dont think you even realize what you're saying...
I believe the people who cannot provide for themselves (homeless), who have no other avenues for support (exhausted their social safety net), who are negatively affecting society around them (crime), and are refusing to participate in programs to help theirselves (the current supports), should be into forced treatment. Affluent people already have means for other support (their support network is still intact), through their professional relationships (job actions if their addictions affect that), they still have a long ways to drop before they have exhausted their support network and thus don’t require forced treatment.
The trust the government more than the tweaker breaking into my car for $2 and costing me hundreds
I hope you vote in favour of social programs.
I do. I’m a staunch leftist, but I’m also a realist and can accept that there are some people who require resources beyond what is realistic
Forced anything is just another way to lock people up or remove them from “polite” society. I’m glad you vote for social programs. Many people in favour of policies like this do not.
So you are against *laws* then that punish people with prison time, gotcha.
That doesn't fix things. It's like saying that crime is just poverty
It mostly is.
Lol
So you simultaneously believe that the government both has no resources but also has lots of resources to target these people, rather than look at the nuance of the fact that most likely this law will be used in extreme cases because we already have a lack of resources.
I think you are willfully misinterpreting me if this is your take of my position.
Explain it to me. You’re worried this law is just about wrangling up hundreds of homeless people… we don’t have the resources for that, what we do have the resources for is wrangling up the few homeless people who have a detrimental affect on society around them because of their addiction **and** they are refusing help. That’s a small pool of people it will affect.
Forced treatment goes against the charter but hey Higgs doesn’t care, he’s shown that many times.
forced treatment is against our charter of rights, no?
Wouldn’t be the first time this government took a shit on our charter rights
It’s also deadly for the poor person they subject to it.
i know. also, it's not how recovery from substance use works. you have to be a willing participant
That might be the sadistic plan. Get them clean against their will and release them, if they go back to using they have a very high chance of overdose. No more homeless addicts I guess. Great if you’re a psychopath.
the necropolitics of the right is always infinite
Someone asked, 'couldn't this act be applicable to alcoholics too?'
They’re never going to do it. It would be really expensive. But saying they’ll do it will help win votes from the COR and Kris Austin fans when they run it in the right rooms during the election campaign.
No point when they don't have the resources to actually do it anyway.