The Criminalization of Poverty: Montréal's Policy of Ticketing Homeless Youth for Municipal and Transportation By-Law Infractions
Author | Justin Douglas |
Pages | 49-64 |
ARTICLE
THE CRIMINALIZATION OF POVERTY:
MONTRÉAL’S POLICY OF TICKETING
HOMELESS YOUTH FOR MUNICIPAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BY-LAW INFRACTIONS
By Justin Douglas*
CITED: (2011) 16 Appeal 49-64
“If, in the case of racial proling, skin colour is the element that triggers
police intervention, in the case of social proling, the trigger is the visi-
ble signs of poverty or marginality. e stigmatization of the homeless in
the Police Service of Montréal [Service de police de la Ville de Montréal
(SPVM)] standards and policies as well as the ensuing police proling,
undermines the rights of the individuals concerned to the safeguard of
their dignity without discrimination based on social status.”
I. INTRODUCTION
As a student in the Faculty of Law at McGill during the summer of , I was fortunate
enough to do a -hour legal information placement with Dans larue (DLR).
Dans la rue
was started in by Father Emmett Johns, who held a strong conviction that young peo-
ple in unfortunate life circumstances were deserving of help, respect and compassion. With
the support of countless others who have shared his philosophy and philanthropy,
Dans la
rue
has become Canada’s second largest provider of services to street and at-risk youth.
Legal information forms only a small segment of the services oered at DLR, and my role
in providing legal information to their clientele was not limited to looking up legal facts. e
hands-on experience of working with these youth and learning their life stories changed
the way I now perceive homelessness and the people who are aected by poverty in Canada,
APPEAL VOLUME 16 w49
* Justin Douglas in a 4th year student in the faculty of law at McGill University. He completed his undergraduate
degree in political science at the University of Victoria in 2005. This piece would not have been possible without
the support of Dans la rue, Professors Angela Campbell and Kirsten Anker, Eva Warden as well as my mother,
Tara. Thanks to all of you!
1. Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse (Québec Human Rights Commission), News
Release, “The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse Speaks Out Against the Social
Profiling of the Homeless in Montreal” (10 November 2009), online: intraspec.ca .
and in Montréal in particular. Despite the plethora of issues I encountered during my time
at DLR, the reoccurring theme that emerged from almost all of my interactions with these
young people is how the current legal system is overburdening the homeless poor and is
placing already vulnerable members of our society into further turmoil.
While there are many examples of how the system works to keep the disadvantaged op-
pressed, the most frequent example I found during my placement was the ticketing of street
youth for statutory and by-law oences, such as panhandling, jaywalking, squeegeeing,
sleeping in a park, or creating public disturbances. As the legal information intern, I would
spend a lot of my time verifying outstanding nes and contestations, annulling writ of
seizures and working with DLR, the City of Montréal and the YM-YWCA’s Compensatory
Work Program to create payment work plans. Navigating the bureaucratic framework to
nd the appropriate legal information was easy enough, but I found that simply dealing
with the monetary amounts owed to the City of Montréal did nothing to explain why street
youth were consistently receiving tickets for violating Montréal by-laws, nor did it address
the repercussions of those tickets.
Although there are countless reasons why young people might end up homeless, more
oen than not they have le situations of abuse or neglect with very limited resources, only
to nd themselves confronting substance abuse, depression, mental disturbances and basic
survival issues on the street. But, as I soon discovered, as well as facing social marginal-
ization and prejudice, and equipped with poor life and advocacy skills, their diculty is
compounded by the fact that they are oen targeted and ticketed by law enforcement o-
cials precisely for being poor and problematic. I found that it is not uncommon for home-
less young people to have , to , worth of tickets.
In this article, I argue that Montréal’s current statutory laws and general attitude of law en-
forcement towards street youth create what I refer to as the “criminalization of poverty.”
is targeting of homeless youth, which victimizes and marginalizes an already disadvan-
taged segment of the population, places nancial burdens upon them that negatively impacts
life opportunities, including credit, work and educational options, and adds unnecessary
stress to an already stressful situation. It is a given that it is the function of the law to regu-
late society, but I would also suggest that the legal system has a responsibility to protect
those who are vulnerable in our society. In this case, it seems that the laws and their meth-
ods of enforcement exist to serve the interests of the nancial elite and not the general pub-
lic good. Both the law and societal attitudes need to be changed in order to more adequately
address the causes and solutions to homeless youth ticketing. ese homeless youth need
more compassionate and alternative social, nancial and compensational options.
In addressing these issues, I look at the problem of homelessness in Montréal, and in
Canada generally. I identify the inuences that have determined the policies which have
shaped Montréal’s by-laws and attitudes towards homeless youth, including the zero-tol-
erance approach adopted by the City. I contrast this approach with Canada’s and Québec’s
stated
Rights and Freedoms
; demonstrate how youth are targeted and discriminated against
through the current laws and the methods of enforcement; and explore how the Courts
deal with issues of nes and imprisonment. I conclude by critiquing the current system
and suggesting both social and legal alternatives, drawing on examples from both B.C.
and Ontario.
50 wAPPEAL VOLUME 16
To continue reading
Request your trial