Tent City Eviction

September 25, 2002

Memo to Michael Shapcott, Toronto Disaster Relief Committee
From Mary Truemner, Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario
Re: Tent City Forced Eviction

Sept. 25, 2002

  As you know, Canada is a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.  In the context of art.11 of that Covenant, which guarantees the right to adequate housing, the United Nations has criticized forced evictions by States Parties.  According to the U.N., such evictions should occur only as a last resort, in consultation with the affected persons, and only when “relocation measures are made.”

General Comment 7 (1997) addresses forced evictions with regard to the right to adequate housing.  General Comment 7 defines forced eviction in such a way as to exclude evictions carried out by force in accordance with the law and in conformity with the provisions of the Covenants on Human Rights.  Although Home Depot is not a state party, and it appears to have evicted lawfully under the Trespass Act, it appears that government did not adequately protect people being evicted, and in fact may have been actively involved. 

The U.N. criticism of forced evictions has focused on mass forced evictions as a gross violation of human rights.  A myriad of infringements may flow from evictions, from violations of the right to be protected against arbitrary or unlawful interference with one’s home, to violations of the rights of the child. 

The U.N. has commented that in view of the increasing trend in some States towards the Government greatly reducing its responsibilities in the housing sector, States Parties must ensure that legislative and other measures are adequate to prevent and even punish forced evictions carried out by private persons or bodies.

Paragraph 17 of General Comment 7 is particularly powerful:

Evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State Party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that adequate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available.

Although the spirit of the U.N. General Comment assists us in assessing what happened yesterday, it would be difficult to hold Home Depot to a standard which legally may only be applied to government.  Therefore, the more we might refer to acts or omissions by the City (or better still the province or Canada), the better. 

I am connecting with people at the Centre for Equality Rights in Accommodation and at the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues here in Canada, and at the Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions and with Habitat International Coalition internationally.  I would like to hear about mass evictions internationally which were assessed by the U.N. Committee monitoring compliance with the Covenant.  I suspect that evicted occupants or squatters were often on private land, and that there was often legal justification such as the Trespass Act.  If I learn of similar evictions in other countries (or Vancouver?) which were included in critical U.N. observations, I will let you know.

I hope that this memo helps you develop your own critique of what happened yesterday.  For your convenience, I have quoted key points in General Comment 7 below, but you may access it in its entirety by searching under “General Comment 7”:

In 1976, the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements noted that special attention should be paid to "undertaking major clearance operations should take place only when conservation and rehabilitation are not feasible and relo­cation measures are made". [1]

The Commission on Human Rights has also indicated that "forced evictions are a gross violation of human rights". [5]

The term "forced evictions" as used throughout this General Comment is defined as the permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protec­tion. The prohibition on forced evictions does not, however, apply to evictions carried out by force in accordance with the law and in conformity with the provisions of the International Covenants on Human Rights.

Moreover, this approach is rein­forced by article 17.1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which complements the right not to be forcefully evicted without adequate protec­tion. That provision recognizes, inter alia, the right to be protected against "arbitrary or unlawful interference" with ones home.

Moreover, in view of the increasing trend in some States towards the     Government greatly reducing its responsibilities in the housing sector, States Parties must ensure that legislative and other measures are adequate to prevent and, if appropriate, punish forced evictions carried out, without appro­priate safeguards, by private persons or bodies.

States Parties shall ensure, prior to carrying out any evictions, and particularly those involving large groups, that all feasible alternatives are explored in consultation with the affected persons, with a view to avoiding, or at least minimizing, the need to use force.

The Committee considers that the procedural protections which should be applied in relation to forced evictions include: (a) an opportunity for genuine consultation with those affected; (b) adequate and reasonable notice for all affected persons prior to the sched­uled date of eviction; (c) information on the proposed evictions, and, where applicable, on the alternative purpose for which the land or housing is to be used, to be made available in reasonable time to all those affected;

Evictions should not result in individuals being rendered homeless or vulnerable to the violation of other human rights. Where those affected are unable to provide for themselves, the State Party must take all appropriate measures, to the maximum of its available resources, to ensure that ade­quate alternative housing, resettlement or access to productive land, as the case may be, is available.

NOTES

[1] . Report of Habitat: United Nations Confer­ence on Human Settlements, Vancouver, 31 May-11 June 1976 (A/CONF.70/15), chap. II,       recommendation B.8, para. C (ii).

[2] . Report of the Commission on Human Set­tlements on the work of its eleventh session, Addendum (A/43/8/Add.1), para. 13.

[3] . Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, 3-14 June 1992, Volume I (A/CONF.151/26/Rev.1 (vol.I)), annex II, Agenda 21, chap. 7.9 (b).

[4] . Report of the United Nations Conference on Settlements (Habitat II) (A/CONF.165/14), annex II, The Habitat Agenda, para. 40 (n).

[5] . Commission on Human Rights resolution 1993/77, para. 1.

[6] . E/1990/23, annex III, paras. 6 and 8 (d).

[7] . E/C.12/1990/8, annex IV.

[8] . Ibid.

copyright information

Back to Tent City