LETTER: Unhoused people are constituents

I was upset by MP Marcus Powlowski's November 15 editorial.

Mr. Powlowski, you seem to think that unhoused people and your constituents are separate groups of people. The unhoused citizens of thunder bay are your constituents, whether or not they voted for you, and are equal to housed people under the law. There is no reasonable basis to consider unhoused people relatively more dangerous to housed people than vice-versa.

Your editorial posits that unhoused people are dangerous because they might have mental illnesses. That statement is dubious. Research shows that people with mental illnesses are not more likely to commit crimes than those without, and that most violent crimes are committed by people without mental illnesses. People will commit crimes if they are criminals, it has nothing to do with mental illness.

The Canadian Human Rights Act protects Canadians from discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. Therefore, stating that people with mental illnesses are 'dangerous' to others is an act of illegal discrimination that infringes on this right.

When someone publishes an op-ed and makes discriminatory statements towards one of these protected groups to deligitimize them in the eyes of the public, they are coming close to fulfilling the conditions for hate speech described in the Canadian Criminal Code.

In your editorial, you compare the human rights of your unhoused constituents with a right to own firearms, and argue that their right to be free of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act must be prevented from impinging on the rights of others, saying that people have a right to avoid seeing unhoused people in their neighborhoods that must to be considered. This is untrue; no such right to avoid seeing homeless people exists. By extension, you seem to claim that freedom from discrimination based on mental illness presents a danger to others, as if it were a firearm. You recognize that no right to property exists, but insist that we should conduct ourselves as if one existed, lest it be unfair to business owners. But it will be truly unfair to business owners if the temporary housing conditions are prevented and unhoused people continue to face material barriers to shopping and working at their businesses.

If I were an MP, I would use my privilege and influence to present my alternative views on human and property rights to my peers in the legislature. Should they be written into law, this would enable me to write opinion pieces that reference the legal rights of my constituents in favour of imaginary ones.

You imply that the overrepresentation of mentally ill people among unhoused people is a sound basis for your assumption that they are dangerous. I am appalled that someone who is both an MP and a doctor would perniciously violate the rights of Canadians to be free of discrimination on the basis of disability. The clear argument you have made for mental illness as a basis to undermine the city's temporary housing plan verges on hate speech against a group of people that might otherwise have been your patients. What are your values?

Housing and enfranchising unhoused people so they can amicably participate in labour, commercial and civic life is an economic opportunity, not a problem. Your inability to suggest even conceptual solutions demonstrates an abject lack of vision and leadership.

Ken Stadey