The Squatting Network of Brighton respond to the possible criminalisation of squatting, to be discussed in Parliament on the coming Monday. We're angry and obviously concerned that the government have sneaked this clause into an unrelated bill, and hence wish to inform the masses of this potentially enormous miscarriage of justice. Excuse our formal language but it is our press release!
S.N.O.B. Statement regarding Clarke’s anti-squatting amendment to the Legal Aid Bill
It has been kept noticeably quiet that the government are attempting to pass a bill this coming Monday which will criminalise homelessness and the vulnerably housed by making squatting in the majority of empty buildings a “criminal offence”. In a process which has bypassed democratic process, they are trying to amend the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill by hiding this clause in an unrelated bill, without allowing any meaningful public debate on the specific proposal. Findings in a recent public consultation on the issue of squatting showed that the vast majority of people were concerned about the negative impacts that criminalizing squatting would have, far from wanting any change in legislation, and this underhand push completely ignores these findings.
The current laws mean that thousands of otherwise homeless people around the country have somewhere to live, however temporary. Despite common misconceptions, often propagated in the media, criminal law already protects home-owners and tenants from people occupying any buildings where people live or intend to live. Thus, property owners are already protected by existing laws from the threat of, for example, people entering their homes while they are on holiday, yet stories of such rare unfortunate occurrences are presented in the media as if this is commonplace and goes unchallenged. The proposed amendment to the Legal Aid bill is clearly not just intended for application in these situations and has implications that go far beyond.
People who squat are looking for shelter and a home, not a criminal record. They are careful to do so in a manner which makes use of unused buildings which have been kept empty for long periods of time, often protecting them from disrepair. Displacing other people from their homes is contradictory to the idea that housing is a basic human right for everyone. Squatted buildings have also been used for community projects, art exhibitions, free libraries and free shops, as well as anti-gentrification campaigns and many other positive community-involving examples. This move by the government is targeted at criminalizing all of this and people's bare survival, further increasing the problems of mass homelessness, streets full of empty properties, and the associated loss of community.
It is vital to note that many people who live in squatted buildings are among the most vulnerable in our society, forced into homelessness by rising house prices, economic uncertainty, and fewer jobs; this proposed act would seriously affect thousands of people, forcing many of them onto the streets, into overflowing prisons, or into an already overstretched housing benefit system.
The current climate of unjust and unnecessary public cuts mostly effects the poorest and most marginalised in our society. Such attacks include cuts to housing benefit, limits on security of tenure in council housing and extension of Thatcher’s “right to buy” policies. Other government cuts and the increasing levels of unemployment are forcing many people across the country into poverty and consequently homelessness.
The government, police and the press try to associate squatting with criminal activity, mindless anti-social behaviour, and “immigrants”, in order to drive a wedge between people who squat and the rest of the society. Such slurs and misinformation must be rejected as they have no place in a democratic society. Criminal behaviour is no more likely to occur in squats than in any other form of housing. The contribution of the squatting movement throughout history has played a significant role in the struggle for better living conditions for the working class as a whole, and has a positive role to play in the future; unfortunately, however positive squatting stories are largely overlooked in the media.
S.N.O.B calls on everybody to consider the rights of people to housing above the greed of property owners and speculators. There are more empty buildings in this country than there are homeless people, and S.N.O.B believes that it is disgraceful that people should be forced to live rough or in hostels when there are so many empty buildings which could be used for housing, but are left rotting. We believe that this amendment should be critically challenged, and the full impacts considered. It is essential that we raise as much awareness as possible about this amendment whilst the government tries to force this bill through quickly and quietly to avoid public debate.
We therefore call upon everyone from all walks of life, including human rights groups, trades unions, students, anti-cuts groups and everyone affected by the recession and austerity measures, to actively oppose the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill.
Housing should be a right, not a privilege.
Squatters Network of Brighton (and Hove actually)
It has been kept noticeably quiet that the government are attempting to pass a bill this coming Monday which will criminalise homelessness and the vulnerably housed by making squatting in the majority of empty buildings a “criminal offence”. In a process which has bypassed democratic process, they are trying to amend the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill by hiding this clause in an unrelated bill, without allowing any meaningful public debate on the specific proposal. Findings in a recent public consultation on the issue of squatting showed that the vast majority of people were concerned about the negative impacts that criminalizing squatting would have, far from wanting any change in legislation, and this underhand push completely ignores these findings.
The current laws mean that thousands of otherwise homeless people around the country have somewhere to live, however temporary. Despite common misconceptions, often propagated in the media, criminal law already protects home-owners and tenants from people occupying any buildings where people live or intend to live. Thus, property owners are already protected by existing laws from the threat of, for example, people entering their homes while they are on holiday, yet stories of such rare unfortunate occurrences are presented in the media as if this is commonplace and goes unchallenged. The proposed amendment to the Legal Aid bill is clearly not just intended for application in these situations and has implications that go far beyond.
People who squat are looking for shelter and a home, not a criminal record. They are careful to do so in a manner which makes use of unused buildings which have been kept empty for long periods of time, often protecting them from disrepair. Displacing other people from their homes is contradictory to the idea that housing is a basic human right for everyone. Squatted buildings have also been used for community projects, art exhibitions, free libraries and free shops, as well as anti-gentrification campaigns and many other positive community-involving examples. This move by the government is targeted at criminalizing all of this and people's bare survival, further increasing the problems of mass homelessness, streets full of empty properties, and the associated loss of community.
It is vital to note that many people who live in squatted buildings are among the most vulnerable in our society, forced into homelessness by rising house prices, economic uncertainty, and fewer jobs; this proposed act would seriously affect thousands of people, forcing many of them onto the streets, into overflowing prisons, or into an already overstretched housing benefit system.
The current climate of unjust and unnecessary public cuts mostly effects the poorest and most marginalised in our society. Such attacks include cuts to housing benefit, limits on security of tenure in council housing and extension of Thatcher’s “right to buy” policies. Other government cuts and the increasing levels of unemployment are forcing many people across the country into poverty and consequently homelessness.
The government, police and the press try to associate squatting with criminal activity, mindless anti-social behaviour, and “immigrants”, in order to drive a wedge between people who squat and the rest of the society. Such slurs and misinformation must be rejected as they have no place in a democratic society. Criminal behaviour is no more likely to occur in squats than in any other form of housing. The contribution of the squatting movement throughout history has played a significant role in the struggle for better living conditions for the working class as a whole, and has a positive role to play in the future; unfortunately, however positive squatting stories are largely overlooked in the media.
S.N.O.B calls on everybody to consider the rights of people to housing above the greed of property owners and speculators. There are more empty buildings in this country than there are homeless people, and S.N.O.B believes that it is disgraceful that people should be forced to live rough or in hostels when there are so many empty buildings which could be used for housing, but are left rotting. We believe that this amendment should be critically challenged, and the full impacts considered. It is essential that we raise as much awareness as possible about this amendment whilst the government tries to force this bill through quickly and quietly to avoid public debate.
We therefore call upon everyone from all walks of life, including human rights groups, trades unions, students, anti-cuts groups and everyone affected by the recession and austerity measures, to actively oppose the Legal Aid and Sentencing Bill.
Housing should be a right, not a privilege.
Squatters Network of Brighton (and Hove actually)
e-mail:
Comments
Hide the following 2 comments
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966
28.10.2011 03:54
Article 11
1. The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.
Furthermore, going backwards in time, a large part of the population were either farm labourers or household servants.
They did not own the space they lived in - but their right to shelter and space as such was not questioned.
Nowadays, when people pass 18 years of age, they enter a juridical vacuum.
They are usually not candidates for buying property, and property owners have never been more than a fraction of the population.
Real estate dealers and land speculators try to prevent cooperative forms of shelter from operating - though they are the only ones which can solve the problem.
grapevine
You meant an "entitlement"?
28.10.2011 11:51
Look -- from just a "right" you can perhaps get to SOMEBODY whould provide Z to Y. But you are using more than just that right when you attempt to "pin" that obligation on anybody in particular.
The greedy landlord? Perhaps. But you really need to see that it wasn't the homeless person's right alone taat allowed you to conclude this. You had to be using something along the lines of "more the obligation of somebody better able to support the obligation than myself" (why aren't YOU sharing your domicile with this homeless? Why isn't it YOUR obligation?)
Understand what I am saying here. I am NOT saying that you are wrong in conclusion but that you are taking as true (perhaps justified) things that you are neglecting to claim you are using. Things beyond this person't rights.
MDN