I invited him inside but he told me to come to his vehicle.
He asked me what was going on?
I showed the cop this picture and told him the whole story.
He told me that there’s nothing the Police Force can do about this situation.
I quickly asked a Friend of mine to be a witness.
He went on to tell me that this is a civil case and not a criminal case.
I continued to say - You mean if there’s 4 white guys in the house and one black or Native guy.
The visible minority is denied to use the Shower? There’s nothing the Police can do???
He continued by telling me that I was correct!
I told my friend that this is like the Rosa Park accident. The black woman who refuse to go to the back of the bus!
I continued by saying that the Cops support this?
He quickly said- Charles??? I never said that!
He knew of me from the protest in front of the Legislature. He works in there as a police officer once the Legislature is in session.
Anyway, He told me - Charles I know you don’t like the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission but you should go there.
I said - HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION??? YOU NUTS????
He also suggested a lawyer? I told the cop - If you will in a place like this?
How the hell can a person who lives in a boarding room afford a lawyer?
He suggested Legal Aid?
He told me that people who lives in these houses don’t complain because they will be kicked out.
He continued - I have been in the Police Forces for 14 years and I come across these cases all the time.
On one occasion, a man was told to get out in 7 days and there’s nothing the guy could do.
What I found interesting is when he first mentioned the Rentalman!
I reminded the cop that boarders or roomers have no right under the Rentalman act!
I told the guy that the rentalman told me that if a person is evicted he must give a proper notice of eviction.
If the tenant pays by the month? He will be served once the rent is paid. If he pays by the week? He will be served once the tenant pays the rent and will be
told to leave in a week!
The rentalman told me that if I had any problems? I should call the police.
The Cop told me that the rentalman have totally wrong!
I can be told to leave in one week and there’s nothing I can do about it!
He was friendly and he sympathies with my problem but there’s nothing that can be done!!!
So? First I lost my eye glasses and now this!
No one is allowed to take a shower but this guy can because he lives inside the door.
So? I’m not allowed to take a shower.
I have been taken a shower since I live here < over one year > but because I complain and the fire Marshall came in the building and ordered the former homeless guy to leave the door open?
I’m not allowed to take my daily shower and I can legally evicted and there’s nothing I can do about it!!!
I wanted to move anyway and this will do it but not without a good fight!
This has nothing to do with me! I always taught of others. The question is this? What the hell is going on in the rest of the Province?
That’s the emotional question?
Stay tune for more action!!! There's always something going on with my life!!!!
18 comments:
I think that this going a bit too far when someone denies the right of a person to keep themselves clean. No person has the right to stop any person from taking a shower or to keep themselves clean from germs and disese, that is why there is so much disease in the world especially in the underdeveloped nations of the world. it is because the water is full of contamination and disease. However, in Canada we have clean water and so we or, any person who lives in this Country or NorthAmerica for that matter, has the absolute right to clean themselves, because if we don't disese would run wild and many people would either ill or, even die from pandemic of sickness. "REMEMBER", EVEN INMATES INSIDE OUR COUNTRY'S ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE SHOWERS AND KEEP THEMSELVES CLEAN AND WELL GROOMED".
BY THE WAY, THE ONLY REASON I THINK THAT THE POLICE DO NOT WANT TO DO ANYTHING, IS BECAUSE THERE IS TOO MUCH PAPER WORK, AND NOTHING USUALLY COMES OUT OF IT.
i agree 100%with you i have a friend that was living in a rooming house payed her months rent the day after the house was condemmed they had 8hours to moved out with no money and no wheres to go since everyone had payed there rent for the monththe landlord kept the money rentalsmen said there nothing they can do now this landlord new he was gonna shut down due to health problems,like rats ext
A fire hazard is a fire hazard which means that the fire department has an OBLIGATION to correct the situation, with police assistance if necessary.
In Ontario where homeless people protested government inactivity with 'squats', the fire department was routinely used to get them out of abandoned buildings. This is because if the owners can't be found,the police can't legally remove them. So police would call in the fire marshal who would tell them they had to leave because of fire hazards and the police could move in and remove them if they didn't obey fire codes.
If this were a business it would be given a fine and a warning and would be required to correct it immediately.
CHARLES, CALL THE POLICE AGAIN AND PRINT THIS OFF AND GIVE IT TO THEM OR ELSE SHOW IT TO THEM. THIS IS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TENANCIES ACT.
Chapter R. 10.2
Section:
3(1) A landlord
(a) shall deliver the premises to the tenant in a good state of repair and fit for habitation;
(b) shall maintain the premises in a good state of repair and fit for habitation;
(b.1) shall deliver to the tenant and maintain in a good state of repair any chattels provided therein by the landlord;
(c) shall comply with all health, safety, housing and building standards and any other legal requirement respecting the premises; and
(d) shall keep all common areas in a clean and safe condition.
3(2) Subsection (1) applies whether any state of non-repair or unfitness for habitation existed to the knowledge of the tenant before the tenancy agreement was entered into or arose thereafter.
3.1 A landlord or his agent or representative shall not
(a) deliberately interfere with the supply of heat, water or electric power services to the premises except in an emergency or where it is necessary to enable maintenance or repairs to be carried out, or
(b) deliberately do anything that would render the premises unfit for habitation.
1999, c.3, s.2.
AS FOR THE POLICE, SHOW THEM THIS-ALSO FROM THE ACT:
1(2) The Minister of Justice shall administer this Act.
1983, c.82, s.1; 1989, c.61, s.1; 1993, c.23, s.1; 1996, c.18, s.10; 1997, c.13, s.1; 1999, c.3, s.1.
As servants of the Minister of Justice, the police MUST act.
Now, if they still refuse (all they have to do is tell the guy to remove the outside lock), then read to them the following:
OATH OF OFFICE/CANADA/PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK
I, , do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Her Heirs and Successors, in the office of police officer for the Province of New Brunswick without favour or affection, malice or illwill and that I will to the best of my power cause the peace to be kept and preserved and will prevent all offences against the persons and property of Her Majesty’s subjects and against all the laws enforceable in the Province of New Brunswick and that while I continue to hold this office, I will to the best of my skill, ability and knowledge discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to the law. So help me God."
This is the oath they took, notice the words "without favour or affection". Which means THEY INDIVIDUALLY can be held culpable for not acting as representatives of the Minister of Justice.
Print off this whole message and print it out for them if you can.
Good stuff 10:44. This goes to tell you that what is in the books and what is the reality. Minister of Justice can brag that they have such a great legislation to protect the citizens when it comes to debates in the legislature but someone should remind him of the real world out there. It is a sad situation that poor have no rights. Only the very rich do. Justice is bought and sold like any other commodity in the market place.
True, but it happens primarily because those at the bottom rung often can't, or won't do anything about it. It's hard to tell others what to do, but if the individual police officer won't act after showing them their responsibilities then I would inform them that I have no choice but to launch a lawsuit against them personally and the city police. This isn't easy to do in New Brunswick, but it is possible and I'm researching how to go about it. THe real point is, PUBLIC PRESSURE is the only thing that gets these people to act-and the fredericton police already have an image problem.
If nobody knows, then the bureaucracy continues. Why I mention about the individual police officer is because in their mind they now have to make a choice: "Do I deal with a potential lawsuit, a note on my record, complaints lodged against me, the force dragged into this, or do I tell this little pissant if he locks the bathroom door again I'll bust his head"
If I was a cop I know which of the two I would choose. I suspect just asking for the police officer's name would result in some action. But if you accept what's handed to you, nothing changes (I know, I know, easy for me to say).
There's no crime involved.
Publicity is a good start. As an outsider it is easy to say there is no crime. When you are the victim and in the same situation then you will change your mind real fast and stand on the top of the city hall and cry out to the whole world that there is a crime.
Human Rights Commission in NB is very ineffective outfit. If dismantled no one will miss it other than provincial government and other violators of human rights.
Um, 6:25, are you trying to suggest crime is defined by the feelings of the victims and not objectively, by law? When I said earlier there's no crime disclosed here, I meant that legally, there is no criminal offence that matches Charles' complaint.
The fact is, I sympathize with Charles. He's being treated like dirt. But the facts he has described do not constitute a criminal offence, nor are they discrimination. The right approach is the one he was taking a few weeks ago: political. Draw attention to the fact that there's a disgraceful gap in the law. Roomers ought to have some legally enforceable rights as against their landlords. Right now they do not, and that's a disgrace.
Crime part I cannot argue and may be you are right. Poverty is one of the basis for discrimination in the Human Rights Act now. I believe it is discimination based on poverty by the landlord. To prove it of course is a different story especially when we have a weak Human Rights Commission.
Political and publicity route is right one. When HRC does nothing Charles can always go to Ombudsman as a last resort.
The saddest part is that we have a very non-compassionate government under B.Lord.
Nobody SAID there was a crime involved, what was said was that the actions of the landlord contravene the "Residential Tenancies Act" (which ISN"T part of the criminal code).
The Act clearly states that enforcement of the Act will be done by the Minister of Justice. Police officers work for the Minister of Justice.
This means that in a court case THEY would have to argue that this duty is beyond the ability of the Peace Officer and must be done through some other branch of the Minister of Justice such as a prosecutor. Clearly telling somebody to unlock a door is NOT too great a task for a peace officer.
These are not 'crimes', but they are Acts of the Province, which are enforced by the courts just as much as 'crimes' are. As the above poster mentioned, if you live in a society where the state only enforces SOME of it's own acts, you no longer live in a legal society. In such a case, of course, anything is permissible because there is no rule of law anymore.
However, these things occur the world over often for the same reasons, because 'the people' don't know their rights or do not act to enforce their rights. A police officer is no lawyer, they know very few laws and even fewer Acts of the Legislature. It is up to the people to stand up.
This is how I would suggest to take it to the Human Rights Commission, because clearly if the province is choosing to enforce only SOME of it's own laws (and not the Residential Tenancies Act), then this is THE VERY DEFINITION OF DISCRIMINATION.
To certain extent it is a crime. If a husband or wife abuse their spouse in this manner police does step in. Marriage is a contract and so is this, a contract. Landord took money to provide certain services, he is abusing his tenants now by not providing those services. I do not know criminal law and have not reviewd it lately but does that not constitute a crime to abuse fellow human beings in this manner.
Criminal code is different than contract law. A husband abusing a wife is not a contract-it is a criminal act-assault. This is why police don't need the woman's permission to charge the offender, however, if there are no other witnesses then she can refuse to charge her husband (by simply stating he didn't do it).
Crimes are determined under the criminal code of canada, this is a New Brunswick Act of Legislation. Acts of the legislature cannot change the criminal code of canada (federal legislation). If you assault a person anywhere in canada you are charged with assault.
Acts of the provincial legislature are not the criminal code. When you speed you are not called a 'criminal', you have just infringed the motor vehicle act of the province. However, as stated above, if an act is broken by somebody, and the act states that the minister of justice will enforce it-if he DOESN"T enforce it, the province is refusing to follow it's own laws and this can be taken to court, or human rights, or supreme court. It's like if one day police decided not to charge speeders. If nobody bothers, or refuses to act out of fear or whatever, governments will continue to only enforce the laws which serve their interests or those of their 'preferred clientele'-namely landlords rather than tenants.
I know there is a group in Fredericton that deals with such court cases, I think the guy's name has even been mentioned by charles, but I can't remember their name.
I suppose what landlord is doing is 'criminal' but not in the strictest sense of the criminal code. There is a very little protection if you do not have money and resource to buy justice.
Usually governments set precedents on fairness and justice. In our case we have a provincial government which is a serious problem. Any student of government or politics with some reasonable knowledge and objectivity will tell you that. Bernard Lord does not know he is coming or going and then he speaks from both sides of his mouth as it is evident in case of numerous issues including LNG.
If a spouse abuses his/her spouse then it is a crime but if a person abuses another person because he has a control of a sort then it is not a crime.
In this case landlord. If someone takes money out of your vallet then it is a crime but if a landlord does it then it is not. That is a strange law. Taking money and not providing services promised amounts to stealing money.
4:18: if a persons assaults another person, that's a crime. Spouses have nothing to do with it, neither do landlords and tenants. One person assaults another = a crime (assault).
One person steals money from another = a crime (theft).
One person is mean to another = not a crime.
One person breaks his word to another = not a crime.
One person gives another a bad deal = not a crime.
Maybe these things SHOULD be crimes, but they are not.
Do you not understand this, or are you just being contrary?
I think the point made is about 'injustice' not about 'crime'. You pay taxes for things you never use, yet you can't refuse to pay taxes, the government FORCES you to pay it. That kind of thing.
In case many haven't heard, the Norwegian company which owns the mill in Miramichi is being investigated for being part of a 'paper cartel', in other words, 'price fixing'. Now, if they are doing it in other places, what are the bets they do it here? What are also the bets that the other four companies+ Irving are also involved. Price fixing of course is a form of theft-we pay too much for paper because suppliers collude with one another to make the price arbitrarily high.
That's just an example, there are lots of others. Banks have been doing it for years, yet there is NOBODY to investigate them. A good analogy is a story I once heard about Caesar, who caught a group of pirates in the Mediteranean Sea, one pirate said that he was a 'small criminal' while Caesar was a 'big criminal' who had the power to enforce 'his' law. There are no end to examples like that in Canada as well. The rich always have the law on their side.
I am not being contrary. Just find it hard to believe. Not letting a person take shower is an abuse same way as a husband would abuse his wife in this manner. In both cases at least two individuals are involved and one is divving out the abuse. However, as said before justice is bought and sold like any other commoditiy.
There is no such thing as justice for all. If you have money you can buy it.
Post a Comment