Saturday, May 26, 2012Mostly Cloudy 17°C
City

Squeegee Kids Get No Quarter

Posted by Ryan L. / January 17, 2007

squeegee2.jpg
The Ontario Court of Appeal has upheld the law banning squeegee-kids from panhandling on the streets of the province.

The court argued that while the law itself violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (a violation of Freedom of Expression), the law continues to have a positive effect on the promotion of safer streets.

The law itself has been in effect in Ontario since 2000, enacted by then Premier Mike Harris, and heavily supported by Toronto Mayor Mel Lastman.

Since then, similar laws have been passed in many provinces in Canada.

But what of the Charter? From the article in the Toronto Star, the ruling construed the Charter to "extended to those groups on the basis of personal characteristics, such as race, sex, ethnic origin, or age". Squeegee kids are not identified by their personal characteristics, but the activity they are engaged in.

Is this a proper interpretation of our rights and freedoms, or a cop out by a panel of judges unwilling to change a law that may anger business owners and city officials?

The Charter itself is meant to defend citizens from a tyranny of the majority. The spirit of the Charter is to act as the codified defense of the individual, regardless of "personal characteristics". I for one think the Charter helps to force people to look beyond personal characteristics, and treat everyone fairly.

The ruling continues to raise questions. Is a law that targets the poor discrimination? Is squeegee-ing a form of expression? Are our streets any safer without squeegee kids?

Discussion

8 Comments

Hamish / January 17, 2007 at 09:11 am
user-pic
The Charter protects the freedoms our society has agreed upon, but it doesn't guarantee them against reasonable restrictions. Courts are meant to find balance between competing viewpoints. Here, the court upheld society's interest in encouraging the safety (it is essentially a form of playing in traffic) of street youth while also encouraging them to find work elsewhere, and it saves drivers from a hassle they never asked for. Squeegeeing is reckless opportunism. The roads are for traffic, not commerce.
brokenengine / January 17, 2007 at 11:47 am
user-pic
I see both points, but I have to lean towards Barry's POV. It may not be a service that was asked for, but at least Squeegee kids try and DO something for the change they ask for. And I have never EVER felt threatened by one when I didn't pony up the dough. The same can't be said for some pan-handlers.
Mike Jones / January 17, 2007 at 12:29 pm
user-pic
Anything that bugs car/SUV drivers is OK with me.
Barry Rueger / January 17, 2007 at 02:30 pm
user-pic
Of course it should go without saying that if our welfare system simply provided all who need it with a decent income there would be no need for either beggars or squeegee kids.
roz / January 18, 2007 at 08:48 am
user-pic
Barry,
You're so right! Why can't Canada develop a social safety net for these poor kids. It's like Africa or India on the streets here hopeless children scrounging for sustenance -- more like a heartless, right-wing oligarchy. I guess it's up to the private sector to step up and support these jobless wretches. Perhaps they could utilize this skill set at car washes or cleaning windows? Maybe Ottawa could set up special free bank machines for these penniless pubescents?
Grenwolde / January 18, 2007 at 12:25 pm
user-pic
To help everyone understand the charter you may want to check out:

www.charterofrights.ca

it explains the history, what it says, what it means and provides relevant legal cases.
Hamish / January 19, 2007 at 10:14 am
user-pic
Barry, if our social safety net 'provided all who need it with a decent income,' we'd end up with a class of people living on the dole permanently. There's no perfect way to do social assistance - find me a country where it really works - but the government simply can't provide an alternative to gainful employment. There has to be a compelling reason to not stay on the dole and get one's life back together. It's tough for the people on it but they're -supposed- to be motivated to look for work, use our employment centres, etc...

The problem with squeegee kids (to address the 'at least they're providing a service' argument) is that they often don't give people a choice, they use dirty water that makes your windshield worse than it was before, and really, we all have functioning windshield wipers in our cars so what exactly was the service they're providing again? Service stations have to deal with kids stealing their fluid and squeegees, too.
tom ireland / January 23, 2007 at 11:40 pm
user-pic
This Roz person is a douche bag. you call them "jobless wretches" and "penniless pubescents". have you ever actually met any of these kids? or stopped to say something to even one of them, other than "get a job"or some other condecending comment? regardless of your opinion a lot of squeegee kids are good people. at least they're providing some sort of service, and they dont force payment. they're also mostly pretty pleasent towards people whos cars they squeegee. you dont care that they're decent people who actually provide a service in some way, you only care that they are an inconvenice to you.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: VancouverMontreal