GoCanucks16

Apparently it is really tricky. Found this:

Accidentally put this in White Noise. If a mod could move it to off-topic I'd be happy.

s. 173(1) is of course governed by/pursuant to the definition of "public place" outlined in s. 150, which is as follows: I have already determined through research that "access" in this context means physical and not merely visual access, or at least I am reasonably sure of this. Now, clearly a private vehicle is not somewhere the general public has access to by right nor invitation. But I am curious if there's a weird twist of logic somewhere that considers vehicles in public places to be public places themselves despite this not being readily apparent in a strict reading of the law. s. 213(2), as we all know, defines "public place" for a separate offence. I have quoted this definition immediately below: This is probably trickier than is at first apparent. But if a motor vehicle located in a public place is expressly defined as meeting the definition of a "public place" in this section of the Code, does it not follow that through the omission of any similar phrasing in s. 150 we are to believe that, for the purposes of s. 173(1), motor vehicles located in public places are not to be considered as public places and as such it is not possible to commit an indecent act in a private motor vehicle? I really need an answer to this so any help is appreciated. Thanks in advance.

Does this mean Ook and Gluk are no longer canon?

Mostly downtown Vancouver. In the earlier stages of my homelessness I stayed primarily in shelters and didn't sleep out, but I grew to dislike them and started spending the night outside on sidewalks. VGH, St. Paul's, Lions Gate, others I can't remember.

Water and washrooms are abundant. Nobody has trouble finding those things in, e.g., Vancouver. More public washrooms would be beneficial, but it's hardly a problem. (Maybe it's worse with COVID or for diabetics, but I didn't have any real issue here.) What's wrong with bonfires? You won't get in a fight unless you're picking one out. Overdoses happen to hard drug users. Not all homeless people use drugs, let alone stuff like fent, and not all drug users are homeless. If you're a drug user with housing, you're probably more likely to experience death from overdose as you're more likely to use alone. Where did I say "I would rather die" than x? Granted, I would certainly rather be dead than spend my life in a place like Riverview, which is where this conversation started. If you've never spent a month in a psychiatric ward, consider yourself lucky - those places are awful in ways English can't express. The wrong "help" is harmful, and disguising the stripping and mutilation of basic human rights as "help" is disingenuous and dangerous to free life. I googled the list because resources are more abundant than I can say off the top of my head. There are more locations than I am even aware of, which is part of my point. As well, I didn't want to say the exact few places I frequented for meals under paranoia of doxxing.

I've been homeless before and have spent extensive time in hospitals. I'm speaking from a point of knowing how absolutely barbaric it is to keep people in those places. I - and most people - would rather live shortly and well than long and in a bad way.

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/this-map-shows-where-vancouver-residents-can-get-free-and-low-cost-food-1.4941163 There are other places/programs not listed here as well. We would be hearing about deaths from malnutrition if people could not find sustenance on the streets. Everyone spends their time differently.

One still has their needs met if they're on the street in BC. Nobody starves.

Psychosis is not a predictor of violence, though - just that someone is psychotic does not mean they are going to go out and kill someone. And just that things are the way they are does not mean they should be.

Yes, uttering threats is a thing. I have talked about that. It is a legal issue at that point and not a medical one. Violent behaviour is also a legal issue and does not need to be pathologized. If it's ever at the point where something needs to be done to keep society safe, it's ALREADY criminal, not medical. Until there is criminal basis on which to lock someone away, that person should not be locked away. A doctor having a hunch that someone poses a danger is worthless unless that person has made threats, intimidated people, built a bomb, etc.; that is, until there's concrete evidence that such a person is a danger to the public, they should not be stripped of their rights. And if there is concrete evidence that such a person is a danger to the public, it is at that point a criminal issue and the doctor can be left out. I have already said I agree with this. My argument is that it's more humane to let people live on the street than keep them in hospital settings. Ideally they would all be given proper housing instead. Because someone went on a stabbing spree, if a doctor thinks someone else is a danger to the public without basis good enough to earn a conviction, they should be locked up?

They really do not. And it does not matter until the individual has committed an offence, at which point they can go to jail.

Yes? I don't see how it affects my argument? Obviously criminal offences need to be handled, and it's possible to prove things like conspiracy, etc.? What I'm against is a purely medical view - i.e a doctor's opinion - of an individual mandating that they be placed in hospital settings?

I agree?

That's a complete strawman.