Housing is a human right. This undeniable principle should be universally adhered to; however, governments the world over continue to undermine it.
Take, for example the case of Ni Yulan. This 57-year-old Chinese activist has been imprisoned three times, endured torture so severe that she has been left wheelchair-bound and, along with her family, continues to be harassed by her government. Although you may suspect Ni of committing an offence of the most egregious nature, she is actually being punished for defending housing rights.
In 2002, this courageous woman stood firm against the government’s plans to demolish her Beijing neighbourhood (to make room for the 2008 Olympics) by recording the destruction of a neighbour’s house. As a dedicated civil rights lawyer, Ni assisted her neighbours in fighting back to save their houses and helped them demand compensation. This was sorely needed as, according to Reuters, up to 1.5 million people were forcibly evicted from their homes with insufficient warning and next to no compensation (although the Chinese authorities claim it was 6000 residents, and they were given adequate compensation).
As part of Amnesty International – Australia’s Write for Rights campaign we call attention to cases like this to emphasise that human rights activists want more than an opposition to government oppression. Activists understand that restrictions on government power are crucial so that people like Ni can openly criticise their government’s actions; however, this means little if material needs remain unsatisfied.
This is especially evident when it comes to housing. One of the most pressing human rights issues of the day concerns homelessness. Although quantifying the extent of global homelessness is Sisyphean, the most recent United Nations survey (published in 2005) attempted this. The survey estimated that 100 million people are without a home and up to one billion people are inadequately housed. Homelessness is also a gendered issue, as most homeless individuals are men. This will require drastic actions by governments as this problem is likely to be exacerbated with the progression of automation predominantly displacing workers in male-centric industries.
Unfortunately, there are many other examples of this fundamental human right being challenged by governments. China is an extreme example of this, but it’s not only totalitarian governments that callously defy their obligation to keep people comfortably housed; these rights can also be subverted by authorities in liberal democratic nations. One instance of this is the undertaking of the 2016 Summer Olympics, held in Brazil. Preparations for this massive public event saw up to 60,000 residents of the infamous Rio de Janerio slums (the Favelas) unhappily forced to relocate by the government.
In the United States, there was the construction of the Bronx Causeway through the 1950s to 1960s. The government gave unelected ‘master builder’ Robert Moses carte blanche to ruin up to 60,000 working- and lower-middle-class people’s lives by deracinating them. The construction had deeper consequences than forcing people from their homes, as the great philosopher Marshall Berman pointed out, “Thus depopulated, economically depleted, emotionally shattered…the Bronx was ripe for all the dreaded spirals of urban blight”. It may have also demonstrated a shibboleth of the US government with a Daily News headline infamously proclaiming that President Gerald Ford told New York City to “drop dead”.
Closer to home, we see attempts by the New South Wales government to sell the heritage listed Sirius Building to private developers.
Located in Miller’s Point, the Sirius building predominantly houses pensioners. Although a majority of the public housing which characterises Miller’s point has been sold off, Sirius building residents have stood firm against the government’s plans.
Unfortunately, this has highlighted how ruthless authorities can be in seeing that their intentions are met. There are reports the NSW government has engaged in underhanded tactics to get people to move. According to advocates for maintaining the building, not only have common areas such as the library been taken from residents, but Housing NSW have made existing access keys redundant by switching to new security access keys, effectively locking many residents out of their own homes.
In one of Bob Dylan’s most political songs, he asserts that, “money doesn’t talk, it swears”, this is made apparent in the four cases above.
The development-induced displacement of these communities are examples of governments placing financial interests above those of providing base material needs for their people. Although dams, airports and train tracks are definitely necessary, governments should not allow pecuniary concerns to dictate their approach to housing rights. It is inscribed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that “everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family”.
Governments are unlikely to say otherwise, so why don’t they act on it?
*Josh Eiszele is a member volunteer with Amnesty International Australia and member of The Australian Greens. When it comes to politics, he has an interest in human rights and the left. He also likes good comedy, walking and orange juice.
