Search Tips
sorted by
30 shown of 189 entities
The implementation of the right to social protection through the adoption of social protection floors 2014, para. 12
- Paragraph text
- Although a report as brief as this can only skim the historical surface, at least five factors ensured that social protection in general, and the right to social security in particular, were of marginal importance for most of the twentieth century. First, the artificial and in some respects arbitrary division of the concept of human rights into two different categories of rights governed by very different assumptions, condemned economic and social rights to second-class status for much of this period. Second, the often proclaimed interdependence and indivisibility of the two sets of rights resolutely failed to address in practice the fact that individuals living in extreme poverty were unable to realize effectively many of their civil and political rights. Third, the mistaken notion that civil and political rights are largely costless, while economic and social rights are inevitably extremely costly, was used to legitimize the assumption that social security was a quintessentially costly right and thus only really of relevance to rich countries. Fourth, where it was officially accepted, social security was largely conceptualized as a tool for protecting workers in the public sector and in the formal sector more generally. Thus only minimal efforts were made to develop a more inclusive notion that built upon both formal and informal structures and processes to ensure that all persons were covered by some type of security arrangement. Fifth, many of those problems were exacerbated by the impact of the cold war on the human rights framework. A sixth factor was the extent to which individual United Nations agencies claimed different issues as their own and sought to develop forms of exclusive jurisdictional competence. Under that scheme, social security "belonged" to ILO. The rest of the United Nations system thus more or less kept away from the issue, except in the most general terms. That also meant that, some official rhetoric notwithstanding, the United Nations human rights system developed in relative isolation from what should have been the closely related work of a number of the specialized agencies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implementation of the right to social protection through the adoption of social protection floors 2014, para. 51
- Paragraph text
- Second, an indispensable step is to insist on explicit recognition by key actors that there is a human right to social protection. At present, the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living, proclaimed so proudly in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and subsequently often reaffirmed in binding treaty obligations, are ignored or even challenged by the policies advocated by many of the key actors involved in addressing the plight of the hundreds of millions of persons living in extreme poverty. Many leading international organizations and financial institutions still avoid recognizing those rights in their policies and programmes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The implementation of the right to social protection through the adoption of social protection floors 2014, para. 52
- Paragraph text
- Third, technocratic solutions, no matter how innovative and data-driven, will not work unless they are genuinely empowering of those whom they purport to help. In that regard, extreme poverty is a classic case study in the centrality of human dignity as a guiding principle of human rights. The poor, we have too often been told by our politicians and others, are usually to blame for their own plight, whether because of laziness, incompetence, mendacity, or whatever. Those unjustified stereotypes provide yet another justification for preferring technocratic approaches through which we measure the poor and work out how we are going to make minimal provision for them, at least in the long term. As Keynes reminded us, in the long term we are all dead. Those living in extreme poverty will be dead even more quickly, so that long-term solutions may be little more than an illusion. Short-term empowerment and respect are what is needed. We need to reassert a common humanity, shared responsibilities and the centrality of human dignity.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Taxation and human rightss 2014, para. 22
- Paragraph text
- Decision-making processes regarding tax and public revenues must therefore be based on full transparency and the broadest possible national dialogue, with effective and meaningful participation of civil society and those who will be directly affected by such policies, including people living in poverty. Fiscal policies should be subjected to the scrutiny of the population during design, implementation and evaluation stages, with the various interests transparently identified. This will require capacity-building and fostering fiscal literacy in the population. The population should have access to all relevant information in an accessible and understandable format, and inclusive mechanisms should be put in place to ensure that they are actively engaged in devising the most appropriate policy options. Owing to the asymmetries of power, expertise and interests in this debate, specific measures should be taken to ensure equal access and opportunities to participate, particularly for people living in poverty.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Civil & Political Rights
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Taxation and human rightss 2014, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- When acting as a member of an international organization, a State remains responsible for its own conduct in relation to its human rights obligations within and outside its territory. This includes identifying the possible human rights impact of measures agreed at the international level, including the impact on persons living in poverty. Therefore, when a State makes decisions about loans as a member of an international financial institution, careful consideration of human rights obligations would mitigate against imposing conditions regarding fiscal policies that may jeopardize the human rights of the borrower State's population or undermine that State's ability to use maximum available resources to realize economic, social and cultural rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2014
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The importance of social protection measures in achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 2010, para. 10
- Paragraph text
- The duty to implement social protection policies to expand the protection available to persons living in extreme poverty flows directly from a number of human rights, in particular the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living, which are enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, several international and regional human rights treaties, conventions of the International Labour Organization (ILO), and national constitutions. Ensuring access to social protection is thus not a policy option, but a State obligation under international human rights law. Understood in this way, human rights can greatly contribute to the building of the political support necessary to establish and expand social protection systems.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The importance of social protection measures in achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 2010, para. 20
- Paragraph text
- Numerous studies demonstrate that specific cash transfer programmes have been effective in working towards target 2 of the Millennium Development Goals: halving the number of persons suffering from hunger by 2015. For example, the Productive Safety Net Programme in Ethiopia, the National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme in India, the initiative "Challenging the Frontiers of Poverty Reduction: Targeting the Ultra-Poor" in Bangladesh and the Kalomo District Pilot Social Cash Transfer Scheme in Zambia have all improved nutritional levels. In a wide range of programmes and countries, there is strong evidence of a direct link between income supplementation and food consumption among beneficiary households. A number of countries have noted the possible role of school meal programmes and the distribution of food baskets in the achievement of significant gains towards the fulfilment of target 2.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Food & Nutrition
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The importance of social protection measures in achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 2010, para. 36
- Paragraph text
- The effects of social protection measures such as cash and in-kind transfers on the health status of persons living in extreme poverty will not be consolidated unless they are accompanied by adequate investment in the provision of health care and the guarantee of access to medicines. Also essential is coordination among various social policies, including coordination between programme managers and health service providers, to ensure adequate, accessible and gender-sensitive health-care services, even in the most remote and vulnerable communities. In addition, States should provide mass immunizations and public health awareness campaigns.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Health
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
The importance of social protection measures in achieving Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 2010, para. 68
- Paragraph text
- The establishment of a solid legal and institutional framework for social protection measures at the national level is a fundamental first step towards the realization of human rights as well as the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. Enshrining social protection within domestic law affirms the duty of States to protect and promote the right to social security and an adequate standard of living. It solidifies States' long-term commitment to poverty reduction, placing social protection firmly on the political agenda. The independent expert has repeatedly emphasized the significance of legal and institutional frameworks in ensuring the long-term success of social protection programmes.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2010
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 5
- Paragraph text
- States have long recognized that poverty is a complex human condition characterized by sustained or chronic deprivation of the resources, capabilities, choices, security and power necessary for the enjoyment of an adequate standard of living and other economic, civil, cultural, political and social rights. Poverty is not an autonomous choice, but rather a multifaceted situation from which it may be difficult, if not impossible, to escape without assistance. Persons living in poverty are not to blame for their situation; accordingly, States must not punish or penalize them for it. Rather, States must adopt wide-reaching measures and policies designed to eliminate the conditions that cause, exacerbate or perpetuate poverty, and ensure the realization of all economic, social, cultural, civil and political rights of those living in poverty.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 6
- Paragraph text
- Penalization policies reflect a serious misunderstanding of the realities of the lives of the poorest and most vulnerable and ignorance of the pervasive discrimination and mutually reinforcing disadvantages that they suffer.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 14
- Paragraph text
- Non-discrimination and equality are core elements of the international human rights normative framework. These principles require that those in equal circumstances be treated equally in law and practice. Under human rights law, not every distinction or difference in treatment will amount to discrimination. A distinction is compatible with the principle of equality when it has an objective and reasonable justification; it must pursue a legitimate aim, and there must be a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim sought. Thus, differential treatment (distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference) of persons living in poverty must comply with the criteria mentioned above in order to be justified under human rights law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 15
- Paragraph text
- Moreover, certain forms of preferential treatment, in the form of affirmative actions for the benefit of vulnerable and disadvantaged groups, are not considered discriminatory because they are designed "to diminish or eliminate conditions and attitudes which cause or perpetuate substantive or de facto discrimination", encouraging an equal enjoyment of rights. Therefore, affirmative actions in favour of persons living in poverty directed towards addressing social and economic imbalances are not only permitted, but are compulsory for States under human rights law. There is discrimination only if a difference in treatment has no legitimate aim or if there is not a reasonable relationship of proportionality between the means employed and the aim to be realized.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 21
- Paragraph text
- States often draw on the enumerated permissible limitations to justify the adoption of penalization measures. However, in practice, penalization measures are motivated by a combination of factors. Some measures aim to remove any image of poverty, such as the removal of homeless persons and beggars from urban centres, in order to beautify the city and attract investment and development. Other measures are justified as necessary to reach the "deserving poor", or to satisfy critics of "lenient" social policies and therefore gain political support for an initiative. From a human rights perspective, these justifications require cautious analysis to assess whether or not the penalization measure pursues a legitimate aim under human rights law and is proportionate to that aim. States must not impose more restrictive measures than are required for the achievement of the purpose of the limitation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 25
- Paragraph text
- A human rights approach to poverty eradication dictates an active, free, informed and meaningful participation of persons living in poverty at all stages of the design, implementation and monitoring of policies affecting them. Genuine participation should not only be understood as an affirmation of the right of every individual and group to take part in the conduct of public affairs, but also as an instrumental part of the solution to poverty and social exclusion. The empowerment of persons living in poverty through participation is also a means to promote social inclusion and to ensure that public policies are designed to meet the particular needs of the poorest segments of society.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 26
- Paragraph text
- There is a clear trend, across developed and developing countries, towards the privatization and outsourcing of some activities traditionally undertaken by the State. While privatization has the potential to decrease costs, increase efficiency, and therefore improve the provision of services, it may also create significant obstacles to access to public services by the poorest and most vulnerable. When States hand over the administration of welfare systems, health systems, housing facilities and detention centres to private entities which are seeking an economic profit and may not be appropriately supervised and controlled by the State, they put at risk the ability of individuals to access necessary services, and create incentives that might have detrimental effects for persons living in poverty. Without mechanisms to ensure accountability and transparency, private entities may prioritize profit over people and are not responsible for their failures.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 29
- Paragraph text
- Increasingly, States are implementing laws, regulations and practices limiting the behaviour, actions and movements of people in public space, which greatly impede the lives and livelihoods of those living in poverty. These measures vary considerably across and within States, with the common denominator being the penalization of actions and behaviours which are considered "undesirable" or a "nuisance" in public spaces. States justify these measures by classifying the prohibited behaviours as dangerous, conflicting with the demands of public safety or order, disturbing the normal activities for which public spaces are intended, or contrary to the images and preconceptions that authorities want to associate with such places.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 33
- Paragraph text
- With increasing frequency, States are also penalizing the performance of certain behaviours and actions which are associated with living on the street such as sleeping, sitting, lying, littering, lodging, camping or storing belongings in public spaces; public drunkenness; public urination; or jaywalking. Often these regulations are vaguely worded, allowing law enforcement agencies extensive discretion and enforcement authority, which threatens to violate legal and constitutional safeguards. By making these activities or behaviours illegal, States increase the exposure of persons living in poverty to abuse, harassment, violence, corruption and extortion by both private individuals and law enforcement officials.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 34
- Paragraph text
- While these regulations are not explicitly addressed towards persons living in poverty, they affect them disproportionately. Owing to their lack of or limited access to housing, persons living in poverty rely more heavily on public spaces for their daily activities. Thus, individuals who have no choice but to live on the street find that daily life-sustaining activities can put them in danger of criminal sanctions. Although these types of measures are ostensibly neutral, studies show that authorities target those living in poverty, particularly homeless persons. This disproportionate application clearly violates the obligation to ensure equality and non-discrimination in the implementation of all laws and policies.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 38
- Paragraph text
- Persons living in poverty are also disproportionately subjected to police powers to impose anti-social behaviour and move-on orders, and public safety laws allowing police to "stop and search" individuals. These measures are often wide-reaching and subject to considerable discretion on the part of police officers, who make subjective judgements that do not need to meet a high burden of proof. Overwhelmingly, these regulations are targeted at the marginalized and most vulnerable and the areas and communities in which they live. Of persons living in poverty, those subject to multiple forms of discrimination are even more frequently targeted. These measures respond to and reinforce discriminatory attitudes about the likelihood of persons living in poverty partaking in criminal activity, and perpetuate the stigmatization of poverty. For example, in one country, rules for the use of the capital city metro allow police to remove people who are disturbing other passengers by, inter alia, wearing "filthy clothing".
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 43
- Paragraph text
- Absurdly, regulations that penalize behaviours associated with poverty and homelessness often impose fines that persons living in poverty are unable to pay. The illogical outcome of failure to pay a fine is often the imposition of a further fine, or even a prison sentence. In one country, for example, thousands were imprisoned in a single year because of non-payment of court-ordered fines. The imposition of prison sentences for non-payment of fines on those unable to pay not only represents a considerable waste of State financial and administrative resources, but contributes significantly to perpetuating the social exclusion and economic hardship of persons living in poverty.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 45
- Paragraph text
- As a means of making cities more "secure" and attractive to investors, developers and more affluent segments of societies, States are increasingly using zoning laws to preference land use which excludes the poorest and most vulnerable, such as gated communities, luxury or high-cost housing, and large sports infrastructure. Authorities are carrying out demolitions of entire neighbourhoods and removing residents for the purpose of "rehabilitating", "renewing" and "preserving" the "historical and cultural heritage" of the city, or to make room for development and infrastructure projects. As a result, these areas become too costly for persons living in poverty to return to, and they are relegated to housing in cheaper, less accessible, badly serviced and geographically remote neighbourhoods. In many cases, persons living in poverty are forcibly evicted without notice, are subject to violence and have their belongings damaged or destroyed. Persons living in poverty are rarely able to access redress and remedies after having been evicted, and are deprived of compensation, restitution and resettlement.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 48
- Paragraph text
- The segregation of the poor from public spaces is further exacerbated by large-scale State and privatized infrastructure projects, particularly those connected with mega-events such as the Olympic Games or football World Cups. During such events, authorities often remove persons living in poverty from urban areas and relocate them in outlying suburbs, often by force, without ensuring alternative housing or access to remedies and compensation, in flagrant violation of their right to adequate housing. For example, in Seoul, preparations for the 2002 football World Cup included the banning of homeless persons from specified places in the city, and during the Olympic Games in 1988 homeless persons were detained in facilities outside the city. Action was also taken to remove or criminalize homeless persons during the Barcelona and Atlanta Olympic Games. The practical effect of such initiatives is to completely displace the poorest and most marginalized and to replace them with infrastructure for which they have no need and which they cannot access, such as hotels, sporting venues and office buildings.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 49
- Paragraph text
- It is becoming increasingly common for States to impose strict requirements and conditions on access to public services and social benefits. To justify these measures, States point to the need to make efficient use of public resources, improve the accuracy of targeting, avoid dependency, eliminate disincentives to work and deter abuse of the system. While these may be valid concerns, the impact of these measures is often completely disproportionate to the aim they seek to achieve. By imposing excessive requirements and conditions on access to services and benefits, and severe sanctions for non-compliance, States punish, humiliate and undermine the autonomy of persons living in poverty, exacerbating the challenges they face in overcoming their situation. Moreover, beneficiaries are kept in a state of uncertainty about their future and are unable to plan for the long term.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 59
- Paragraph text
- Surveillance policies often treat beneficiaries like criminals and make them feel guilty, anxious and ashamed. While some mechanisms of control are necessary, they must comply with the requirements of reasonableness and proportionality. For example, evidence shows that the range of control and surveillance mechanisms employed by States in administering social benefits is clearly disproportionate to the prevalence of social benefit fraud. The overpayment of social benefits is often caused by administrative errors on the part of the State, rather than fraud by the beneficiary. Where beneficiaries are responsible for overpayment, it is far more likely to be due to error than to fraud, and when fraud does occur, is it usually opportunistic, low-level fraud with respect to small, subsistence amounts of money. However, policymakers represent social benefit fraud to be a pervasive problem, channelling considerable resources to combat it. Political rhetoric disproportionately focuses on social benefit fraud over taxation fraud, the cost of which is a far greater burden on the State, and use instances of benefit fraud to influence the public discourse on poverty.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Economic Rights
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- N.A.
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 60
- Paragraph text
- Social benefit fraud and non-compliance are strongly condemned by the public and rigorously pursued by authorities. Where fraud is established, it can result in the reduction of the individual's benefit to cover repayment of the defrauded amount, and the commencement of criminal proceedings against the individual. When a beneficiary is convicted of fraud he or she may face a lifetime ban from the social benefit system. If beneficiaries have outstanding warrants they may have their social benefit cut off until the warrant is resolved or they are granted an exemption. These measures are extremely harsh and will have grave consequences for people already struggling with poverty and exclusion, perpetrating the disadvantage which induces them to rely on social benefits to begin with.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 73
- Paragraph text
- Often, States invoke grounds of public safety, health or security in an attempt to justify the restriction of human rights through penalization measures. However, human rights law establishes strict requirements for the imposition of limitations on individual rights. Any restriction on the enjoyment of human rights by those living in poverty must comply with several safeguards, including requirements that they be legally established, non discriminatory and proportionate, and have a legitimate aim. The burden falls upon States to prove that a limitation imposed upon the enjoyment of rights by those living in poverty is in conformity with international human rights law.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Governance & Rule of Law
- Health
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 74
- Paragraph text
- Penalization measures are often motivated by prejudices and negative stereotypes that ignore the realities of disadvantage and exclusion and fail to recognize the daily struggle of persons living in poverty to overcome the multiple obstacles they face. Poverty is not a lifestyle choice. Homeless persons would prefer safe, affordable, adequate housing to public parks and bus stations. Those struggling to survive on social benefits would rather have secure, regular, well-paying, productive employment than be subject to discrimination and live in constant fear that their entitlements will be taken away. One does not choose to live in poverty, and therefore should not be punished for that situation.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 77
- Paragraph text
- The human rights obligation to ensure the satisfaction of, at the very least, minimum essential levels of all economic, social and cultural rights implies a responsibility to secure an adequate standard of living through basic subsistence, including by providing essential primary health care, basic shelter and housing and basic forms of education. Instead of dedicating scarce resources to costly penalization measures, States must direct the maximum available resources towards ensuring that persons living in poverty are able to enjoy all economic, political, social, civil and cultural rights.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph
Penalization of people living in poverty 2011, para. 78
- Paragraph text
- Urban transformation, privatization, gentrification, beautification and redevelopment can seriously undermine several rights of those living in poverty and contribute to exclusion and stigmatization. As persons living in poverty are gradually pushed to the fringes of urban centres by these phenomena, their ability to access employment and public services and enjoy the right to participate in cultural life is threatened. The concept of adequacy in relation to the right to housing requires, among other elements, that factors such as the availability of services and infrastructure, affordability and accessibility be taken into account. It also requires States to refrain from forced evictions.
- Body
- Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights
- Document type
- Special Procedures' report
- Topic(s)
- Equality & Inclusion
- Poverty
- Social & Cultural Rights
- Person(s) affected
- All
- Year
- 2011
- Date added
- Aug 19, 2019
Paragraph