Common Myths About Housing Rights

Though it is now generally accepted that the right to housing exists under international, regional and domestic laws, there remain a number of misperceptions regarding the content and implications of this right. Many of these are similar to the misperceptions associated with economic, social and cultural rights. To assist our readers in better understanding the content and implications of housing rights, we have outlined some of the common myths about housing rights followed by a refutation of these myths, followed by more realistic views of what housing rights really mean. There are many false myths about housing rights, but the following five are perhaps the most common:

Myth: The courts cannot protect housing rights. This is one of the most common myths propagated about the right to housing and other economic and social rights. The notion that housing rights are non-justiciable is usually based on a comparison with civil and political rights. Proponents of this myth believe, among other things, that unlike civil and political rights, economic, social and cultural rights, such as the right to housing, are too vague and too cost-intensive (requiring government action rather than inaction) to be litigated, and can only be implemented in a piecemeal fashion on the basis of policy, but not on law and justice.

Reality: Not only is the right to housing one of the most developed economic, social and cultural rights in terms of content, but a number of the constituent elements of the right to housing are adjudicated in courts of law, tribunals and other legal and quasi-legal forums on a daily basis. For example, in many countries Landlord-Tenant relations are regulated by legislation and enforced in courts or tribunals; discrimination with respect to accommodation is prohibited in national human rights legislation in countries across the world and land claims are commonly brought before adjudicators. Moreover, almost all countries have passed legislation on various aspects of housing, much of which can be brought before the courts. Concurrently, regional and international human rights bodies, such as: The European Court of Human Rights ; The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights ;The UN Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination have directly considered housing rights issues in their case law or jurisprudence. General Comment No. 4 adopted by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, identifies six specific areas within the right to housing that are capable of judicial scrutiny: legal appeals aimed at preventing planned evictions through the issuance of injunctions; legal procedures seeking compensation following an illegal eviction; complaints against illegal actions carried out or supported by landlords in relation to rent levels, dwelling maintenance, and racial or other forms of discrimination; allegations of any form of discrimination in the allocation and availability of access to housing; complaints against landlords concerning unhealthy or inadequate housing conditions; and class action suits in situations involving significantly increased levels of homelessness.

Myth: Housing rights require the State to build housing - free of charge - for the entire population. Opponents of housing rights have often argued that recognising housing rights would require governments to build housing for the entire population - an entirely State-based, State-determined and State-driven approach to housing. Presumably, this myth came about based on literal interpretations of the term “right to housing”, and the notion that if the right to housing is granted to all, individuals would demand housing from the State despite the limited resources of the State to meet such demands.

Reality: The right to housing has never been interpreted under international law to mean that States must provide housing, free of charge, to all who request it. Under international law, once a State accepts the obligations attached to the right to housing, it agrees to endeavour, by all appropriate means possible, to ensure that everyone has access to housing resources adequate for health, well-being and security. Upon assuming legal obligations, States are required to undertake a series of measures which indicate policy and legislative recognition of each of the constituent aspects of the right to housing, thus creating the necessary conditions so that all residents may enjoy the full entitlements of the right to housing within the shortest possible time-frame. This is both reasonable and realistic. Although international law may not require States to provide housing for everyone who requests it, some countries have voluntarily taken on this responsibility. Legislation in Finland, for example, makes it mandatory for local government to provide housing resources for the severely handicapped under certain circumstances. In other contexts, homeless children in South Africa, homeless families in the United Kingdom, victims of natural disasters or others with acute housing needs in many countries do have rights to immediate housing relief. The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has also provided some insight into whether States have to construct housing for all upon demand. The Committee has indicated that the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) requires States parties (that is, States which have ratified the ICESCR) to provide minimum subsistence rights for everyone regardless of the level of economic development of the country. This means that States parties must ensure, at the very least, minimum essential levels of each of the rights in the ICESCR, including the right to housing. Thus, a State party in which any significant number of individuals is deprived of basic shelter and housing would be failing to discharge its obligations under the ICESCR. In meeting their obligations under the ICESCR, States are required to give due priority to those who are most vulnerable and disadvantaged and consequently least able to achieve the right to housing themselves. In other words, State parties should provide housing or access to housing resources to those people who are homeless, inadequately housed or incapable of acquiring the bundle of entitlements that correspond with housing rights.

Myth: The State must fulfill all aspects of the right to housing immediately. Many States are fearful of the right to housing because they mistakenly believe that the right to housing requires them immediately implement all housing rights obligations to comply with international law.

Reality: Of course, it would be ideal if States could fulfill all aspects of the right to housing immediately. International law has recognized the impracticality of this and has responded by interpreting this right to mean that States parties will have some legal obligations that must be undertaken immediately and others that are more long-term or progressive in nature. In other words, protecting and enforcing the right to housing will involve some immediate action and some future action, all of which will eventually lead to the full, society-wide, enjoyment of this right. The immediate action required by State parties to the ICESCR arises out of article 2(2) of the ICESCR which stipulates that States parties “undertake to take steps … by all appropriate means, including particularly the adoption of legislative measures”. In its General Comment No 3, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has interpreted this phrase to mean that State parties are obliged to immediately begin to adopt measures towards the full enjoyment by everyone of the right to housing. While the full realization of the right to housing might be achieved progressively, steps toward the goal must be taken within a reasonably short time after the Covenant is ratified by the State. The means by which this must be accomplished include - but are by no means limited to - the adoption of legislation. The Covenant also recognizes that some aspects of the right to housing may not be capable of immediate realization. In turn, according to the Covenant, States are obliged to undertake to achieve progressively the full realization of the rights contained in the ICESCR. The use of the term “progressive realization” is a recognition that full realization of all economic, social and cultural rights, including the right to housing, will generally not be able to be achieved in a short period of time. This does not mean, however, that States can indefinitely defer efforts to ensure the enjoyment of the rights in the Covenant.

Myth: Housing rights are only necessary in developing countries. There is a tendency to discuss view housing rights as an issue solely affected developing countries where housing rights are denied to often massive portions of society.

Reality: Every nation in the world faces at least some housing rights challenges, including the countries making up the European Union, the United States, Canada and Australia. For example, in its 1998 review of Canada, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights stated that they were “gravely concerned that such a wealthy country as Canada has allowed the problem of homelessness and inadequate housing to grow to such proportions that the mayors of Canada’s ten largest cities have now declared homelessness a national disaster”. While it may be true that the housing conditions in affluent countries are relatively better than in non-affluent countries, this is an inappropriate comparison. The proper comparison is intra-State. That is, how do the housing conditions of disadvantaged groups compare with those of more advantaged groups in a particular society? Both developed and developing countries share a number of housing problems including rapidly growing homelessness, domestic violence, discrimination in the housing sector, particularly against the poor, illegal evictions, harassment of tenants and an increased reliance on market mechanisms to fulfil housing needs without a corresponding alteration of State policy to provide access to accommodation for those unable to access private housing.

Myth: Squatters are criminals. Throughout the world squatters (those who live on property to which they do not have legal title) are often treated as criminals, social deviants and lazy. In some instances, they are perceived as greedy free-loaders who want to get something (land, property) for nothing. In many countries squatters are arrested, physically abused, beaten, and sometimes even shot. Rarely are squatters provided with what they really need: security of tenure, housing, and to be treated with dignity and respect.

Reality: Treating squatters as criminals turns a blind eye to the economic and social circumstances that make squatting necessary. Think of it this way, without the buildings or lands they occupy, squatters would be homeless. While there are certainly exceptions, the overwhelming majority of the world’s hundreds of millions of people living in informal settlements (e.g., ’squatters’) want nothing more than to live in a safe and secure home which they can afford. The world’s homeless and inadequately housed population does not squat to break laws or get a free-ride, rather they are simply creating housing solutions when the legal housing sector fails to provide housing to all persons from all income groups. Squatting is an expression of desperation, but also of hope. If they had the means, most squatters would choose to live in adequate housing with secure tenure - just like everyone else. - COHRE