澳洲essay代写：《安大略住房法》的考虑事项
《安大略住房法》第二节“平等对待人民的权利”已在住房占用方面得到承认，允许根据《全球加拿大盟约》(Skelton, I。，库珀，S。,2011)。加拿大已经签署或批准了这些盟约。根据CERA的《实质平等方法的适用》，第二节试图解释在申请住在一所房子时不受歧视待遇的保护(斯凯尔顿，I。，库珀，S。,2011)。第二节还说明了在没有任何理由歧视的情况下，获得适当住房的权利。CERA认为，这种解释有助于确保对侵犯适当住房权利的行为采取有效的补救措施。这是根据住房国际法义务所规定的。委员会的立场是，出租房屋及其使用权的若干问题是系统性侵犯人权的症状。这还意味着普遍存在认识不足的问题，可以而且应该立即加以解决。《治罪法》提供了一系列工具，以处理违反住房权利的情况和因《治罪法》的理由而影响进入住房的情况，即使第二个问题没有明确规定以住房为基础的独立权利。《守则》第9条禁止《守则》第一部分(包括第二部分)基于直接和间接侵权的权利。，库珀，S。,2011)。这意味着应该提交应用程序，并且需要搜索代码的违规行为，其中第2节间接地违反了操作。例如，一个领导人可以根据歧视的定型观念在政治上提出一个措词，从而导致由于《治罪法》的理由而拒绝一群人或一个人进入住房。
此外，第11节有助于规定本准则第1部分内的一项权利可能受到侵犯，其中个人通过本准则的根据被排除在外，因为对具体情况的中立要求不是善意的或合理的。这种决定需要考虑这些群体的要求是否能够得到满足，而不致遇到不适当的困难(斯凯尔顿，I。，库珀，S。,2011)。这意味着，根据第2条、第9条和第11条的组合，需要向范围广泛的答复方提出申请，包括房屋提供者和政府。例如，应进一步提出反对政府的申请，其中住房津贴如此之少，以致等待社会性质援助的个人无法找到负担得起的住房(斯凯尔顿，I。，库珀，S。,2011)。可以认为，这表明违反了《治罪法》禁止服务歧视的第一节。同样可以提出的论点是，当通过支助服务提供者拒绝提供服务导致该人丧失住房时，也有可能违反第2条，因为他们被认为没有独立生活的能力。这种情况引起了需要加以审议的严重的人权问题。
目前还不清楚加拿大安大略省在特别报告员提出报告后是否采取了任何步骤来理解在立法范围内享有适当住房的权利。然而，已经出现了一些积极性质的进展，这些进展可以导致指明进程中的过渡。在安大略的前沿，有几个方案可供选择，以推动其住房计划的关键变化。首先，有必要使住房选择具有成本效益。在提供可获得、负担得起和适当性质的住房方面，成本效益应是明显的(斯凯尔顿，I。，库珀，S。,2011)。这将反过来导致成本效益的可持续和培育。必须实施国家住房倡议，以便在住房和卫生保健部门之间建立牢固的关系。这是因为它将导致一种具有逻辑性和成本效益的措施。对住房的支持将进一步有助于建立社区和稳定，使人们得到关爱，并有助于减轻危险因素。
澳洲essay代写：《安大略住房法》的考虑事项
The second section of Ontario Housing code, the right towards equally treating people has been recognized with regard to the accommodation occupancy allowing for a right that can be interpreted under global Canadian covenants (Skelton, I., and Cooper, S., 2011). These covenants have either been signed or ratified by Canada. According to CERA, application of an approach with substantive equality, second section tries to interpret protection against treatment of discriminatory manner when applying to live in a house (Skelton, I., and Cooper, S., 2011). The second section also illustrates a right towards adequate houses without any kind of discrimination over the grounds.According to CERA, such interpretation helps in ensuring effective remedies to violations of right towards adequate housing. This happens under the housing international law obligations. It is the position of commission that several of these issues in rental houses and their access are systemic human right violation symptoms. This further implies a prevalence of inadequate awareness which can and should be addressed without waiting. A range of tools are provided by the code for addressing housing rights violations and circumstances influencing access towards houses because of grounds in the code, even when the second question does not create explicitly housing based freestanding rights. Code’s section 9 prohibits rights based direct and indirect infringement in Code’s first part inclusive of second section (Skelton, I., and Cooper, S., 2011). This implies that applications should be filed and Code’s violations need to be searched for, wherein actions are violated in section 2 indirectly. For example a leader can politically make a phrase depending upon the stereotypes of discrimination that consequently leads towards access denial for houses for a group of individuals or an individual due to the ground of the code.
Additionally, 11th section helps in providing that a right within the 1st part of this code may have infringement wherein individuals are identified through the ground in the code being excluded due to the neutral requirements which are not bona-fide or reasonable with regard to a specific situation. Such determination needs a consideration on whether the groups’ requirements can be accommodated without hardships of undue nature (Skelton, I., and Cooper, S., 2011). This implies that applications need to be filed against a wide responding parties range inclusive of providers of houses and governments depending upon section 2, 9 and 11 combinations. Applications, for example should further be filed in opposition to the government wherein allowances of shelter are so less that individuals waiting for assistance of social nature are not able to find housing of affordable nature (Skelton, I., and Cooper, S., 2011). It is possible to argue that this indicates a violation to have taken place to the Code’s first section prohibiting services discrimination. Arguments similarly can be made that it is possible to violate section 2 when services denial through a provider of support service leads towards a loss of house for the person as they are seen as not having the ability of living in an independent way. Such types of situations have given rise to the serious issues of human rights that need to be considered.
It is not evident that Ontario, Canada has taken any steps for understanding the right to appropriate housing within legislation after the report on Special Rapporteur. There have been, however, advancements of positive nature that can lead towards indicating a transition in process. There are several options available at the forefront of Ontario with regard to bringing forward a key change in its housing initiatives. First, there is a requirement to make housing options cost effective. Cost effectiveness should be evident in providing housing of accessible, affordable and adequate nature (Skelton, I., and Cooper, S., 2011). This will in turn lead towards being cost effectiveness to be sustainable and foster. It is essential that a national housing initiative be applied in order to build strong relationships between houses and sectors of health care. This is because it will lead towards a measure that has logic and offers cost effectiveness. Support of housing will further help in creating community and stability, connecting to people with care and helping in mitigation of risk factors.
