Lynda Hurst of The Toronto Star suggests that Cell. Phones are now a basic human right in the western world.  This idea received some significant push-back in the blogosphere but after thinking on it I found I largely agreed with the concept (if not her terminology)

I mean, people throw "basic human right" around far too frequently.  As far as I'm concerned people have one basic human right and that's to freedom.  There's nothing wrong with a government providing people with additional services in the form of a safety net but those services aren't rights.

Bottom line: Your basic human right is the ability to provide for yourself.  Anything the government decides to provide for you in addition to that is a privilege. 

Which brings us to government safety nets and whether cellular phones should be included in them.  In my opinion, they should.  To explain why I'd ask you to answer a simple question: What is the purpose of a Government Safety Net?

As far as I'm concerned there's a basic answer to that which is: To get people who have fallen on hard times back on their feet again.  This task involves preventing harm from coming to them while they're down on their luck (through housing, health services and food grants) and providing services that will assist them in gaining employment so they can be reintegrated into society. 

That is where I think a Cell. Phone comes in.  You can't viably search for a job without a phone line.  Meaning a Cell. Phone, along with basic job services, should be something any government  should provide.

Mark Evans suggests land lines for this purpose but the problem with that is the poor often take up residence in several different places while searching for gainful employment (maybe staying with several different friends to prevent greatly inconveniencing just one).  So land lines aren't really feasible.  With Cell. Phones being as cheap to produce anyway I see no reason not to provide one.