Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things!
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved
Live Green Toronto's Bright Idea
Stacks of Tracks (in the Stacks)
In this occasional feature, two Torontoist staffers face off to debate an issue that is important to our city. We invite our readers to join in the debate in the comments section after the post.
Photo by moonwire from the Torontoist Flickr Pool.
Last week, as Ross Hammond and a friend were walking up Queen St. West near Trinity Bellwoods Park, they were confronted by four panhandlers demanding money. A verbal confrontation escalated and Mr. Hammond was stabbed several times. His friend was also assaulted. Hammond later died of his wounds in hospital. This incident has sparked a fierce debate about what should be done about panhandlers in our city, with many people calling for an outright ban on the practice. Do we need new laws to protect ourselves from street people begging for change, or was this just an isolated and unfortunate incident? Read on as Torontoist contributes two cents...
|
PATRICK METZGER It’s time to ban panhandling in the city of Toronto. It shouldn’t have taken a murder to prompt calls for action against an activity which has now reached levels that would be considered outrageous in most Third World cities. In some areas of Toronto it’s not uncommon to be asked for money 5 or 6 times within a single block, and we’re not talking playful banter with jolly Pickwickian beggars. These are, by and large, encounters with highly able-bodied people who are often well aware of how to use the intimidation factor to their advantage. The voices in favour of the status quo are principally politicians whose exposure to panhandling comes on the walk from City Hall to the parking garage, and professional poverty “advocates” who make a living handing out sandwiches to the homeless and platitudes to the press. Their case can be summed up succinctly; firstly that begging is necessary, and secondly that it’s harmless. Both arguments are stupid. The case for necessity is preposterous. Does anyone in Toronto really need to beg to survive? A walk down Queen St isn’t to be importuned by skeletal wraiths, one foodless day away from a pauper's grave. Nope, in this city our beggars are made of sturdier stuff—ruddy, apple-cheeked youths in the prime of life, wearing iPods and chain-smoking enthusiastically. As police will attest, many of them travel here from other cities around North America specifically because it’s considered a great place to spend the summer doing a little urban camping. Between food banks, soup kitchens, and mobile Twinkie and sleeping bag distributors, this is not a city in which it’s easy to starve. That’s not to suggest that real poverty doesn’t exist, or that all panhandlers are making a lifestyle choice. Some are mentally ill, and for others their addictions have taken them to a place where it’s impossible to keep a job or a permanent place to live. However, in whose interest is it to let these walking wounded wander the streets begging from strangers until they die of overdose, exposure, or simply being too worn out to live anymore? Certainly not in theirs, and we as a society have not just a right, but a responsibility to actively help them deal with their demons and their addictions. To enable a dead-end lifestyle on the street and call it freedom is nothing more than a cheap substitute for charity. Panhandling is also far from harmless, as Ross Hammond learned last weekend. At its worst, the kind of aggressive, menacing approach that has become all too common is a barely distinguishable from an out and out mugging. However, even the quietest and most unassuming of beggars helps to create an atmosphere of decay and disorder on the street which adversely affects the livability of the entire city. Anyone who spent time in the malevolent, urine-soaked cesspit that was New York City through most of the ‘80s can testify to the relationship. It’s time to stop talking about the rights of panhandlers, and to recognize the right of the public to walk the streets without fear of harassment. Will City Hall finally step up to the plate? | KEN HUNT Our city is full of tragedies. Ross Hammond's death is one of them. Thankfully, the people responsible for it are behind bars, and they will undoubtedly go to jail for a very long time. End of story. There is no need for a new law to deal with this situation. The ones we already have will do just fine. Harassment, assault with a deadly weapon, manslaughter, and second-degree murder are all already in the Criminal Code. If those do not seem like enough, we also have the Ontario Safe Streets Act, which bans various forms of panhandling, including aggressive panhandling and panhandling in traffic. Another tragedy we might remember at this time is the death of Paul Croutch. Croutch was a homeless man who lived in the Moss Park area, near the armoury, and in September of 2005, he was beaten to death in an unprovoked attack by three young reserve soldiers attached to the Queen's Own Rifles. A homeless woman named Val was also severely beaten by the young men when she tried to intervene on Croutch's behalf. Blaming all panhandlers for the death of Ross Hammond makes as little sense as blaming all soldiers for the death of Croutch. Those who want to seize upon Mr. Hammond's death as a way to ban panhandling altogether are nothing more than blatant opportunists. The fact that we are now embroiled in a debate about how threatened some of us feel by panhandlers ignores the simple fact that the homeless, in general, have much more to fear from the rest of us than we have to fear from them. The homeless are amongst our most vulnerable citizens. They inspire hatred and revulsion in many people, and when they are attacked they cannot generally rely on protection or even sympathy from the police or the public at large. There's no question that most of us find panhandling a distasteful practice. It confronts us with realities about misery and poverty that we would much rather prefer to ignore. It makes us feel guilty. And for that reason, it is a practice that needs to continue. It helps to ensure that it never becomes too easy to forget that our system leaves many people behind. Thankfully, a movement to ban panhandling is very unlikely to succeed. In a ruling regarding the Ontario Safe Streets Act earlier this year, the Court of Appeal unanimously found that begging for money is a form of speech protected by the Charter. And well it should be. In a society where we protect the freedom of speech, the speech that says “I am in need, please help me” is sacred. It is, at its heart, a political statement that points out the flaws of rampant and heartless capitalism. Banning it or even severely limiting it does a disservice to the freedoms we all hold dear. No one should be harassed for money. No one should be made to feel as though their personal safety is at risk should they refuse to donate. But we also should not be sheltered from the fact that poverty and homelessness exist. In the end, the only sensible way to get rid of panhandling is to combat the poverty that drives people to do it. |
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Hey guys, you know I'm a big fan and everything, but if you're going to run almost the exact same article as your competitors, at least use a different banner picture. I forgot where I was for a second.
Ah yes, Toronto's found its new tourism slogan: "a great place to spend the summer [begging]"! Maybe it's a good thing that ("urban campers" aside) poor people think of Toronto as a good place to be if you're disadvantaged. That says something really great about how we're at least trying to help with the problem.
What Toronto needs to do when something like this happens is take a deep breath, realize that violent events like what happened last week are rare (and should be treated as such), and stop looking for stupid band-aid solutions. A ban on panhandling is nothing more than a way to make some of us nice well-off people feel more comfortable, and that's not an acceptable enough reason to ban some people's primary source of income.
Whether you condemn them as "panhandlers" or agonize over their fate as "homeless", it's absolutely, completely wrong to give these people your spare change.
The deceitful, freeloading, human-vermin panhandlers are simply demanding that you fund their dope, alcohol or cigarette habits
The legitimate, truly-needy, through-no-fault-of-their-own homeless need more than money, they need the kind of support that only a social services agency can provide.
If you can't tell the difference, and feel guilty about it, save your spare change to donate it every month to a shelter. Better yet, donate your spare time to a shelter. They need you.
And the next time someone tells you they're in need, direct them to that shelter with pride.
Personally I just think it's rude to ask strangers for money.
There is an ad on the NYC subway that says, "Give to charity, just not here."
I wouldn't mind seeing them on the street, either.
Thankfully, the people responsible for it are behind bars and they will undoubtedly go to jail for a very long time. End of story.
Not quite the end; there is the small matter of a trial, to determine IF those people are responsible...
How many articles and newsstories are written about the working poor? Those who toil at multiple jobs just to stay in the same spot - when I support the notion that social services are a societal necessity, I think of that silent population (as well as those who cannot help themselves) rather than the 'boisterous' lot on Queen St.
Uh, as the first poster noted, this has been extensively covered at blogTO.
"No one should be harassed for money."
Exactly.
"In a society where we protect the freedom of speech, the speech that says 'I am in need, please help me' is sacred"
Absolutely brilliant. Nice work.
To uskyscraper: it's not Torontoist's mandate to post or not post about things depending on whether or not they're covered on BlogTO (or Spacing or Posted Toronto or wherever). Surely, The Globe and Mail writers don't all get together and skim through The Sun each day and go "whoops, guess we can't write about that then!"
If there is overlap––and admittedly there is some––it's because we live in the same city and people on our staff are interested in some of the same things. We'll keep doing what we do, and BlogTO will keep doing what they do, but any notion that we shouldn't write about something just because another blog did so before us is ridiculous and unfair. This issue has been "extensively covered" by every major media outlet in this city. I think it's totally reasonable that Torontoist adds to the mix.
"In a society where we protect the freedom of speech, the speech that says 'I am in need, please help me' is sacred"
In that case, the speech that says, "Get a f***ing job, you worthless sack of s***," is also sacred.
"In that case, the speech that says, 'Get a f***ing job, you worthless sack of s***,' is also sacred."
Indeed it is. What a country!
Your right to be a thoughtless, heartless, a**hole is absolutely protected.
It's in the constitution, son.
People with homes and jobs and clean clothes kill other people all the time. Should the city ban their means of income as well?
I have no patience for people who call for a ban on panhandling so that "the public" (as if panhandlers don't constitute the public) can be spared from an "atmosphere of decay and disorder". The fact that people are driven to panhandling in the first place is a sign that poverty - and by extension decay and disorder - exist. The public should be forced to confront explicitly the problems it has created. Panhandling is a form of protest, a way for those who are completely dominated - economically and socially - to exert some form of influence over society. If you don't like panhandling, do something to get rid of its source instead of stealing the one form of civic engagement that these people have.
Panhandlers only do it because it is a viable means of survival. Everyone here is talking about using the force of law to enforce their viewpoint, regardless of which side of the debate they're on.
How's this for the ultimate in a democratic decision: If you don't like panhandlers, don't give them money. Don't acknowledge them. If enough people agree with you, panhandling will not be profitable enough to bother with.
I personally don't give money since I think it encourages them not to pursue something more productive. My wife slightly disagrees, she won't give money but she does give food.
That said, I do have to comment on particularly inane line: "Panhandling is a form of protest, a way for those who are completely dominated - economically and socially - to exert some form of influence over society."
How is begging money from me protesting? What are they disagreeing with or disputing? How do I dominate them, economically or socially? How does getting a handful of nickels exert some form of influence over society? Besides the marginal impact of the money of course.
no you shouldn't avoid covering a topic already on BLOGTO. but I think you should be aware of what they publish. I have been reading both sites everyday for the last three months. there have been a LOT of times where it looks like you get your story ideas from them. they are always two steps ahead of torontoist so when you play catchup and use the same picture it looks really bad on you. thats why people here are calling you on it.
anyways. I'm on Ken's side in the pandhandling argument. well said Ken.
Panhandling != (murder || assault)
If some of you guys so care about the homeless, what don't you let them stay at your place?
Guest 16: I've been reading BlogTO and TOist concurrently now for 2 years, and I'm sorry, but thats bullshit. Sometimes Toist is first, sometimes BlogTO, and frequently, they'll cover a story the other ignores. MY point was that they used the same stock photo that BlogTO did, and even then, so what? One time in how many weeks?
I like TOist, and I like BlogTO, but TOist is ahead of the game most of the time.
I started reading BlogTO first but I also find Torontoist to be ahead of the game most of the time. This murder is random but that doesn't mean the City shouldn't ban pan-handling.
Why do they need the money? There are shelters and soup kitchens. I have actually done quite a bit of work with the homeless and homeless advocates. The homeless advocates admit that the vast majority of homeless people are either mentally ill and or addicts or just chose homelessness as a lifestyle.
There are government programs for addicts and mental health issues available, and if people just want to live on the streets, then fuck them, they don't deserve our money.
Panhandlers certainly do have a right to ask for our money. I notice for example, right in the left hand side of this screen, that RBC is panhandling for my money right now. And at the top of the page, Ads by Google trumps the article headline banner begging with touching entreaties like fatloss4idiots and dates4losers. All advertising is basically panhandling - and on Queen West you're hard pressed to pick out the homeless against the forest of posters - tens of thousands of useless bits of paper plastered over every fixed object. Man if the homeless guy falls asleep he'll be covered next. Tons of wasted paper all begging for our money. Me, I prefer the guy who's sign says "$2 short of world domination" .
usually I mutter 'no sorry' when asked (frequently)for $. You get so used to it you almost forget how rude it is. some thought about the issue makes me realize how sick of them I really am. I resolve to be alot nastier in the future. Those louts that stretch their legs across the crowded sidewalks deserve to get stomped on. Panhandler Backlash. Its a good thing. and long overdue.
And now the apologists will take aim at me.....but before you do 'bitch', are you paying yer fair share of tax? or does your sense of 'entitlement' or avoidance mean that you really should just shut your mouth?
'Why do they need the money?' is a really offensive question. Why do YOU need money beyond what could get you basic food and shelter? Does being homeless mean you shouldn't be able to buy yourself a coffee or donut or cigarettes? Why are people with homes free to drink and smoke, but when you don't have a roof you're not allowed to be addicted to anything? What gives you the right to decide what someone else needs to feel they have some control over their life?
No, Rek, the homeless have as much right to be addicted as anyone else. WHat they don't have the right to do is to bully and intimidate other people in order to fund their addiction.
One thing that I find tiresome about pro-panhandling arguments is the confident but entirely specious assertion that panhandling is caused by poverty.
Begging in the streets of Toronto happens for many reasons, including addiction, mental illness, laziness, and the desire to find a life more interesting than a suburban bedroom can provide. Plain and simple, in this city there is no one who needs to beg from strangers to survive. There are many who need help to find a way out, and others who do it because it suits them.
The public refusing to give to panhandlers would be a good start, but the intimidation factor comes into play here. Have you ever been alone on a dark street and been approached by a pair of hulking panhandlers, obviously high? I have, and frankly it made me pretty fucking nervous. A looney or two seems like a pretty good deal under the circumstances.
That's why new laws are needed - to prevent begging from being the viable career choice that it is today.
Hey, you know what else is against the law? Stabbing people. That didn't seem to stop Ross Hammond from being murdered. If you're in the state of mind that stabbing someone is a fun time, I don't think a law that says you're not allowed to ask for money will stop you.
Panhandling is not a problem, it is a symptom of an even bigger problem, and banning panhandling does not do anything for the bigger problems, it just makes it so that the "public" doesn't have to look at them.
All crime is a symptom of a bigger problem. That doesn't mean we shouldn't legislate against it.
Patrick: "...the confident but entirely specious assertion that panhandling is caused by poverty." How is your assertion any less specious? Perhaps you'd care to take a look at the City's findings on the issue, located here at http://www.toronto.ca/homelessness/index.htm. The first thing that strikes me is that there are, as of 2003, half a million households under the poverty line. I noticed this in your argument above as well: you make a completely anecdotal, stereotypically ideologue's argument and eclipse immediately the flimsy caveat you slip in either just previous or prior. Normally, these debates see you write with authority and verve. I don't understand why this debate, so charged with passion and meaning, is so woefully written from your side. You let down Torontoist with such sloppy work.
Ok, Andrew, firstly, Torontoist gets what it pays for...
Anyway, I can't particularly account for why my argument here seems to you less cogent and more ideologically driven than others I've done. Maybe it's because it is such an emotional issue.
I don't understand how a document which says there are a lot of people in Toronto living under an arbitrarily established poverty line demonstrates a causal relationship with panhandling. Can you show me something which proves that people beg because there are absolutely no other means of survival? It seems to me that the working poor could use our loonies as much as many of those who beg on the street, but they don't ask for them.
As I think about it, I'd actually go further and say that panhandling in this environment is not an outcome but a cause of poverty. It provides sufficient income to feed an addiction or to support a life on the fringes of society, but not enough to escape from that life. Enabling a dead end lifestyle, as I said above, is not charity even if it makes you feel better about yourself.
Patrick - My entire point was they don't necessarily panhandle to survive. They panhandle to meet their needs above and beyond 'have a place to sleep' and 'get food somewhere'. Panhandling means they can provide, somewhat, for their own emotional needs -- something that gives them a little more control in their lives, which going to a soup kitchen or shelter can't do.
And yes, I have been approached by an obviously-high panhandler. He managed, all by himself, to freak out the group of 6 people I was walking with through Kensington at night. He wouldn't get lost and wouldn't accept anything under a few bucks, but he also didn't stab anyone or block doorways or anything like that. We didn't give him a cent.
Panhandling doesn't cause stabbings anymore than riding bikes does. How many accidents are causes by cyclists? If we banned cycling, wouldn't that prevent injuries and potentially deaths too?
Ken - i'm glad you used the phrase "rampant, heartless capitalism" because it emphasizes that not all capitalism contributes to poverty, but irresponsible and unethical capitalism certainly does.
i have met many, many panhandlers. the ones that bother me are the ones that are clearly making a career out of panhandling, and of course those that are mean.. once i was taking my bike into the repair shop and dropped my bag in the process... when i tried to pick it up the door shut on my bike... one lady who panhandles in my neighborhood stood by and watched me struggle and did nothing and then asked me for change on my way out of the shop. argh!
however, there are far more times when i've been helped by panhandlers. one time, i was wandering around, absolutely horribly miserably sad, when a fellow on the street asks me if i'm alright, asks if i want to sit down and offers me his blanket to sit on. i told him my story, and he listened and then offered to buy me some coffee if it would make me feel better. i didn't accept the offer, but was amazed at how kind he was to a total stranger, and a very grumpy one at that. i've seen him several times since then and sat down to talk... he has lots of interesting stories, which he tells very well despite mental disability and obvious fatigue... and he didn't even ask me for money.
aside from the reasons Ken pointed out, a ban on panhandling would be bad for alternative businesspeople such as buskers as well... some people equate busking with begging and legal nitpicking around that would most likely result in many street performers spending more time explaining themselves than performing (no, it's not illegal, the difference between busking and begging is this...) admittedly, there are the rare few that are somewhere between busking and begging, Kevin Clark being one example. (he will ask you for change one minute and a vote into provincial parliament the next... and he's an amazing performer. he should totally have a solo show at the Fringe, he'd be quite popular.)
I find the "greeter" salespeople that wait to spring at the doors of stores much more aggressive and intrusive than the panhandlers sitting outside.
Can I help you find your size? Can I help you find your size? Can I help you find your size? Can I help you find your size? Can I help you find your size?...
We should round them all up and harvest their organs.
Stacey K: That's a nice little story there. I like stories. But I believe it's trumped by the literally countless times that I, and many others, have been intimidated or just annoyed by bums.
"I need help" as constitutionally protected speech: Is "Your money or your life" also protected?
Advertising (or "greeters") as a form of panhandling: That's a very radical statement to make. I can't say I've ever heard it before, and I have to admit it's interesting. But ads are at least paid for. Or in the case of the 'Ist, it's money that's going towards providing a service, which we enjoy using. In other words, there is some *value* exchanged for it. You might think there's a karmic value exchanged for giving a bum money, but because (fortunately!) there's not any such thing as "karma,"...like, there isn't any.
This is, incidentally, why I don't feel guilty about walking down the street drinking a Starbucks coffee while turning down solicitations for cash left and right. Starbucks (which is unionized and pays "fair trade" for its beans), is providing me a service for my dollars. Specifically, it provides me some caffeine to boost my mental state and provide thinking fuel when it comes time to work. To work at my *job*.
That's the key point there, folks: I work so I don't have to panhandle. It's not unreasonable to hope others will follow suit, instead of asking me for money. And at least anecdotally, I know of many cases where people have panhandled as an alternative to a summer job.
Now I sympathize with those who are completely unable to find employment. The severely mentally ill, severely incapacitated individuals -- but these are not usually the people hitting you up for money or cigs on Queen! And then there are ex-convicts, who I do feel we should rehabilitate and keep off the street if possible.
But a funny thing about that "job" I mentioned: About a third of it goes towards "taxes," which pay for a host of safety-net services that I rarely if ever make use of -- some of which that are currently helping to cripple this city's finances, but I digress.
Welfare, unemployment insurance, disability, drop-in centres, halfway houses, shelters, soup kitchens -- all that stuff. All kinds of programs to help street people. All kinds of free training, education and integration services. Some of them are from charitable organizations that we The People also fund with our hard-earned cash.
I happen to live in a neighbourhood which is surrounded by many these shelters and halfway houses. Funnily enough, the homeless dudes who hang out in front of there, chain-smoking and eyeballing the street life, know enough NOT to panhandle...at least not where they live. I hear that's one of the stipulations of staying there. Good stuff, I guess.
But when I do get hit up by them, and I'm in one of those moods, I can just tell him: "I gave at the office." And in a way, it's true.
One last thing: A good solution to many of our woes would be to completely outlaw tobacco. Think about it.
Sorry Marc, but this is one of those rare occasions where I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
Dave H.
I'm just tired of this debate. People have this sense of entitlement - "I work, therefore I'm better." Fine, I get it, you think that poor people are a burden and a drag and you want them gone from your sight. They bother you so much. Pleas for money disturb you. They should get a job. Get a life. Get it together. They deserve their fate. They are able-bodied and scamming. They don't deserve compassion. They're all drug addicts and potential killers. Whatever. I'm so glad I only ever interact with you people over the internet and not in person. You're the kind of bigoted, privileged jerks that make me ill. Screw you. Type your ire all you want - I'm going to act in my own best interests and not bother reading this comment thread anymore.
Hey andrew, can you refute any of the statements made above? Or can you only play the part of the kid taking his ball and going home -- although in this case, nobody wants to play ball with you, because you suck at it)?
Bigoted: Nope, we're talking rhetorically about pervasive social issues here. Not a matter of bigotry. Non sequitor.
Privileged: If you insist. I'm technically below the poverty line (and yes I can still afford to add to this forum, ask me how!), but if you have something against the working class, be my guest.
Jerk: The most useless, non-descriptive, generic ad hominem in the English language. Pathetic.
That Make Me Ill: What are you, six years old?
Re: "sense of entitlement" - are you being ironic? Entitlement culture was the Reagan-era term to describe social programs which purportedly coddled those in poverty and provided incentives not to work. Not difficult to apply the term to panhandling.
Guest 33 - You're equating all panhandling with the threat of physical violence. Such threats, and the acts that follow, are illegal regardless of the perpetrator's station in life. That's blatantly disingenuous of you. Reason enough to ignore the typical privileged rationalizing which follows it.
Rek: If you think a throwaway comment about the threat of physical violence that sometimes comes with panhandling is enough to "ignore" the rest of someone's comment, I'd say that's disingenuous of you as well. It's not much better than andrew's "Screw you" gambit.
Calling my position "privileged" is unfair. 96% of people in Toronto also work and pay taxes. This doesn't quite put me in the top bracket of wage-earners. Moreover, working at a job is not something I consider a privilege, it's a necessity to survive.
Calling it "rationalizing" is similarly unfair. Tell me what I'm rationalizing exactly? My right to not give people spare change or cigarettes, or my right not to be bothered five times a day? My right to ignore them and not be given a guilt trip by blogging hipsters? It's not a rationalization. I told you straight up that I find it annoying.
I (poster 33) haven't even called for making panhandling an infraction. But when there are annoyances in one's daily life, you look for solutions. You might find it annoying that they're building condos on Queen W., for instance. You might voice your opposition to it, despite the people who would suffer as a result.
There are a few societies in which disdain for anyone who isn't completely destitute is considered au courant. Toronto(ist) seems to be one of them. Forgive me if I don't follow suit.