It’s a Dog’s Life

Rod Graham

January 2009.

Saskatoon,  Saskatchewan, Canada – Recently I visited the city of Saskatoon Saskatchewan.  It was close to Christmas time and I was hoping to enjoy the season, visit my aunt Alice and cousin Lyle — and avoid writing anything that might cause stress.   A selfish attitude, and one I’ve told others not to have in the past — I couldn’t avoid being moved by a tale from a young man who was panning in front of the Center Mall in downtown Sas katoon. 

Unfortunately, it was not an unusual tale at all either. Cops harassing and trying to provoke the homeless and also various ignorant passersby finding it impossible to not insult or try and traumatize some less fortunate citizen on the street who are merely trying to panhandle passively and innocently. 

The young man was panhandling on the sidewalk, totally legally, not near an entrance, not near a bank, not near a bus stop etc etc etc..as the laws stipulate in most of Canada. When a policewoman came along, not doubt at the behest of some fine upstanding merchant or citizen and began the usual harangue they do:  ‘..Where are you from?   Why are you here?  Are you on medication?  Do you have a record?  Where are you going next?  And other insulting and presumptuous and intrusive queries.  If that was not bothersome enough – a fine citizen stopped, perhaps the cowardly person who had informed on the individual, and ‘kindly’ offered to take the boy’s dog from him. 

The cities finest then proceeded to agree with the nice lady who was trying to take the boy’s dog away from him and told him the dog would be better off in a ‘nice home’ than on the street with him.  As the young man protested the pair (Or trio or more – police never work alone) pestered him about the issue until he became agitated and raised his voice (Something the poor must never do to the status quo! Esp. on the street and being in a vulnerable position as he was) then the inevitable happened  – but I am surprised at the utter arrogance and corruption of the cops here, she arrested the man for ‘causing a disturbance’ and also took his dog and gave it to the guardianship of the SPCA (Which the law can do in such a case – if one is arrested). 

It is very very common for merchants, cops and others to confront and then try to provoke a homeless person, then having an excuse to further their persecution, to arrest, accuse or even assault the unfortunate soul.  In short the poor fellow had his dog taken away, possibly the only friend on earth he had at the time, and put him in jail for 24 hours. Granted, it was cold in early December of 2008, but the dog was a longhaired cross of domestic blood, I’m sure his companion was colder than he.  I am totally in favour of animal rights. 

But have we sunk so low that we value the comfort of a dog over that of a human being, no matter his status in our country?  Fortunately the young fellow was released and had time to go collect his friend before he was euthanized or given up for adoption to the nice lady. 

My instinct told me this was an infrequent visitor to the street, albeit not a stranger to it, and that he was merely temporarily on the street – Common for the young less fortunate in our country. My prayer now is that both are faring better and are also free of persecution.

Interestingly, multiple thousands each of dogs and cats of mixed breed are killed at the ‘humane’ society in Winnipeg annually – while at the same time you can easily buy a purebred at any pet store in Winnipeg for an average of $500.  This seems to be the situation from coast to coast as well.  The breeding industry is also very busy and very lucrative across Canada. 

I suggest that people ‘rescue’ a crossbreed dog or cat (Or a purebred one) or an older one from a shelter and save its life instead of buying one from a pet store.  Crossbred dogs and cats are not nearly as popular as purebred ones.  Older cats and dogs that are caught at large are not popular either and so are euthanized before puppies and purebreds– I prefer to use the realistic word – KILLED.  Also, pet store animals are often weak and unhealthy from being ‘boxed’ in small enclosures and from being ‘bred’ from exhausted female breeding dogs or cats.  They often die soon after being bought.  Where is the humanity in our country?  Why do we treat animals like objects of property?  Why do we treat children the same.

The way we treat the less fortunate is appalling.  It is also very common from city to city.  As for animals, pet stores should be outlawed but instead we ‘outlaw’ abandoned and abused animals instead of ‘saving’ them…

  And, unfortunately, we do the very same thing to our les fortunate citizens!  Shame!

The Real Criminals

Street Sheet Canada. 

December 15^th, 2007

Canada’s poor treated like criminals while crimes against them are ignored

 Rodney Graham

      Winnipeg, Manitoba.  Canada — Is being poorly clothed, scruffy looking, and merely poor more of a crime than assault, rape, drug dealing, and even murder?  It’s hard to prove that this attitude exists because of the bias of mainstream media against the less fortunate ones – but this is exactly the case!  Not just in America, but here in Canada as well. 

       There were many articles last summer regarding the altercation and subsequent death of a non-homeless man in Toronto by 4 apparent ‘panhandlers’, as they were labelled.  There were dozens actually– about this one — isolated incident…  Mayor Katz, mayor of Winnipeg, Manitoba, even alluded to this incident that happened in Toronto when asked by media recently about the panhandler by-law and the challenge to it by National Anti-Poverty Organization, using it as an — ‘example’ of what happens when the panhandlers are not ‘put in their place’.  Where is ‘there place’?  — Is my question to the mayor.  I suspect, if one could read minds is, ‘there place’ is in jail, hidden, banished from off the earth!  Because that is exactly how the ‘system’ treats them, and it’s exactly how the general public treats them too anonymously.

     I have news for Mayor Katz:  Violence on the streets of our cities is a terrible thing.  Yes, it has increased over the years, alarmingly, even.  But, it is the homeless who are victims of violence by non-homeless people—not the other way round, as he, and the mainstream media, would have us believe!  Yes, the violence on the street is increasing too – violence against the poor!  Incidents of homeless, panhandlers, and even buskers being assaulted, killed, raped, and even set on fire are increasing alarmingly.  Further in this article the statistics of this will be shown.  Why is it, when the public reads dailies across Canada, they seem to get the impression that the homeless on our streets are scary, dangerous, violent, criminal?

      There was an article about a ‘panhandler’ in Halifax who saved an old woman from muggers in the summer of 2007.  This man was about the same age as the panhandlers accused of murder in Toronto, Ontario.  This incident transpired shortly after the former.  Very interestingly, to me anyway, is that I had a hard time finding many articles about the panhandler and his heroic act –Why?    Check dailies across Canada (By internet) about the panhandlers who allegedly caused the death of a non-homeless man.  There were innumerable articles about the alleged murder — but very few about the panhandler hero.   There was no mention of whether the panhandlers were provoked or insulted – Very little of the details of the incident even.   

     Having been an activist for 20 years and also a formerly ‘scary’ homeless youth. I have a lifetime of ‘experience to draw on – as well as hard facts.  Those facts are on the internet as I have explained, you merely have to do the slight bit of research as I have mentioned about the two events.  Anyone on earth who has access to the internet can do it.  I have interviewed convicted men and women, as well as homeless people. I think I know a bit about who is a ‘real’ criminal who needs reform, and who does not.  Panhandlers are definitely not criminals!  Neither should they be treated as such.  Neither should squeegee kids be viewed as such (Youth who wash car windows at intersections in Canada), the laws against them are in direct opposition to their rights as outlined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada.  

     An apparent paradigm exists in the media community, not just on blogs, when the topic of panhandlers, and squeegee kids are the news of the day:  When people talk about the homeless, whether they are the media reporting, or the ‘general public’, they seem to demonize panhandlers, sometimes just subtly. Other times not so subtly — Call it merely ‘ignorance’ if you will.  Perhaps prejudice, arrogance, or maliciousness could be used.  Conversely, when speaking of the ‘general public’, or the ‘non-homeless person’, they are very careful to paint them as something holy and righteous — untouchable.  If you do not agree please read on with an open mind, I’m sure the ‘general public’ are more than willing – since this is a ‘liberal’ country — eh?  Further on in this article there are references to actual statistics showing a growing trend towards violence against panhandlers on the streets of North America perpetrated by the ‘general public’.  These statistics are from the U.S.  We do not keep such statistics in Canada, unfortunately, not nationally anyway.

     According to several studies in the United States it is the homeless and desperate youth who have suffered assaults and been victims of crime – perpetrated by non-homeless individuals in the general public.  When poor people are assaulted on the street they almost never report it.  But the media blows it up when a poor person is provoked and attacks someone of the general public.

        In The U.S. during the years (1999-2003) advocates and homeless shelter workers have seen an alarming rise in reports of homeless men, women, and even children killed, beaten, and harassed.  Since 1999 National Coalition for the Homeless has been compiling records of abuse against the homeless in America.  In 2003, nine homeless people died as a result of beatings by non-homeless individuals.  Dozens were assaulted on the street.   These numbers are probably far higher, however, because most homeless people do not report abuse.  There has not been a similar study in Canada.

       Groups like National Coalition for the Homeless in the States have been successful in challenging unjust laws and in spreading the word: “Instead of the compassionate responses that communities have used to save lives in the past two decades, the common response to homelessness is to criminalize the victims through laws and ordinances that make illegal life-sustaining activities that people experiencing homelessness are forced to do in public,” said Donald Whitehead, Executive Director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, who is himself formerly homeless.

        As it becomes increasingly difficult to afford housing, this country is turning to jails instead of creating affordable housing. These individuals and families are arrested for committing such illegal acts as sitting or standing on sidewalks and napping in parks. Whitehead stated, “At the national level, we see a relationship between municipalities’ efforts to make homelessness a crime and the increases in hate crimes and violent acts directed at homeless people in those cities.”

     The mainstream media went on a ‘feeding frenzy’ last summer: the alleged murder of a ‘normal upstanding citizen’, meaning a middle class/non-homeless person in T.O.– by the ever-stigmatized ‘scary dangerous street punk.’   I am always amazed at the one sided, hyped up, overblown treatment of panhandlers and ‘street people’. 

     Interestingly, the media (Mainstream) often try their absolute best — to portray the poor (Esp. the younger ones) of being dangerous, violent, and larcenous.  That is because most mainstream media know absolutely nothing about poverty and the less fortunate ones among us.  I’ve watched them for years!  They send their ‘crew’ down to the ‘street’ and then immediately interview, who else?  A merchant/businessman of course.  Then they interview, who else?  A cop — of course. Then a politician.  If they are real ambitious maybe they will then also interview a social worker or professional — or some fund sucker or poverty pimp.  Then — of course, the ‘bad guys’ — the poor.  And, of course, they make sure to pick someone who they’ve interviewed of the panhandlers who is not going to be a good representative of panhandlers either.  Kids I have spoken to tell me time and time again that the media that interviewed them twisted their words and/or wrote things they didn’t even say! – Making them look bad.  This occurs so often I often go interview the homeless person who I’ve seen in a mainstream media publication or broadcast, and sure enough, the poor person tells me that their words were twisted or their story was manipulated in such a way that it made the poor person look bad.

     They write what sells — write what the people want to hear. 

     The facts don’t matter.  Anyone with a modicum of intelligence could spend one day finding the real stats on violence and real “injustice”.  They might be surprised to find that the mainstream media, the police, and the merchants, and I would include so called ‘professionals’ across Canada are feeding them hogwash.  The stats (The few there are in Canada) show that it is the general public who usually attack/abuse the poor on the street.

          Back to the topic of violence and panhandlers in Canada; I challenge anyone to check the Internet for articles about the panhandler who saved an old woman from muggers in The Commons in Halifax the summer of 2007.  Better yet, check with papers (Dailies) across Canada. Try to find all articles about him AND all the ‘opinions’ of the ‘general public’.  You’ll have to search hard.   Then search for articles on Panhandlers who killed a man. 

      Make sure you have a hell of a lot of time to read since the articles and blogs raving about the ‘scary panhandlers’ is quite lengthy!  The incidents occurred only weeks apart.  

     Then do some simple arithmetic and check out the stats from National Coalition for the Homeless.  Although it’s stats about American cities – the same trend is happening to us in Canada.

        The media are correct in one area, however; that is this:  Violence on the street HAS increased over the years.  But the fact is that violence AGAINST the homeless has increased not the other way round as the media and those they interview would lead the naïve public to assume. In fact, it has always been that way!  You are far more likely to be murdered by a loved one or relative than a homeless person.  You are far more likely to be raped at some middle class party than by a street person.  The less fortunate ones on the street are far less likely to harm anyone in the public!  The ‘well off’ assault each other far more as well as assaulting the poor!  

     Yes, some of these so-called ‘street people ‘ are getting fed up with being assaulted, provoked, and insulted continually.  When the poor are assaulted you can bet on this: 

It will not be reported to the media or to police.  But there will be a day of reckoning…  It’s why I believe in God — To think otherwise would be illogical.  Someone surely has to repay the enormous injustices that are deliberately covered up by police, politicians, and also merchants and bureaucrats.       

          The traveling kids (Train hoppers and squeegeekids) are usually quite scruffy in appearance – that’s the real reason merchants don’t like them.  But the drug dealers at on the corner — appear comparatively neat and clean.  Now, you would expect that a drug dealer is someone more ‘undesirable’ to the ‘public’ than someone who is merely scruffy in appearance.  The police and merchants, of course, who follow the Darwinian law of the jungle don’t see it that way however.  Apparently merchants and cops don’t mind if dealers sell drugs to your children…  as long as they’re clean and not an eyesore’ – if they draw ‘consumers’ into the village – they’re good for business! 

     To them, what’s good for business is good for society at large.  Yes, the cops do their little annual drug ‘sweep’ each year or so.  But it is just a token really.

     So you see drug dealers being totally ignored by the cops while at the same time and in the same location even, the cops aggressively hounding and badgering a group of individuals (All afternoon!) who are merely dirty in appearance! — In other words – poor looking.  No less than 4 ‘two man’ cars were tied up in this harassment which I witnessed one day — No wonder it takes them 4 hours to arrive at a break-in in progress at a senior citizen’s home! The worst law they might have been breaking is ‘drinking liquor in public’, and if the cops were to bother them for that it would have been really ridiculous, esp. since there are at any one time dozens of drunk/semi-drunk/soon-to-be drunk/impaired yuppies sitting at terraces out-of-doors in the village till 2 AM then spill into the street — where they assault each other and others too…including panhandlers.

     So why do the mainstream media jump on a story about a homeless person fighting with someone of the general public?  Why does the mainstream media ignore and downplay stories about the homeless being assaulted, set on fire, raped, and abused and insulted, and provoked?  So is being poorly clothed, scruffy looking, and merely poor more of a crime than assault, rape, drug dealing, and even murder?  It’s hard to prove that this attitude exists because of the bias of mainstream media against the less fortunate ones – but this is exactly the case!  Not just in America, but here in Canada as well…

Street papers could go a long way in exposing this great injustice.  They should do so.

Criminalizing Canada’s Poor Will the ‘real’ criminals please stand up?

First published in Street Sheet (Canada) in 2005, revised in 2007.

 By Rodney Graham

 He taunted her as she walked back and forth on the sidewalk in front of the officer’s Café.   “How ugly you are!” he shot at her, “You have lost your teeth.  Are you trying to hide?” 

To summarize this passage from Les Miserables’, Inspector Javert arrests Fantine, after she lashes out at the ‘Jim dandy’ and scratches him.  Arbitrarily and on the spot, Javert the policeman sentences her to six months in jail.   Most know the story.  She is a poor woman, moral, but because of circumstance (She loses her job) and is slowly forced into more and more desperation until she sells her hair to a barber, then ends up on the street trying to make enough to feed her child Cosette.

A portrait of injustice – but is it a good example of contemporary society?  Some would say yes.  Hypocrisy, double standards and corruption – We have it now, as then, and perhaps even more now.  There are more homeless in Canada per capita than in the U.S.  Canada has one of the highest per capita rates of homelessness of any developed nation in the world. We have about 200,000 homeless.  The U.S., with a population nine times the size of us has 750,000.  

Injustice: While welfare rates have been cut in several provinces in recent years, and housing is an issue in almost every province; there has also been a rise in laws directly targeting the less fortunate.

In Toronto, Canada’s largest city there have been activities resembling a war with activist groups and coalitions of groups demonstrating against police “sweeps” similar to those carried out in large U.S. cities. “The system has cut welfare rates to the poor in Ontario, there are not enough shelters, and now the top it off they are implementing a new law making it illegal to sleep in public areas.  It is obscene, it’s immoral.”  Said John Clarke of Ontario Coalition Against Poverty in Toronto.  “Bill 8 targeted squeegee kids and others, people who were not committing a crime.  Other provinces are now copying our provincial by-law.” 

In BC, the Safe Streets Act was just implemented late in 2004.  The fines ranging from $86 to $115, to be issued by police as tickets similar to traffic offences, are the finishing touches of the Liberal government’s Safe Streets Act and amended Trespass Act. It is similar to Bill 8 in Ontario, which was implemented four years ago.  But Bill Burrill, president of Together Against Poverty in Victoria BC says their new law is more aimed at panhandlers in BC.  “The politicians claimed they were targeting inappropriate behaviour or aggressive panhandlers,” Burrill said, “ I don’t believe that — the criminal code clearly covers all acts inappropriate in public.  They don’t need this Safe Streets Act at all –It is specifically targeting panhandlers.  It has been brought into place to “beautify” the streets for rich tourists.” The law is so new it hasn’t been challenged yet.  There is a challenge to bill 8 in Ontario however.

Other cities were watching closely as National Anti Poverty Association challenged Winnipeg’s draconian anti-panhandling by-law.  It dragged on for five years and was finally settled out of court with Winnipeg city hall finally giving in.  The Winnipeg law restricted where and when panhandlers could work.  Winnipeg had implemented it in 1995 and interestingly, their own lawyers had advised against the law agreeing with activists that the criminal code was sufficient to deal with panhandlers.  The police even advised against the law.  City council did what Toronto’s city council did.  They ‘vetoed’ the findings and advice of those who warned against it and voted for the by-law against the advice of the ‘experts’ and did what the business community demanded.  Winnipeg also implemented the very first anti-squeegee kid by-law in 1998.  Again, against the advise of a 50 member task force made up of people from various social agencies and police.  Almost unanimously, the number one recommendation was to licence the squeegeers and allow then to continue. There has been no challenge to the squeegee law, however. Winnipeg’s panhandler by-law was repealed without going to trial and replaced with one focusing only on aggressive behaviour while panhandling.  So NAPO won in principle.  Amazingly, Winnipeg city council is again proposing a new anti-panhandler by-law.  Actually, over 100 fines were given to panhandlers in Winnipeg in 2006. 

“We need to find a better way to deal with poverty and desperation,” said Dennis Howlett, the former Executive director of NAPO, (National Anti Poverty Organization) in Ottawa. “ The reason these laws are being passed is because of pressure from small businesses in municipalities.” 

Howlett said that the costs of trails of panhandlers costs taxpayers a great deal of money when you add to it all the cost of defending unjust laws in Canada — money that could be spent on housing for the homeless. 

The new director of National Anti-Poverty Organization, Rob Rainer, met with the Social Planning Council in Winnipeg in the spring of 2007 to discuss once again challenging the panhandling by-law there.

Echoing his statements are activists across the nation who are enjoying tremendous success in defending panhandlers and squeegee kids in court.  The Ticket Defence Committee in Ottawa has defended over two hundred people fined under the Safe Streets Act.  Howlett said the activists and lawyers have been ‘tremendously successful’ in having charges thrown out. The defence is simple — The fine would pose an undue hardship on someone who has no money.

In Toronto, lawyers and activists have tackled it another way:  arguing that the law is against the Charter Rights of the panhandlers and squeegee kids.  The Act may also be unlawful since only the federal government can introduce laws regarding criminal matters.  BC has gone against the spirit of that argument apparently and their anti-panhandling law was upheld after a challenge by NAPO.  There has been no appeal yet from NAPO on the decision and a challenge to the new Safe Streets Act is a higher priority.  In the United States advocates have been very successful defending the poor citing cruel and unusual punishment as outlined in the American Constitution.  Several American cities have actually had to repeal their anti-panhandling by-laws and laws targeting the poor on the street.

Along with many judges across Canada who have a conscience — Judge Edwin Zimmerman, a judge in Winnipeg, where the first squeegee kid law was enacted, not only threw one of Canada’s first anti-squeegee charges a few years ago, but added, “ I think you’re doing a fine job — you’re dismissed!’

Some of the Canadian cities with laws concerning panhandling are:  Ottawa; Quebec City; Toronto, Winnipeg; Calgary and Vancouver.  Quebec City, Montreal, Winnipeg, the province of Ontario, and the province of BC have laws targeting squeegee kids.

Is there a need for new laws targeting the poor?  When questioning the public about it many will say, ‘yes, because of the crime on the street’. But they are not aware that neither panhandlers nor squeegee kids are likely to harm them in any way.  In fact, statistics show the opposite– that the homeless and poor on the street are often victims of violence from the general public!

Crime on the streets:  I have spent many hours observing the behaviour of people on the street.   People would often say something rude to the squeegee kids — the same with panhandlers.  But not the reverse.  I’ve seen worse.  One day at Portage and Broadway in Winnipeg a young girl and her boyfriend were squeegeeing.  A group of kids in an SUV were at the stoplight.  As they pulled away one of them threw and ashtray and hit the girl squarely on the temple. Blood poured from her head.  I could hear the people in the SUV wailing with laughter as the cowards fled the scene — the girl required 40 stitches.  When I told the police they were totally uninterested. 

I was on Osborne Street in Winnipeg another day.  I witnessed an employee of a tattoo parlour come out of his store and punch a Native male in the face several times until the poor man fell to the ground.  At least fifteen people sat sipping their expensive drinks in the sidewalk section of an upscale restaurant.  When I asked no one was willing to testify or get involved.  Yet another incident in friendly Manitoba:  I was not there but heard about it from several youths on the street.  A group of males jumped out of a van and beat two squeegee kids severely with golf clubs.  When others ran a few short blocks and told police the police said, ‘ The squeegee kids shouldn’t have been on the street it’s their own fault.’ The police refused to search for the van even though they were given the licence number.  Yet the chambers of commerce nation wide are hounding the civic politicians to ‘protect’ the public from panhandlers and squeegee kids.

I dressed in shabby clothes one day and tried to pan on Portage Avenue in Winnipeg.  I have never seen such rude behaviour in my life.  I think most people would suffer extreme trauma if they tried to panhandle.  I don’t think most people enjoy it actually; they simple do it because they are extremely poor and desperate. 

Whereas it is a given that there is crime on the street, the focus of public attention is not being directed by the system or the mainstream media to the real culprits.  Meanwhile contemporary law and an attitude leaning in recent years towards less sympathy for the less fortunate has made it a hard go for some people who are merely trying to subsidise a very low fixed income by begging or squeegeeing. 

In Barbara Murphy’s book The Ugly Canadian, the decline and fall of a caring society, she states,‘ we take pride in our toughness now, not our generous social policies.  We warn the poor and sick to keep their heads up; they’ve had their innings.  The years of compassion are over (the 40s to the 80s) Today we’re playing hardball…concern about the deficit turned to anger and the public looked for someone to blame.  Two items everyone could understand stood out:  The deficit and social programs.  Even though very little of the deficit could be blamed on social programs’.

Why the trend to Legislation?  Laws against the poor are not new.  Vagrancy and panhandling by-laws have been around for over a hundred years – or since the beginning of your nation.  The resurgence is mainly because of overly eager civic politicians wanting to placate the desires, moral or otherwise, of the business community.

In 1982 political scientist James Wilson and criminologist George Kelling co-authored an article in Atlantic Monthly titled “Broken Windows”.  They claimed that the best way to fight crime was to target the disorder that precedes it, such as:  panhandling, garbage, derelict buildings, and graffiti.  New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani adopted the Broken Windows Theory and implemented a community-policing strategy focused on order maintenance… graffiti washed nightly from subway cars, $1.25 subway turnstile-jumpers arrested, trash picked up. Minor, seemingly insignificant quality-of-life crimes were found to be the tipping point for violent crime. When New York “windows” were repaired, crime dropped – or so the bureaucrats claim.  Canadian cities took note and soon Toronto initiated Bill 8.

Bill 8 is province wide in scope and targets squeegee kids as well as other actions deemed anti social behaviour.  Activist and director of Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, John Clarke is a big opponent of it and says a group of activists are challenging it.  Here is an excerpt from Bill 8:

‘…This is one simple way that citizens measure their quality of life. They want to go shopping or take their children to a park or just go out for a stroll after seeing a show without hassle. They don’t want to worry about encountering behaviour that poses a safety hazard, and yet this is exactly what is happening in Ontario.

Activities such as aggressive solicitation, squeegeeing and the disposal of dangerous objects in parks have compromised the safe use of public places.’

But squeegee kids and panhandlers are extremely unlikely to rob, assault, and rape anyone.  It is true, however, that downtown areas of cities are where the highest rates of crime can be found.  Interestingly, in Winnipeg where the first anti-squeegee kid by-law was implemented in 1998, drug dealing, which is truly a crime, was rife in Winnipeg.  But the Business Improvement Zone (BIZ) politicians, and the police launched no such campaign as was launched against squeegee kids.  Why?  Squeegee kids and panhandlers were singled out – the poor people on the streets.  Today, you can walk down Osborne Street and immediately see the dealers, pimps, and gang members at the northeast corner of River and Osborne St, standing around looking cool.  If one were to check their criminal records it would stretch 10 blocks long. They stand around boldly, as if proud of themselves.  Seven years have passed since the squeegee kid by-law and ‘sweep’ of the scruffy looking squeegee kids.   ‘Real’ crime in the village is still the same — or even higher.  Is it because drugs and other ‘real’ crimes are good for business—but poor/scruffy people are not?

It’s about aesthetics:  “It’s a comfort issue”, said Arne Peltz, Lawyer for NAPO; the group that successfully challenged Winnipeg’s panhandler law five years ago, “ That’s what we’ll show in court, Peltz had said.  The NAPO statement of claim against the Winnipeg panhandler by-law had argued that the true purpose of the panhandler by-law was to distance and separate panhandlers from the rest of the population – to avoid discomfort of proximity to indigents on the street.  That’s the story you will get from many an activist  — it’s about comfort and aesthetics.  Many cities even called their downtown ‘revitalization’ projects ‘beautification’ projects.  

Desperate, but not criminals:  Every generation thinks the present generation of kids worse than the previous. That’s according to a study done by two Guelph researchers in Ontario -O’Grady and Sprott. They also stated that most people have already made up their minds about homeless youth but they would like to know if the “experts” agree. I’m not a big fan of “experts” especially when it comes to social issues. I have seen their work before and have disagreed many a time but O’Grady and Sprott seem to have made some good points.

     Sprott stated that fear is fueling the passage of laws designed to keep schools and society safe from violence, policies that Sprott says are often based more on anxiety and assumptions than reality. Recent examples include the Ontario provincial Safe Streets Act that allows police to ticket people for squeegeeing and outlaws panhandling in spots where the right-of-way is impeded (such as near bank machines and transit stops).

     Legislation that dictates where and when street youth can panhandle does not even begin to address the real problems kids face O’grady and Sprott’s study showed that hysteria and paranoia have much to do with people’s perceptions of youth today, especially homeless youth. For example, he believes that people’s consternation with squeegee kids does not have a lot to do with the youths themselves. His study on squeegee kids included interviews with more than 50 Toronto teens who were involved in squeegee cleaning and 50 who did not clean car windows for money.

Double Standards:  The findings revealed that squeegee kids were less likely to sell drugs, commit crimes and engage in violent behaviour than other less-visible street youth were. Squeegee kids also had a better mental outlook… Ironically whole new laws are being implemented to criminalize these people and prevent them from working.  The first law was implemented in friendly Manitoba.  There are several new laws targeting poor youth in Canada.  These laws were brought into being with relative ease with the business communities attending all the city hall meetings across our nation to be careful and make sure these “criminals”’ are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. In the space of a few short months the anti-squeegee kid by-law in Winnipeg was implemented.  Interestingly, youth advocates across Canada have been lobbying for decades – literally – to raise the age of consent so that sexual predators in our communities would not victimize young people.  The age of consent in Canada was 14 years old.  We are one of the last of the Western countries to raise the age of consent!  The Present federal government has just raised the age of consent to 16 yrs.  The opposition parties fought against the change.  The politicians seem so eager to please the businesspersons across our nation – the poor and scruffy people – people who are not aesthetically pleasing to consumers are quickly confronted with conviction, yet the most vulnerable in our great country are ignored, as are their advocates!    

The following is an excerpt from the North American Street Newspaper Association website:  ‘A report put out earlier this year by the Washington-based National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty (NLCHP) reviewed the punitive policies in 50 U.S. cities. It found that in 49 cities where the information was available, 86 per cent have laws that restrict begging. During the last two years, 12 per cent of those cities have enacted new laws restricting begging, and 73 per cent have laws restricting sleeping and/or camping outdoors. In many ways (videotaping or monitoring) serves more as a deterrent,” says Michael Stoops, project director of the Washington-based National Coalition for the Homeless. “No private security guard or police officer’s going to make themselves look foolish in front of a camera. But it’s hard to get patrols out there on a regular basis. So we find it’s best to educate homeless people about what their rights are and to give them the name and address of the local civil liberties attorney.”

“We found litigation to be the best way to stop a law from being passed or enforced,” says Stoops. ‘

In Toronto, police reform lawyers like Mark Wainberg are only beginning to look at the possibility of launching a class-action suit against the police. But in U.S. cities, lawsuits on behalf of the homeless are common

Laws against poor encourage violence:  According to several studies in the United States it is the homeless and desperate youth who have suffered assaults and been victims of crime – perpetrated by non-homeless individuals in the general public.  When poor people are assaulted on the street they almost never report it.  But the media blows it up big when a poor person is provoked or attacks someone of the general public.

In The U.S. during the years (1999-2003) advocates and homeless shelter workers have seen an alarming rise in reports of homeless men, women, and even children killed, beaten, and harassed.  Since 1999 National Coalition for the Homeless has been compiling records of abuse against the homeless in America.  In 2003, nine homeless people died as a result of beatings by non-homeless individuals.  Dozens were assaulted on the street.   These numbers are probably far higher, however, because most homeless people do not report abuse.  There has not been a similar study in Canada.

Groups like National Coalition for the Homeless in the States have been successful in challenging unjust laws and in spreading the word: “Instead of the compassionate responses that communities have used to save lives in the past two decades, the common response to homelessness is to criminalize the victims through laws and ordinances that make illegal life-sustaining activities that people experiencing homelessness are forced to do in public,” said Donald Whitehead, Executive Director of the National Coalition for the Homeless, who is himself formerly homeless.

As it becomes increasingly difficult to afford housing, this country is turning to jails instead of creating affordable housing. These individuals and families are arrested for committing such illegal acts as sitting or standing on sidewalks and napping in parks. Whitehead stated, “At the national level, we see a relationship between municipalities’ efforts to make homelessness a crime and the increases in hate crimes and violent acts directed at homeless people in those cities.”

A woman I spoke to on the street made and interesting comment…

‘ Yes, there is a lot of crime on the street, she said ‘and there’s a group of unproductive people who are lazy and dishonest.  There should be something done about it.  But I am not talking about panhandlers or squeegee kids...’ I remember my first article about the squeegee kids – ten years ago, whom I say I admire and respect… One of the managers in Osborne Village, uncharacteristically, commented…’the squeegee kids?  They’re o.k… I think some of the businessmen around here are much more dangerous.’

Being Homeless is Illegal

Economic profiling treats homeless people as criminals

By Margo Pierce, with contributions from many editors and writers from several North American Street Newspaper Association street papers.

A multi-paper compilation by NASNA in 2009.

Affluent college students set up tents, cardboard boxes and crates on private property housed in their makeshift “shanty town,” as a protest against the plight of homeless people. Living outdoors for a night – food, toilets and police protection readily available – this camping offers protection for a night spent in full view of the public.

A ragtag group of people huddles under a highway bridge, cars thundering overhead, setting up tents and a few belongings. They are waiting out a storm. It will likely be a few days before the rain finally stops, so they are grateful for the protection and a measure of privacy in a public place.

The first group will pass the night in relative calm after the TV cameras leave. The second group will be invaded by police issuing citations before forcing them back into the storm to look for some other shelter, possibly leading to more tickets. Both situations describe people creating their own shelter. The reason they are treated so differently is economic profiling. Like other forms of profiling – targeting individuals for suspicion because of their race, faith or nationality – economic profiling uses the appearance of poverty as a basis of suspicion.

Economic profiling is also used to create laws and ordinances that intentionally target economically disadvantaged people, frequently homeless, for the stated reason of improving public safety. The problem is that this profiling doesn’t work, and it sanctions discrimination against people who are different, feeding an irrational fear of “homeless people.”

Beautiful people can be homeless, too

If you saw David Letterman or Jim Carey sleeping in a car, wrapped in a sleeping bag against the cold, would you call the police and complain that he made you feel unsafe while walking your dog? Would Halle Berry, dressed in jeans and a T-shirt on a bus-stop bench, prompt you to tell a cop that a prostitute was soliciting in a place where children gather? Would those people inspire feelings of fear, disgust or self-righteous indignation?

Of course not. You’d look for a piece of paper for an autograph and get your cell phone ready to take a photo. The only difference between Letterman, Berry and other people on the street is that they managed to move beyond homelessness and became rich. When they were homeless, however, a call to the cops would have been a more likely outcome, because we treat homelessness as a crime.

In 2007 approximately 3.6 million people were homeless at some time in North America, according to a number of non-profit organizations. “Homeless” is defined in a variety of ways, so it is impossible to paint a uniform picture of what this reality looks like. But the numbers show that homelessness has reached epidemic proportions. The popular response is punishment.

“It’s illegal to be homeless in this country. We have a form of economic profiling similar to racial profiling,” says Michael Stoops, director of community organizing for the National Coalition for the Homeless in Washington, D.C. “It’s a major problem, and it’s not going to go away unless citizens demand that their cities do something about it in a positive manner.”

This is true across all of North America.

“During the past 10 years the number of tickets given to the homeless by the police has quadrupled,” says Serge Lareault, publisher of the Canadian street paper L’Itinéraire. “Considered an ‘open city,’ many homeless have moved to Montréal, especially after the situation in Toronto, where the police decided to ‘clean’ the downtown of the homeless through ticketing and harassment.

“From 1994 to 2007 the population of homeless in Montréal has passed from 15,000 to 30,000. The tickets given to the homeless between 2003-05 total $3.3 million, and they will never pay it, because they have no money. The majority of them say it’s a big reason why they will not be able to reintegrate the society, because they have too much to pay.”

People who live on the street or rely on shelters for temporary housing are on the outside of society because they appear to do things that are inappropriate. The law treats certain necessary behaviors as “anti-social” when they are performed in public. Criminal citations are often issued to homeless people for activities that everyone else does indoors or on private property: earning income, sleeping, eating, going to the bathroom or sitting down to rest.

Stoops calls these “quality of life” behaviors. Some of the laws barring them are cited in the Homes Not Handcuffs: The Criminalization of Homelessness in U.S. Cities, a 2009 report by the National Coalition for the Homeless and the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. They include:

• Bathing in public waters
• Urination/defecation in public
• Begging/panhandling
• Camping in public places
• Sitting or lying in public places
• Spitting
• Failure to disperse from public places
• Washing cars or windshields
• Being without a shirt

Using a toilet is a universal need. You might think a person could just use the facilities in a public place such as a library or subway or a shelter. But that ignores facts that only become obvious when you are living on the street. Many public places can be too far away to walk to – assuming you can walk) and are locked much of the day. Many shelters have restricted access; not anyone can just wander in when they want. And businesses rarely allow people who are not customers to use their facilities.

Then there’s the challenge of taking a shower.

Olympic Kidnapping

While advocates for the homeless recognize the harmful impact of such laws, most communities are slow to recognize the added burdens they place on people already struggling to overcome significant barriers. A single complaint can result in fines for homeless people even if they are causing no problems. When four police cars pulled up to an area under the Interstate 5 bridge in Sacramento, Calif., and cops started ticketing the people sheltering there, Paula Lomazzi, editor of Homeward, the local street paper, was nearby. Lomazzi also works with the Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee (SHOC).

“Safe Ground Sacramento was having a retreat about a couple blocks away when we received a call about this,” Lomazzi says. “We all took a break from the meeting to support the group under the bridge, including two attorneys. It was raining. The group that was camping/living under the bridge had moved there because their regular place was flooded out by (a) high river. They had nowhere else to go. Police gave them all citations and told them they had to leave. … We found out later that a lady that lives in the area had complained. This bridge underpass is not located near any residents or business. They were not visible from the street or anywhere else unless you actually walked under the bridge.”

Efforts to rid the streets of evidence of homelessness can increase during highly visible public events. At these times a city wants to look good by “sweeping” unpleasant aspects of the community out of sight. Police in many cities conduct sweeps in which they round up individuals on the street and take them to a specific location or simply dump the people far away from where they were picked up. By the time they make their way back, the event will be over.

The 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver, British Columbia, is an example.

“What we have seen in Vancouver is an escalation in the criminalization of poverty and homelessness in the lead up to the Olympics,” says Sean Condon, executive director, of Megaphone. “Homeless advocates believe this is an attempt to sweep the poor away during the games. While that hasn’t been fully actualized, it has led to displacement and further criminalization. The first wave started last winter when the police, taking advantage of transition in the mayor’s chair, started handing out tickets to homeless and low-income people in Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside – a poor neighborhood that is most well known for having an open drug market – for everything from jaywalking and riding a bicycle on the sidewalk. After a public outcry and the new mayor’s own opposition, the police finally backed off. However, this past summer they started another crackdown in the neighborhood on the vendors who sell often found goods on the street. Homeless/low-income people are unable to pay the $100-$500 tickets that were handed to them. There is a fear that, when the games start, police will simply arrest anyone who did not pay their tickets as a way to get them off the street.”

A more benevolent label on another law recently enacted in British Columbia is the Assistance to Shelter Act, which authorizes police to “forcibly remove a homeless person and take them to a shelter when there is an extreme weather warning,” Condon says. With approximately 3,000 homeless people in Vancouver and approximately 1,000 shelter beds, plus a few emergency shelters, there are more homeless people than available beds.

“Dubbed the Olympic Kidnapping Act by locals, (the law) is troubling,” Condon says. “What the police, the shelter and the homeless person are supposed to do when all the shelters are full has not been answered. In fairness, the Vancouver police department has said they will not forcibly take a homeless person to a shelter and will only encourage them to go. But police departments in other municipalities, including other Metro Vancouver cities, have not made the same guarantee.”

As recently as Dec. 2009, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favor of the rights of homeless people. The court refused to reverse a decision made in 2008 by Supreme Court Justice Carol Ross, which struck down bylaws in the city of Victoria prohibiting homeless people from camping in public parks. She wrote that the bylaws “violate … the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in that they deprive homeless people of life, liberty and security of the person in a manner not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”

Housing is cheaper

There are no comprehensive studies proving that the criminalization approach to homelessness improves public safety. Advocates for the homeless, however, cite scientific research and anecdotal evidence to prove that addressing the root causes of homelessness – not the behaviors related to it – can have a positive long-term impact for the community as well as the individuals.

Homes Not Handcuffs cites a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association in which Seattle researchers concluded that it’s “cheaper to provide supportive housing to chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol problems than to have them live on the streets.

“Researchers designed a study to evaluate the effect of a Housing First intervention for chronically homeless individuals with severe alcohol problems on the use and costs of services,” the report says. “According to the study, the median costs of Housing First participants before the study were $4,066 per person per month. When participating in the Housing First program, median monthly costs decreased to $1,492 per person per month, after six months and $958 after 12 months.”

Some cities make an effort to balance the criminalization approach with efforts to assist individuals in connecting with service providers. The uneven application of harsh enforcement is illustrated in Colorado. Denver’s Road Home – a 10-year plan to end homelessness – includes criminalization ordinances, but the city “adopted a policy of training officers on how to do outreach to the homeless,” says Tim Covi, editor of the Denver VOICE.

Law enforcement is expected to direct people to assistance rather than issue tickets right away. While the homeless on the Downtown Business Improvement District say they have been treated with respect, others aren’t so fortunate.

“Particularly along the Platte River and Cherry Creek areas, where the homeless often sleep at night and by law are not permitted to sleep, the Denver VOICE has received accounts of people’s possessions being discarded after they were roused in the morning and told to leave the area,” Covi says. “We have been told by at least five homeless people that the police make regular stops early in the morning on the Platte River and tell people to leave, and that if they’re found there again, they’ll be ticketed or arrested.”

Scarce financial resources and public sentiment means advocates for the homeless have the added responsibility of educating the public about the steps necessary to end homelessness. Most large cities have more homeless people than shelter beds and even fewer services to address the root causes of the problem – mental health issues, addiction, job training, high unemployment rates, hiring practices that bar individuals with criminal records. Success stories are hard to come by.

The “A Key Not a Card” campaign in Portland, Ore., allows outreach workers from five different service providers to offer people immediate housing, instead of just a business card.

“From the program’s inception in 2005 through spring 2009, 936 individuals in 451 households have been housed through the program, including 216 households placed directly from the street,” says the Homes Not Handcuffs report.

Another innovative and successful program cited by the report comes from Daytona Beach, Fla. In an effort to reduce the need for panhandling, a coalition of service providers, businesses and the city of Daytona Beach provides homeless people with jobs and housing. The Downtown Street Team program hires homeless people to clean up downtown Daytona Beach. Each is provided with shelter and then transitional housing. Some of the participants have secured other full-time jobs and housing as a result.

Make them wear signs

Unfortunately, failed programs tend to get the most attention.

“What happens when a city proposes some new initiative to solve the homeless problem – and this is in a negative way, to criminalize homelessness – it passes,” says Michael Stoops of the National Coalition for the Homeless. “The chamber of commerce, the police department, the business community will say that this new anti-panhandling program is working. And then other cities hear about it. Cities are actually very lazy. They will copy and pass this same, exact panhandling ordinance that was passed in Cincinnati.”

Indianapolis, Ind., and other municipalities are currently considering the ordinance Stoops refers to.

“In 2003 Cincinnati City Council passed an ordinance requiring panhandlers to obtain licenses from the health department,” says Gregory Flannery, editor of Streetvibes. “Teachers, nurses, activists and others registered as panhandlers in an expression of solidarity. The Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless (parent organization of Streetvibes) filed a civil-rights lawsuit in federal court alleging the ordinance was a violation of the First Amendment, which guarantees the right to free speech. In settling the lawsuit, the city, the Homeless Coalition and Downtown Cincinnati Inc. (DCI) agreed to create an outreach position at DCI, whose job includes connecting panhandlers with social services.”

Politicians in Cincinnati, eager to appear tough on panhandlers, have sometimes tried to ignore the conditions of the settlement, however. Last summer City Councilman Jeff Berding proposed taxing panhandlers and making them wear signs stating how much the city spends to help homeless people. In response to these conditions and other outrageous claims made in the proposal, Berding bowed to community pressure and retracted the measure but only after a significant amount of grandstanding.

Advocates are working to change the views of lawmakers while simultaneously finding ways to get around the laws until they are removed.

In Sacramento it’s against the law to camp or use “camp paraphernalia” on any public property. Camping is allowed on private property with an owner’s permission as long as it’s not for more than 24 hours, according to Lomazzi.

One unintended consequence of the law is that people who own houses could receive citations for camping violations. If a family wants to have a two-day camp-out in their backyard, they can’t get a permit: The limit is one day. The likelihood of a neighbor calling the police isn’t great. But the net result is much more severe for homeless people. Even though Sacramento has more homeless people than shelters beds, people are not allowed to create their own shelter, denying them even minimal protection against the elements.

Sacramento Homeless Organizing Committee is trying to adapt.

“We have started a new organization called Safe Ground Sacramento that is trying to establish legal places for people to stay until housing is available,” Lomazzi says. “Campers stay together and sleep illegally most nights. A church has offered sanctuary to the group on freezing cold nights. Currently, the strategy is to go from one private property to the next … in hopes of evading the anti-camping ordinance by taking advantage of the 24-hour private property loophole.

“We set up a Safe Ground community on private property near the central city with the owner’s permission, and that lasted for about a month before the police came in and arrested everyone. The city threatened to fine the owner, so the group vacated the land.”

Support from the community in the form of donations for sleeping cottages and pledges for future financial support is coming, but locations for the rotating sleeping locations are not yet being offered.

‘Everyone has the right’

Although no data proves criminalization efforts deter crime or increase public safety, municipalities continue to pass punitive laws. Research by the National Coalition for the Homeless illustrates how expensive that approach can be:

* Los Angeles: $6 million a year to pay for 50 extra police officers to crack down on crime in the Skid Row area while the city budgeted only $5.7 million for homeless services.

* Gainesville, Fla.: As part of its 10-year plan to end homelessness, the city commission approved a plan to spend up to $75,000 on a fence to keep people off “Tent City” property, and only $20,000 to address the housing and service needs of those evicted.

* Cincinnati, Ohio: A 2007 study by the Greater Cincinnati Coalition for the Homeless found that using the criminal justice system to deal with the consequences of street homelessness is an expensive approach, costing $65 per bed per day in the jail, compared to $30 a day for permanent supportive housing.

At a time when millions are being donated by private citizens and government to offer relief to 1.9 million Haitians left homeless by the recent earthquake, North Americans turn a blind eye to the policies that punish almost twice that many people in the same circumstance.

But change is possible.

“After two years of debate in front of the Commission of Human Rights of Québec, a victory has been achieved: On 9 Nov. 2009 the commission condemned strongly the city and the police regarding the social profiling of Montréal’s homeless,” says Serge Lareault, publisher of L’Itinéraire. “The government of Quebec engaged a new lawyer for homeless at the beginning of December 2009. He is charged with the creation of a center for drunk homeless as an alternative to help them and not arresting them or giving tickets. But the fight continues. The police still arrest and give many tickets each day. Many people are asking for programs to help homelessness. Others are asking for an amnesty to the hundreds of homeless who have tickets.”

Both Canada and the United States have signed and ratified and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, but both have failed to universally incorporate its principles into their laws. The non-binding United Nations (U.N.) declaration opens with a preamble recognizing “the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.” In 1948 the U.N. General Assembly adopted this declaration as a “common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations.”

The recognition that everyone – regardless of any distinction including an “other status,” such as homelessness – is “born free and equal in dignity and rights” of life, liberty and security of person, is detailed in admonitions to prohibit slavery, torture, arbitrary arrest and a host of other behaviors that the United States and Canada routinely condemn as deplorable in other countries. The problem is that we refuse to do as we say.

Laws that criminalize homelessness routinely violate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Restricting the movement of people in specific locations violates article 13: “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.” Confiscating and disposing of personal property because it happens to be on public land violates article 17: “Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of (his/her) property.” Perhaps the most egregious violation of all is the blatant disregard for Article 25: “Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Homelessness has become a crime, but homeless people are the victims, not the perpetrators. Laws that worsen their plight aggravate the offense. Just as mental illness, sexual abuse and addiction are conditions that call for help – not prosecution – homelessness deserves a response rooted in compassion, fiscal sense and respect for international law. Helping homeless people is less expensive than jailing them. But more important, helping homeless people is the right thing to do. Jailing them for being homeless is wrong.