Hi
yes I am with all of this. I just find the polarising of issues around
similar debates rather crudely drawn sometimes in ways that seem, at
least on the email, to lose sight of nuances and complexity. Just no
litmus tests for purity, too.
David
On Tue, 16 Nov 1999 10:02:46 -0500 Susan Ruddick <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
> Hi Tim
>
> I agree that laws against panhandling are nothing new, -- there was also an
> interesting treatment of the subject in the US by Eric Monkonnen a social
> historian, but what I find noteworthy in this case is the scope of the
> proposed Bill and the types of activity it covers which seem to go way
> beyond 'anti panhandling laws' laws.
>
> It includes anyone asking for money in any public space for any
> purpose...bveyond even those in Vancouver which target 'repeat offenders'
> or 'specific places'.... The widespread nature of Bill 8 ironically gets
> around the objections raised below by Elbert Hubbard but leave a great deal
> up to the discretion of law enforcers.
>
> Unfortunately the Bill is in a pdf file so I cant block and copy details to
> the list serve but if you go to the site and click status of legislation
> and scroll down to Bill 8 its all there.
> http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/legis.htm
>
> I also think, in response to David, we shouldn't jump to quickly to the
> conclusion that 'some things are chosen as totems'...which I understood to
> mean that people are uncritically jumping on the 'support the panhandlers
> band wagon' and not considering the fears of 'others' in this case wome4n
> and children.
>
> Speaking for a moment as an 'other' ie: as a mother with a child, I would
> have to wonder about the moments when I *myself* was being used as a
> 'totem' in this case to champion causes protecting me where I am supposedly
> "made to feel uncomfortable" --
>
> We only have to think for a moment of the discomfort that a child felt
> seeing Fanon [recall 'Look! A negro!'] to draw some of the wider
> implications of making this kind of move without looking at the specifics,
> and you may be right, David in the case cited by Sharon Zukin.
>
> However, in some cases there is a need for legislation and infrastructure
> to enhance the feelings [and reality] of safety of specific groups in
> public space, in other cases sympathy for these groups [ie women and
> children] is being mobilized to enact some really dreadful policy.
>
>
>
> At 09:54 AM 11/16/99 +0000, you wrote:
> >Dear all
> >
> >I'm not sure that anti-panhandling laws constitute a radical realignment of
> >public space although the type of enforcement might. Begging has been
> >illegal in England since the sixteenth century as has being in public
> >without money and not being able to give an account of oneself. English
> >anti-vagrancy laws were imported wholesale into the United States and the
> >vast majority of states had anti-vagrancy laws until around 1880 when many
> >were supplemented by tramp laws that specifically made being a tramp (a
> >crime of identity if ever there was one) illegal. Tramp were defined as
> >pretty much the same as vagrants except that they were more mobile.
> >
> >Chapter 159 of the general statutes of Connecticut 1902 states for instance
> >that "All transient persons who rove from place to place begging, and all
> >vagrants, living without labor or visible means fo support, who stroll over
> >the country without lawful occassion, shall be deemed tramps'
> >
> >To this very day most state have vagrancy laws on the books that resemble
> >the English laws of the sixteenth century. As for trenchant critical views
> >of such laws none does much better than the once Govenor Lewelling of
> >Kansas who issued an order forbidding the arrest of tramps and vagrants
> >for begging. This was applauded by one Elbert Hubbard who wrote
> >
> >'In this country we say every man is assumed to be innocent until he proven
> >guilty. This applies only to men who have money. No peaceable decent man
> >with money is asked to "give an account of himself." But let him have no
> >place to lay his head, and ask for a cup of cold water, immediately we may
> >legally assume his guilt and drag him before the notary, who shall demand
> >that he "give a satisfactory account of himself." Satisfactory to whom
> >forsooth?'
> >
> >
> >Hmmm
> >
> >Tim Cresswell
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
----------------------
David Crouch
Anglia Polytechnic University
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|