Said1
Gold Member
P R E S S R E L E A S E
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NO PANHANDLING SIGN MUST COME DOWN
Come out and join the protest in front of Shepherds of Good Hope at the
corner of Murray and King Edward. on Monday March 1, from 10:30 am until 12:00 pm. In protest of their NO PANHANDLING SIGN.
****** is asking that anyone wishing to defend the homeless against
attacks on their liberty such as this, to send a note to Shepherds of Good Hope at: demanding the removal of the sign.
The sign depicts a beggar's cup with a hand putting coins into it marked with the universal red no sign crossing over the picture. Under the sign reads 3NO PANANDLING2. (Copy of sign on poster found on indymedia)
When John Dunn from the Foster Care Council of Canada wrote a letter of
complaint about the sign, Shepherds public spokesperson Mr. Eady defended the sign by saying that there were seven complaints that the panhandling was dangerous so they put up the signs.
******* demanded the removal of the sign and again Mr. Eady defended the sign and refused to take it down.
******* claims that such a sign gives the poor the notion that violations will result in lost food and shelter services from Shepherds although Mr. Eady denies this is the case.
****** also refuses to accept that Shepherds has the mandate to supervise the safety of the road around its premises. And if some panhandling is dangerous certainly all panhandling is not dangerous.
The other two agencies that provide the same service as Shepherds, The Union Mission and Salvation Army have no such signs indicating that it is not necessary to take on the role of traffic supervision.
***** says: "I am passionately resolved to abolishing the no
panhandling laws and protecting the right of any person in dire straights to ask a stranger for help. We, the poor do not want 'helping agencies' to have the only panhandling rights."
For more information or to volunteer to poster the city contact ***** John Dunn at [email protected]
I have omitted the person`s name because I do not have her permission to post the article here. With that said, it is important to note that there are always many men, who are often drunk, hanging around outside the mission. They are not panhandling, they are waiting for lunch, supper, a bed ect. They often make comments as you pass, and can get a little rude, however, they are not panhandling. IMHO, drunks loitering around the building are far more menacing than panhandlers. I also think it may prevent others from seeking help, or shopping in the second hand store located in the same building because they do not want to be bothered by these men. If panhandlers want to panhandle, they can walk a few feet to the corner, where they can take advantage of downtown pedestrian traffic.
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
NO PANHANDLING SIGN MUST COME DOWN
Come out and join the protest in front of Shepherds of Good Hope at the
corner of Murray and King Edward. on Monday March 1, from 10:30 am until 12:00 pm. In protest of their NO PANHANDLING SIGN.
****** is asking that anyone wishing to defend the homeless against
attacks on their liberty such as this, to send a note to Shepherds of Good Hope at: demanding the removal of the sign.
The sign depicts a beggar's cup with a hand putting coins into it marked with the universal red no sign crossing over the picture. Under the sign reads 3NO PANANDLING2. (Copy of sign on poster found on indymedia)
When John Dunn from the Foster Care Council of Canada wrote a letter of
complaint about the sign, Shepherds public spokesperson Mr. Eady defended the sign by saying that there were seven complaints that the panhandling was dangerous so they put up the signs.
******* demanded the removal of the sign and again Mr. Eady defended the sign and refused to take it down.
******* claims that such a sign gives the poor the notion that violations will result in lost food and shelter services from Shepherds although Mr. Eady denies this is the case.
****** also refuses to accept that Shepherds has the mandate to supervise the safety of the road around its premises. And if some panhandling is dangerous certainly all panhandling is not dangerous.
The other two agencies that provide the same service as Shepherds, The Union Mission and Salvation Army have no such signs indicating that it is not necessary to take on the role of traffic supervision.
***** says: "I am passionately resolved to abolishing the no
panhandling laws and protecting the right of any person in dire straights to ask a stranger for help. We, the poor do not want 'helping agencies' to have the only panhandling rights."
For more information or to volunteer to poster the city contact ***** John Dunn at [email protected]
I have omitted the person`s name because I do not have her permission to post the article here. With that said, it is important to note that there are always many men, who are often drunk, hanging around outside the mission. They are not panhandling, they are waiting for lunch, supper, a bed ect. They often make comments as you pass, and can get a little rude, however, they are not panhandling. IMHO, drunks loitering around the building are far more menacing than panhandlers. I also think it may prevent others from seeking help, or shopping in the second hand store located in the same building because they do not want to be bothered by these men. If panhandlers want to panhandle, they can walk a few feet to the corner, where they can take advantage of downtown pedestrian traffic.
