Thursday 24 April 2014

Two Approaches

Two sides to every argument  

There are always two sides to every argument.These arguments are illustrated in the following approaches; the human rights approach and the public sensitivity approach.


Human rights approach: 

Homeless people are human beings. These people do matter. And they are a part of our society no matter how they are perceived on the social ladder. Graham Anderson, who was homeless for 25 years stated in the NZ documentary Putting Homelessness in Focus: "It doesn't matter if you live in a castle, or on someone's floor. If you're a human, you should be counted." One of the prevalent reasons for homelessness is housing deprivation. Homeless people often "sleep rough" as in to sleep on the streets.  According to a New Zealand Herald article, a homeless man who was sleeping rough on Mills Lane, between Queen Street and Albert Street was fatally assaulted in August 2013. This homeless man had no relation ties died in the streets of Central Auckland. This is a huge cry for the protection and welfare of the homeless as they are prone to violent deaths and insufficent living.

 Public sensitivity approach:

This centers on the idea that the general public should not be financially accountable or intimidated by the homeless. In saying this, the general public should not be subjected to behavior that causes them to become uncomfortable. Statistics show that 69% of Aucklanders voted in favour of a beggar ban bylaw with 22% voting against and only 9% voted as unsure. This means that the people of Auckland would rather not have these people begging on the inner streets of Central Auckland, even Queen St. One of the major reasons for the bylaw invovled the loss of customers for Queen St buisness' as customers were being intimidated by homeless beggars. Heart of the City chief executive Alex Swney stated that: "We have too many examples of behaviour being defended under the guise of exercising a public right to occupy public spaces," This is the problem at hand that needs to be addressed.


Both approaches conclude that there must be a solution for the homeless people on Queen St. But in what ways can we as a society go about this. But more importantly why should we even think about helping the homeless. And this is the problem at hand. Now what is the solution?

Posted by at

2 comments:

  1. Sky's Delights20 May 2014 at 20:51

    There are so many great points you've made. It reminded me a lot of skid row in LA where a strip of road in Downtown LA is just filled with homeless people despite the fact of there being a homeless shelter 2 blocks away. Some homeless people genuinely need help, and others just fiend on the sympathy of civilians to feed their addictions and I've seen on Queen St where they would go to the lengths of even having their children participate. Sometimes I feel obligated to help because I don't want to seem like a bad person, but maybe the government should have some involvement or at least get them off the streets because you do need to consider tourism as there quite a lot of homeless people along the street to Sky City. But still, some great points from both sides of the argument.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unknown20 May 2014 at 21:04

      Thanks Sky! I like how you've related this to your own experiences in the U.S where homelessness has proven to be most prevalent. Yes, I have considered tourism in my last post where Heart City, a high end store on Queen Street, has spoken up about homeless people who intimidate customers resulting in a loss of potential profit. I do agree that's it's difficult to ignore these people who are only trying to get by and that's what I've tried to illustrate throughout blog.

      Delete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)