'V' April 13;.
1 *IJ
Opinion
(Monday, April 13, 1992
The Battalion
Page 7
1
on
cton
VI me
i PageS
y and wasnj
ntry.
the whole
1 well in
ming off a
delays, whi
:>d meet,"
e a lot of
out of this
>ed 40 ft,
behind Hac |
?rsonal bes!
"For her,:
rrison's pej j
:at was ii
The Battalion Editorial Board
DOUGLAS PILS, Editor-in-Chief
BRIDGET HARROW, Managing Editor
BRIAN BONEV, Opinion Editor
JASON MORRIS, Night News Editor
MORGAN JUDAY, Night News Editor
MACK HARRISON, City Editor
KARL STOLLEIS, Photo Editor
SCOTT WUDEL, Sports Editor
ROB NEWBERRY, Lifestyles Editor
Panhandlers
Should cities stop them
from begging?
T h
u lg o o d n e s s
omen's dir
ger finished
s throw (11
daced first ii
(54.49),
m t J ll ;’' ,h: Houston's City
Council has
decided to do
400-meter, SOmethin 8 ab ° Ut
TVT the problem
st withamf? r ,
■ with overl y
Jonlheli a 8« re . s 1 s "; e .
panhandlers! The council is
v ggyjp considering an ordinance to curb the
n (199ft j; aggressive tendencies of the
was fjrstrl P an h an dlers in the city limits.
echaseP* The ordinance passed by the City
:rs waste: Council was named a "bubble"
in (51. W Jfrdinance because it created a safety
third intte zone of eight feet between the
), Ipanhandler and the citizen,
in'speforarli This is a great relief to many
ighlighti Houston residents. With the rate of
. Icrime climbing each day, many
?r relay, te| people do not feel safe walking down
md (40.3 the street. Panhandlers only add to
the 1600-ra the problem because the civilian never
knows the intentions of the
ter) relay* panhandler. It is not the panhandlers'
than the f au ] t t]-,^ tp, e y have to beg, but no one
Nelson ' can blame Houston residents' fear of
CON
ised
; weekenr
<t meet is all
d in Waco
11-5
ire beating«
?'s
iding recort
strangers walking up to them and
panhandling. Furthermore, the
proposed ordinance would not only
protect the residents' right to be left
alone but also create a safety zone in
which the panhandlers' rights are not
violated. Some citizens are so
paranoid that the panhandler's life
might be endangered.
City Attorney Benjamin L. Hall III
as considered putting even tighter
estrictions on panhandlers by
idingrecowjrequiring them to register with the
;y realizetej city and wear photo credentials
henever they
anhandle.
Registering
panhandlers is a
wonderful idea.
Some might think
is is a way to police
beggars; however,
locating panhandlers
or trying to get them
ff the street and into
bed is
when there
rence and
ie re :
a real stt
gies look?
king their
,ant it."
5 t Stephen
' and
is weekend
a series
etermining”
i and regitf
feated the ; * wai ; m
e season liphfricult
lege Station
is little
documentation or information to
|ocate the individuals. Registration
nd photo credentials can help job
lacement programs, more efficient
ousing or shelter programs, and
jounseling to get panhandlers of the
eet.
Many legal authorities consider the
bubble" ordinance and Hall's plan as
violation of the First Amendment;
et, these authorities are looking at it
rom only the "beggars'" point of
icvv.
What of the rights of each citizen
I yho is approached by the
1 anhandlers? These citizens have a
I ight to their own space without
omeone in their face using aggressive
actics to convince them to give
I noney. In addition, the ordinance
|J| ever restricts the panhandlers' right
free speech, it only restricts
IBanhandlers from getting too close to
lie person.
I Would any authority question a
wlusiness or home disallowing
elicitation? Panhandling is not any
ifferent. Citizens have a right to tell a
erson soliciting or panhandling to
top.
Panhandlers are not a disease to be
astricted or wiped away. There is a
eed to help these unfortunate
itizens. Yes, they are citizens, but
lany are without a home or job. They
re unique in that aspect and also
lifficult to accept or help. It is
ociety's fault for their situation,
lany Americans consider the
majority of panhandlers to be drug
sers and alcoholics, but a great many
re mentally sick or simply broke and
omeless. No matter what the reason,
ociety has a responsibility to help
hese individuals. The "bubble"
rdinance, registration and photo
redentials are steps to help
anhandlers in a positive way.
ENTER
Wadkf
Ben-Musa is a sophomore
history and journalism major
The Houston
City Council must
have been really
bored last week.
Bored or blind.
In lieu of the
city's rampant
homicides, rapes
and drug
problems, the City Council has decided
to take actions against panhandlers by
considering an ordinance which would
require panhandlers to register with
the city in order to beg for money.
The law would force beggars to
wear an identification card.
It comes in response to complaints
that some beggars are becoming
violent around people who do not
wish to hand out any money. The
ordinance will create an imaginary
"bubble" around citizens who do not
wish to be solicited.
In other words, kids are shooting
each other in Houston schools, and the
powers that be have nothing better to
do than make vain attempts at curbing
what they call "aggressive
panhandling."
The new ordinance defies common
sense in several ways.
It requires that a beggar must not
come within eight feet of a citizen he
solicits, or he may be fined up to $200.
Assuming the City Council does not
create panhandler vigilante groups to
make up for shortages in police
manpower, this law is virtually
unenforcable. An aggressive
panhandler simply has little chance of
getting caught in the act by police
officers and would be virtually
impossible to find
after the crime since
most of the offenders
don't even have a
permanent address.
But even if a
panhandler is caught
and incarcerated, the
law gets even more
ridiculous. A fine or
jail time for begging
for money seems a
little nutty. The offenders are begging
for money; they are not out stealing or
mugging people. Our court systems
have enough problems with real
crimes without having to deal with
panhandlers.
Besides, fining the offenders seems
to be a contradiction. I doubt beggars
would be out on the streets bothering
other citizens if they had any money.
The courts would likely drop the fines,
thereby rendering the ordinance
meaningless. Or, the courts could hand
out jail terms which would likely
displace real criminals in the jails.
The ordinance treads on sticky First
Amendment problems. City Attorney
Benjamin L. Hall III said the ordinance
was created to comply with the First
Amendment, but already the Texas
chapter of the American Civil Liberties
Union is on the case.
The ordinance, then, faces the
problem of how to be strict enough to
be useful but not too strict to keep the
ACLU from getting bent out of shape.
Neil McCabe, a constitutional law
professor at South Texas College of
Law, presented a possible case
scenario. For instance, if a beggar
criticizes the government while
begging for money, he could be
protected from prosecution by the First
Amendment. And if the ACLU is
involved, a challenge to the new
ordinance is almost a sure thing.
Houston has innumerable problems
with which it must deal, real problems
that are presently being ignored. The
Houston City Council should have
better things to do than create
ambiguous laws to pacify complaints
of overbearing panhandlers.
On the other hand, maybe if the
citizens of Houston begin complaining
of overbearing muggers, rude drive-by
shootings and uncouth assaults, the
City Council will be coerced into
developing real laws.
DeShazo is a junior
electrical engineering major
Phases of the Moon*.
MAR&W-IK
<g>W2 the rkorp
N&WOER'ieY
38 I
c
Phases of the Moonbeam
1-800-426-1112
SOU PAWTY w
s&rV
JESSE
JACKSON
FOR V.P.
Mail Call
Readers support, criticize homosexuals
Rob Sherrard, you obviously have
no understanding of what
homosexuality is. Being heterosexual,
I can't say that I completely
understand it myself, but I know that
these people are not harming me.
Therefore, it is none of my concern
whether they want to "put the round
peg into the square hole."
The homosexual community is not
trying to cram their beliefs down our
throats nor are they telling us that
we're wrong, so why do you feel
compelled to do this to them?
Whether it is natural or not, it's not
your business. They aren't asking you
to become gay, they're just asking you
to grow up.
Bryan Smith
Class '95
• • •
Dear Rob Sherrard. So you are sick
and tired and nauseated of hearing
about the "demented lifestyles" of the
gays and lesbians. I agree with you
that "man was made for woman and
woman made for man." That is how
we are able to reproduce and to
ensure our existence. However, you
also wrote that the "demented
lifestyles of these hideous people . . .
is plain and simple not normal."
Please answer something for me:
what is "normal", and who are you to
define for us what it is to be "normal?"
I am sorry, what was I thinking? You
have one and a half semesters of
"world class" education here at Texas
A&M under your belt, so you must be
qualified. Again, I am truly sorry.
However, in today's society of
individuality, please let me leave you
with this thought:
"You are who you are, I am who I
am; that's the tragedy, that's the joy."
Oh, before you start to form
another opinion about me for writing
this letter, I am a "normal"
heterosexual male who also thinks
that a "female body is truly a
beautiful thing." Furthermore, I also
think that a male body is "truly a
beautiful thing." After all, we are all
God's creations, aren't we?
Nguyen H. Le
Class of'92
• • •
Concerning the April 8 letter on
what gays miss, I agree fully.
Gays choose their lifestyle,
regardless of what they say. For
example, some say, "I've always been
gay, but I just didn't know it." At any
note, this "choice" to be gay opens
themselves to all the criticism and
hatred that America's free speech and
thought can throw at them. I agree
fully, Rob. Why should we even think
to consider obvious deviant behavior
acceptable and a "fact of life"?
As long as I'm writing. I'd like to
discuss the fact that being gay and
being a racial or a gender-based
minority are two completely different
things. It goes back to the choice
argument. For example, blacks didn't
choose to be black and whites didn't
choose to be whites, but gays sure had
a choice to either be gay or — how
shall I say it? Normal.
George L. Bradley
Class of '92
I am writing in response to Rob
Sherrard's "Gays Should Look At
What They Miss." So, Rob, what shall
we do? I mean, if gays make you
nauseous, let's lock them up so
straight people like us don't have to
look at them. We'll just pick some
place, say San Francisco, and build a
brick wall around it. That way, we
can forget about them and they can
do whatever they want to with
whomever they want. While we're at
it, let's take all the blacks and put
them somewhere, too. I'm sick of
them trying to be our equals. Who
are they trying to kid? Slavery is the
only way! (Tell that to Bill Cosby or
Aretha Franklin, who have more
talent than you'll ever have in your
life, or Rock Hudson or Martina
Navratilova while you're at it). Where
was I? Oh, yeah, so we give them the
South. OK, now let's take all those
Jews and put them on the east coast.
Who wants to look at their noses and
watch them eat Matzo anyway? Now,
let's take everyone who wears color
contacts and put them on the West
Coast (except San Francisco, of
course). I mean, why are we born
with eyes of one color if people are
just going to change it? Hawaii and
Alaska go to people who don't
recycle. I don't want all that trash
anywhere near me. OK, that leaves
the Midwest, right? We cool people
who are normal and perfect in every
way can live there.
Our country, the people-who-
know-e very thing's country, wouldn't
be much fun, would it? So few people
exist as wonderful as you and me. I
mean I'd probably be stuck hanging
out with you someday. Nauseating,
isn't it?
Sarah Jensik
Class of ’92
• • •
Rob Sherrard. I believe you are the
one with the problem. Your ignorant
and sexist letter regarding gays,
lesbians, round pegs and square holes
(whatever that means) and the
"incredible" women at the Treehouse
Village swimming pool stunned me. I
am certainly not homosexual, nor do I
agree with or condone that lifestyle. I
am, however, very close to two
people who have a homosexual
relationship. They are two of the most
gentle, kind and loving human beings
I have ever known, and neither of
them would dream of hurting another
person. Yet, their home has been
vandalized many times, and they
were finally forced to get an unlisted
phone number because of the closed-
minded people like you invading
their privacy with obscene and
threatening phone calls. And trust me,
making them sit around and stare at a
half naked woman will not change
them. This is probably good, because
they treat women with much greater
respect and dignity than I imagine
you ever will.
Of course, you are entitled to your
opinion, Mr. Sherrard, but I believe
that your letter was completely
unnecessary and unprovoked. What
has any lesbian or gay ever done to
hurt you? In my view, your narrow
mindedness is much more
detrimental to society than these
people who only want to be treated
equally.
Emily Bacon
Class of '94
David Lenihan
Class of '93
• • •
This is to Rob Sherrard and others
who share his feelings concerning
gays and lesbians. I am one of many
who are outraged at hearing from
closed-minded individuals like Rob
who want and try to impose their
unfounded beliefs and ideas on
others. I am a heterosexual female,
but this does not mean that I would
like gays and lesbians to stop
protesting or just go away. I feel just
the opposite. These people should
have just as many rights as we do. But
they do not, because of people with
attitudes like those of Rob. These are
the same attitudes that have for years
oppressed women, blacks and other
minorities.
I respect Rob's right to express his
ideas even though I don't agree with
them.
Liz Simmons
Class of'93
This letter is in response to Rob
Sherrard's poorly articulated attempt
at gay-bashing appearing in The
Battalion Mail Call Wednesday.
Although I personally am as straight
as a flagpole. I'm tired of hearing
from hypocrites who purport to be
politically correct yet still feel the
need ostracize gay people.
The only problems the Gay and
Lesbian Student Services need, and
are making efforts to deal with, lie in
the opposition to their mere existence
from people like Sherrard.
And what naivete to think that gay
men have never fixed their eyes upon
a beautiful woman. Sherrard has it
ever occurred to you that they might
even appreciate such beauty yet at the
same time feel no desire for intimate
companionship with them? Perhaps,
you are unaware of recent scientific
research suggesting inherent
biological differences within the brain
that may account for such differences
in sexual preference.
It seems surprising to me that
Sherrard isn't content with their
existence which might otherwise
hinder his efforts even further at
scoring with one of those "pool-side
babes" he speaks of.
Mack E. Shippen
Class of'92
Have an opinion? Express it.
The Battalion is interested in hearing
from its readers. All letters to the editor
are welcome.
Letters must be signed and must
include classification, address and a
daytime phone number for verification
purposes. Anonymous letters will not be
published.
The Battalion reserves the right to edit
all letters for length, style and accuracy.
There is no guarantee that letters will
appear.
Letters may be brought to 013 Reed
McDonald, sent to Campus Mail Stop
1111 or can be faxed to 845-2647.