What's the problem with this?

mr.x · #1 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 7:38 PM**

Quote:

Homeless in 2010 security zones to be removed

Updated: Thu Mar. 26 2009 21:48:48

The Canadian Press

Homeless people living within 2010 Olympic security zones will be removed by police during the Games in Vancouver.

But Deputy Chief Const. Steve Sweeney of the Vancouver Police Dept. says the homeless will be offered space in shelters or given help to go wherever they want, and only arrested if they refuse to move.

Sweeney's comments came at a packed community forum on Olympic security held in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside.

He and RCMP Assistant Commissioner Bud Mercer, who is overseeing security for the Games next February, ran up against seven years of suspicion and rumour about a police crackdown during the Olympics.

People raised concerns about protests, surveillance and a potential rash of pre-Game arrests.

But Mercer pledged whatever is lawful now will remain so come 2010, and Sweeney said there was no plan to cleanse Vancouver's streets of marginalized people.

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local...090326/20090327/?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

I'm astonished people are complaining about this, it was fully expected....even standard procedure.

There's a reason why they're called "2010 Olympic Security Zones"....this meaning, the security perimeter within the convention centre/media centre/Canada Place precinct, BC Place/GM Place precinct, and the Olympic Village. One would think it would be odd to allow homeless to be living within an area that is fenced off and guarded....

I don't see what the problem is, and they're being offered shelters. It's not like they're being kicked out without any reason, nor are they being kicked out of downtown.

The security zones are highlighted in red, labelled "VENUE CLOSURE AREA":

There's a reason why there's controlled access to these venues. The Games are a high profile event that requires substantial precuations and security.

I'm beyond astonished that you would be complaining about this, it was fully expected.

mr.x · #2 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 9:20 PM**

^

sono65 · #3 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 9:29 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mild baron

Not even gonna bother with this thread

You should of taken a neutral approach instead of being so biased

He can take any approach he wants. You don't have to reply. All he's doing is making his case. And it's a damn good one, I agree fully mr. x2!

Mininari · #4 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 9:34 PM**

I think its only natural that VANOC is going to comply with international security concerns.

Non-compliance would send the message that we don't take security seriously.

I don't agree one bit with what is probably going to happen... but I'm afraid I have to agree with their reasoning for doing it.

I'm sure we'll hear from the anti-poverty group shortly on this matter... and expect more civil disobedience.

Distill3d · #5 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 10:22 PM**

the zones affected seem to be around BC Place, GM Place, the Olympic Village, Canada Place, and David Lam Park. is that too much to ask that the homeless don't go to these places? i mean, not saying that the homeless should be confined to the DTES, but none of this seems to be infringing on the DTES. except maybe Waterfront Road, but even then, it seems to deal with a safe distance away from where the homeless usually converge anyways.

their plan to offer the homeless that do converge in the area some help or assistance getting to a shelter or finding somewhere else to go doesn't seem like a bad idea. and if a homeless person is arrested its because they aren't complying with the orders of the RCMP, and they get to spend a night in jail, where they'll be taken off the street, given something to eat, and then sent back out the next day.

so, whats the big deal about this?

Metro-One · #6 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 10:33 PM**

Aren't homeless people simply people? If we are not allowed within and have to adapt to the short term security measure then why would anyone argue special privileges for them? Just because they are homeless doesn't mean they can do whatever they want, rules have to be obeyed by everyone, from rich to poor, in my opinion.

Distill3d · #7 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 10:39 PM**

^agreed

to add to it, the homeless are aware of the Olympics going on as anyone else, and in my opinion, i'm sure that they just want to be left alone.

the only ones that are going to say something about this are the groups that think they are doing more good than bad when the opposite is true. i suspect that the people that would choose to defy the police security orders would be members of the APC trying to make a statement.

dreambrother808 · #8 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 10:56 PM**

those aren't homeless hotspots anyways. this is all a moot issue. nevertheless, i'm sure there are plenty of fools to blow it out of proportion without even rationally considering what is being done here.

Yume-sama · #9 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 10:59 PM**

I don't see a problem with it.

If nobody is allowed to be there, then neither can / should homeless people be allowed to be there. I mean, if we allowed that... all you'd have to do is dress up as a homeless person to get by.

It's not like it's their home....

Yeah, yeah, don't jump on me

nova9 · #10 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:09 PM**

I don't see a problem with this either - if only based on the egality argument that metro-one raised. there has to be limits the irrationality of these anti-poverty activists. sheesh.

Yume-sama · #11 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:15 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by nova9

I don't see a problem with this either - if only based on the egality argument that metro-one raised. there has to be limits the irrationality of these anti-poverty activists. sheesh.

Ummmm....

Nope, don't think so. This is probably one of the more reasonable things they'll make a fuss about.

ROUNDING THE HOMELESS UP IN TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS! OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND!

Oh God, I hope I didn't just give them an idea.

Distill3d · #12 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Ummmm....

Nope, don't think so. This is probably one of the more reasonable things they'll make a fuss about.

ROUNDING THE HOMELESS UP IN TO CONCENTRATION CAMPS! OUT OF SIGHT OUT OF MIND!

Oh God, I hope I didn't just give them an idea.

why not? thats the best one i've heard yet...just round them all up in a work ca.....wait, none of them work, so piss on that idea.

Yume-sama · #13 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distill3d

why not? thats the best one i've heard yet...just round them all up in a work ca.....wait, none of them work, so piss on that idea.

That's a rather unfortunate stereotype.

They spend hours outside no matter the conditions, and can earn $30 - $40 an hour from guilty White people, while you are in your cushy indoor job.

Jacques · #14 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:20 PM**

IMO I find that the homeless have the same right as one who owns or rent a condo, to deny them the basic right to move freely as much as any residents of the greater Vancouver is an infringement of any basic human rights and dignity.
To assume that the general public are better or more suited to be seen is truly what makes an ass of u and me " ass u me "
Unless you have experienced the set back of being a homeless or lived trough the dire change in one's life, I find it cruel to to even consider hiding the reality of it just so it suits Vanoc.
For security reason is such a lame excuse, and as far as encroaching in DTS
many pass judgment on this district too hastily when in many case you will with certainty find lesser discrimination among the residents of that neighborhood then those of IE: Kits or Yaletown.
Why this attitude is beyond my comprehension.
I understand that certain rules will be applied for security reasons, that being said it oughta be enforced upon all, such as visitors, residents, dignitaries and homeless, no group be spared.
Anyone here can prove to me that the enforcement will be fair and not bias
is truly blind, many homeless are unfairly profiled, best example the death last week in the downtown core at the hands of a cop.
BTW; I was once destitute and now I own my abode and I learned to be more lenient and compassionate to others, we could apply more patience, especially during these hard times, you never know maybe one day you will be content to have had exhume kindness instead of a narrow minded behavior.

Yume-sama · #15 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:23 PM**

Jacques, I agree rounding them up to "hide them" isn't a good thing in general.

BUT if you or I are not allowed somewhere, why should they be? It's not an "anti-homeless" idea. It's an "anti-anybody-who-shouldn't-be-there-in-the-first-place" idea. Should we just let them in to anywhere in the city, where non-housing challenged people aren't allowed to be, just because they have a hard life? I know we are extremely homeless friendly, but that's going too far

"Sir, you don't have a ticket to this sold out event!"
"BUT I'M HOMELESS"
"Carry on then..."

Distill3d · #16 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:34 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

That's a rather unfortunate stereotype.

They spend hours outside no matter the conditions, and can earn $30 - $40 an hour from guilty White people, while you are in your cushy indoor job.

i guess i can't argue with that. they do potentially make more than i do...

Jacques · #17 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:46 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yume-sama

Jacques, I agree rounding them up to "hide them" isn't a good thing in general.

BUT if you or I are not allowed somewhere, why should they be? It's not an "anti-homeless" idea. It's an "anti-anybody-who-shouldn't-be-there-in-the-first-place" idea. Should we just let them in to anywhere in the city, where non-housing challenged people aren't allowed to be, just because they have a hard life? I know we are extremely homeless friendly, but that's going too far

"Sir, you don't have a ticket to this sold out event!"
"BUT I'M HOMELESS"
"Carry on then..."

My challenge here is rules will be applied whether we like it or not, fine by me, what I am concerned with is the fairness of it all.
please lets be honest here, you wear a suit and walk downtown, robbed someone, then you see a homeless and point the finger at him for what you have done, who in this day will believe the homeless person?
that is all, I do not trust the judicial system whatsoever, the teaser at the airport, the killing of the young man under weird circumstances in the north at the hands of an RCMP, and last week the homeless shot for being what he wasn't.
come on we all know its all about money and saving face.
Life as a way of repeating itself over and over, I remember 1986, but eh it was all fine and dandy, well here it comes again.
It is with certainty more prevalent to justify our actions as long as it doesn't affect our personal space or lifestyle, the less fortunate have no such means
why care.

Yume-sama · #18 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:48 PM**

I understand what you're saying, but it's a lot easier to deny EVERYBODY from a fenced off area than everybody but homeless people.

Jacques · #19 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:48 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Distill3d

i guess i can't argue with that. they do potentially make more than i do...

that is truly such a narrow minded view, sometimes I really wonder where you people come up with such statement???

Yume-sama · #20 Posted **Mar 27, 2009, 11:52 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacques

that is truly such a narrow minded view, sometimes I really wonder where you people come up with such statement???

My comment was made in jest, however, there have been various reports on how much these people can make per day.

I have a feeling the hippy looking people with the cute puppy on Robson St. / Burrard who have been "just passing through" for the past couple of years make quite a bit.

Heck, even I gave $5 the first time I saw them. They are practically a tourist trap, themselves.

Oh and don't let me forget the "disabled" guy who I saw pushing his wheelchair home (presumably?) at 2AM on my way back from Capstone.