Home Blog Page 1350

SFU wrestling earns five medals in Oregon

0

By Adam Ovenell-Carter

It’s no secret that SFU’s wrestling team builds success. It starts with head coach Mike Jones, who was recently inducted into the B.C. Sports Hall of Fame. And then, to name but two, come Daniel Igali and Carol Hyunh — a pair of SFU grads, and Olympic gold medalists. And now in the meantime, a new pair of SFU students has gold medals to their name.

Not Olympic medals mind you, but gold medals for Clete Hanson and Skylor Davis at the Clackamas Open in Oregon are steps in that very direction.

Hanson won four bouts to earn his medal. Those fights included a semi-final victory over Oregon State’s John Tuck, and he followed it up by besting the NAIA’s top-ranked wrestler Derek Rottenburg, out of Southern Oregon. For all his efforts in the 184-pound division of the tournament, he was named the competition’s outstanding wrestler — a rather nice addition to his gold medal.

Back down the weight class line, Davis won three matches to earn his gold in the 125-pound category. All three decisions were by pinfall, including the final, where Davis had Pacific University’s Ian Hocker pinned before the first period had ended.

As nice as the two golds were for SFU, the Clan also walked away with two silver medals and a bronze. Alex Stemer, competing in the 149-pound division, fell 10–5 in the final to Oregon State’s Nick Schlagger to earn his silver. However, it was Gurjot Kooner’s silver medal that provided the most intrigue.

After Kooner had topped Oregon State’s Jordan Schwartzlander — who had beaten him when the two squared off in November — to earn his way into the 285-pound division final.

Now, it’s not every day you find an inter-school final between two athletes who aren’t on the same team, but that’s exactly what this final was. Kooner fell to Sunny Dhinsa, another SFU student who was wrestling unaffiliated with the Clan.

Rounding out SFU’s medal haul was Burnaby native Max Arcand, who took home the bronze in the 165-pound category. Oregon State’s Seth Thomas beat Arcand in the semis, putting Arcand in a bronze-medal match against teammate Brock Lamb, guaranteeing one more medal for the Clan.

With his bronze, the Clan finished with five total medals, an impressive feat for any team of any sport — Olympic or otherwise.

 

Out of the shadows and into the limelight

0

By Adam Ovenell-Carter

Meet Marie-Line. She plays basketball, and she’s good at it. You just might not know it yet.

That’s probably because at just five-foot-five, Marie Line Petit is very much that, and easily lost amongst the Nayo Raincock-Ekunwes and Rebecca Langmeads of the world — quite literally lost in the shadows of her five Clan teammates well over six feet tall. That’s okay though, because being the granddaughter of a baseball player and the sister of a Memorial Cup-winning hockey player, she’s used to going about her business quietly. And when it comes to basketball, when you don’t notice her, that’s when she’s at her best.

The flashiest thing about Marie-Line Petit is her smile — something she has a hard time hiding at the best (or worst) of times. The closest she ever came to serious was giving a firm “no” when asked if she ever felt overshadowed by her family’s sporting accomplishments. You couldn’t blame her if she did. You couldn’t fault her if she felt outshined by the likes of Raincock-Ekunwe or Kristina Collins — the team’s two superstars who get the majority of fan, media, and opposition’s attention.

“Everybody on the team has their own role,” she said. “Nayo has been incredible. She’s unbelievable on the boards and when she comes to play, no one can stop her. No one.

“Kristina’s been awesome as well. She’s stepped up her game from last year in particular and now she’s one of our go-to players, especially late in the game.”

Really, she didn’t have enough good to say about her teammates, and it’s that kind of team spirit that has the Clan fighting for second place in the Great Northwest Athletic Conference.

“When our stars are going like they are, you don’t want to let them down so you focus on the simple things,” she added. “You do your job, and move on. We can’t let ourselves be selfish and let that get in the way of the team.

“I know my role. I know what I’m good at. I’m a good defender I’m a good free throw shooter under pressure. So I know I’ve got to take care of the ball first, and then I need to slow down whoever I’m guarding.

“If I can do that, when I head off the court, I’m happy with what I’ve done.”

That’s not to say that she’s completely satisfied with her game, however. She’s playing for a storied coach who’s led some fantastic teams to more than a fair share of championships when the team was still in the CIS. Naturally, that leaves a lot for this year’s installment of the Clan to live up to.

“I wouldn’t say there’s any added pressure,” said Petit, “but there are higher expectations [given the team’s history in the CIS]. But a lot of that is from us. All we can do is try to build off the success of the past and make our own mark.”

The team’s well on their way, but Petit is still heeding every piece of advice thrown her way. Every rookie on the team has a mentor, and although Petit is in her second year, she still approaches the game as though she were in her first.

“I still have my own questions,” she laughed. “Carla [Wyman] took me in last year, and she taught me a lot.

“Where I come from, CEGEP, basketball isn’t that competitive. It was enough just to show up to practice, but Carla told me that wouldn’t be enough here. You need to spend extra time in the gym, and be competitive all the time — always try to be better.”

And, needless to say, playing under the tutelage of a record-setting head coach has more than helped both her and the team.

“We struggled a bit, chemistry-wise, last year, but this year the chemistry was already there, and we just added even more talent and [head coach Bruce Langford] has been amazing with us,” said Petit.

“For me in particular, he’ll tell me, ‘you do this and this is why,’ and I listen to everything he says. I think because of him I’ve grown a lot, and grown a lot smarter.

“He tells me simple things: ‘don’t get things too complicated, be smart do your thing and you’ll be fine — and don’t be afraid to take your shot when it’s there.’”

She won’t astound you with a abundance of dazzling moves or anything. But in her typically quiet, unassuming way, she’s taking her shot and making the most of it, all with a smile on her face.

 

What does the SFSS actually do?

0

Don’t be a part of partisanism

0

By Gustavo Destro
The term ‘partisan politics’ has been a staple of the public lexicon for several decades now; it refers to people who would rather have the government screech to a halt than budge from the beliefs they championed. For a long time such men and women were few and far between. They were the radicals, the fringe of every party, ultimately drowned out by moderates. Regular people did not have a favourable view of such a candidate and they would hardly reach high offices. Not so in the 21st century.

Nowadays we live with constant reminders of how fractionalized the democratic system is. From a Republican-controlled American Congress that will only pass a bill that won’t have any benefit for Democrats, to constant attacks in Canada against the Harper government, to an increasingly disruptive discourse in places such as France and the U.K. over the most minute of political issues.

The worst part of it all is that the very people to blame for all of this are not only the politicians that sling mud across the aisle at each other, but also the people who elect them. Because sometime in the last 20 years, the general electorate took a turn to the bizarre, when we started feeding off of grandiose statements and declarations of faith to the core of the party, sanity be damned; when we started demanding our elected officials to do what is best for ‘me’ and not the collective; when we decided that we would no longer listen to the ‘other side’ because they were always wrong and could not be dealt with. Politics has put one side against the other as if the ‘enemy’ worked for the devil himself, it has turned into something akin to a 17th century religious war, just short of grabbing an axe and a shield.

More bizzare is the fact that this has all come with the explosion of news media and social interaction, which a sane person would assume would make for a better political discourse, since all sides would have the ability to see how each other thought and find a common ground that would benefit all to the greatest extent possible. Not so.

Now I can sit in my living room and watch Fox News, Sun News, and read the National Post and will firmly believe that Obama is a socialist, Jim Flaherty is the coolest dude alive, and the Liberal Party is dead, and I would believe I’m right because three publications agreed. Or maybe I could watch the CBC, MSNBC, and read the Globe and Mail and will just as likely be convinced that Harper is an arts-hating devil-man, the oil sands are actually ‘tar’ sands, and we should raise taxes. Again, who would tell me I’m wrong?

People always want to be right, and when they have the information in the palm of their hands confirming that they are, everything that goes against it must be wrong. But it’s about time everyone swallowed their egos and dropped the bickering, or else we won’t go much further. It’s time to understand that both the Tea Party and the Occupy movements have legitimate grievances, that both raising and lowering taxes could help the economy, and that the oil sands could be a good thing but that there are also risks that should be taken care of. Let’s find some common ground, or soon enough we’ll all be going for those axes.

Pro-life group got all the free speech it deserved

1

By Brendan Prost

 

 

Mary-Claire Turner’s Opinions piece two weeks ago is a pertinent reminder that the conservatives who screech loudly about free speech usually have the least to say. Any fair-minded person agrees that the morality of abortion is, at the very least, clouded. There is absolutely room in the academic community to have a discussion about these issues, although the sociological necessity of the procedure’s legal accessibility should not be in dispute. But the Genocide Awareness Project (GAP) and other anti-choice groups have no interest in free speech or reasoned debate.

Apparently without a trace of irony, Turner in her article chastises the university administration for encouraging students to “silence one’s opponents rather than prove them wrong with logical arguments.” Comments like these betray the ultimate hypocrisy of Turner and others like her. There is no persuasive rhetoric in GAP’s message. Their campaign is simply a tirade of emotionally manipulative and viscerally impactful symbols, designed specifically to shock and appall. They seek to appeal solely to knee-jerk human sentiments, and offer nothing of intellectual substance. There is no intended logic. There is no argument. The cheap and demeaning connotations of the images are obvious.

According to GAP, if you are in favour of a woman’s right to choose, then you are complicit in a gory massacre. If the organization had any legitimate interest in proving others wrong with “logical arguments”, or would like to risk being proven wrong themselves, then they would initiate public discussion forums or something of the sort. But they do not. Their sole focus on campuses across the country has been to demonize pro-choice advocates and psychologically traumatize women who have been, or may potentially be in, the unfortunate position of having to seek an abortion.

The nonsense about the university’s supposed opposition to debate aside, Turner slips further into delusion to suggest that Simon Fraser University is obligated to provide an unmitigated platform to her organization. On display here is the popular conservative free-speech mania and comical martyrdom. In a free society, you absolutely have every right to say whatever you want, however repugnant. However, the public and its institutional arbiters of cultural meaning and reasoned discourse, universities chief among them, have the freedom to marginalize and exclude you at their discretion. There is no law, and there certainly is no right that says you are owed a public platform of amplification and relevance. After all this is what the university, and institutions like it, offer to those who deserve it. No one owes you an expressive outlet, and no one owes it to you to listen.

The academic community, as a bastion of a healthy public sphere, moderates all kinds of important topical discussions. And just as the university community does not welcome Holocaust-deniers or 9/11 truthers, it may see fit to not accommodate GAP. Given the group’s obvious disdain for the values of academia, I think they should be grateful they were given any kind of forum at all

As I mentioned, the morality of abortion is a complex issue. Turner rightly points out that medical science affirms that a fetus is a living organism. And society should be very interested in listening to those who seek to preserve life. But we would be remiss to think that the purpose of GAP and their travelling carnival of mindless brutality are interested in protecting life. There are plenty of uncontroversial ways that human life can be preserved, in which there is no conflict with the rights of other human beings. Starvation, accessibility to clean water, and poverty are all social issues that could easily be addressed by the relatively privileged members of anti-choice groups.

Instead of campaigning for UNICEF or other useful organizations that demonstrably save lives, they waste their time and resources on circulating meaningless and disgusting images. If anyone involved with GAP were truly concerned with saving lives, they would be just as loudly screaming for increased foreign aid to the people dying of hunger in East Africa. We cannot take seriously an organization whose priorities are so vulgar and confused.

It is clear that GAP’s interest is not in life, but control. Control over a woman’s body, control over social policy, and control over public debate. I urge the SFU community, other universities, and the public at large, to recognize the Genocide Awareness Project for what it is: a hypocritical group of control freaks, with a disdain for intellectual conversation, and a tertiary interest in preserving life.

Gondola delay ignores danger, inefficiency

0

By Clinton Hallahan

I think humanity took a major downturn when we started paying for things before delivery. At least when the producer of goods has to prove their product is real and worth paying for I have the option to back out. Once they have my money, what motivation is there to make me satisfied?

Such as it is with TransLink, it seems. With revenue guaranteed for years with the last U-Pass referendum, the improvements that begin and end with the abortive gondola project will likely be trotted out at renewal time every few years, only to be rescinded as a non-priority when we have no choice but to cough up the dollars. Such as it is with the latest delay in the gondola project, and the last hope of some lasting new transit infrastructure on campus for what I’m sure will be at least a decade.

We’re as tied to TransLink now as a junkie is to their dealer. As more and more of this campus is sold off to build condos that few students can afford, parking spaces climb in price and scarcity. With little other option to physically put us on the hill, SFU is at the mercy of TransLink, a company continually proving themselves indifferent to the poor service offered to a captive customer base.

The complaints are well weathered at this point. A person standing at the secondary bus loop during peak times can expect a few 145 route busses to pass them by until they are so inclined to head up to the primary Cornerstone loop. Entitled much? Not when those peak times have bowed to the increasing population of the SFU student body, peak hours now extending from around 3:00 p.m. to past 6:00 p.m. A great number of these commuters to Production Station are simply taking the train one stop to Lougheed Station, a problem easily remedied by study and reallocation of bus resources. If there is a more overburdened route outside of the 99 B-Line I’d be surprised.

As I’ve written before, the 145 line is twinned with the 135 line, resulting in a backlog the most cursory of audits would reveal. While busses start stacking up around 8:30 a.m. at Production Station, the true test occurs a couple of hours later when everybody has class to attend. By that time, traffic has started accumulating on East Hastings, resulting in 20-minute delays on both lines. Now you and 300 of your nearest and dearest get to hang out in a well-intentioned wind tunnel bus stop at Production for 30 minutes to make a 10-minute trip.

Long bus waits are common, but as my junior high gym teacher always said, we’re looking for improvement, not perfection. Five years of depending on bus service to Burnaby campus and the only evident change is for the worse. I’m sure frequenters of the 143 to Coquitlam would agree as TransLink just abandons them on the weekend.

There is a major issue of safety, as well. Packed like sardines in these busses, the drivers manically attend their schedules and fly down a parkway we all just assume will take around one life per year. One patch of ice or driver drifting into oncoming traffic is all it will take. When will the overstressed transit solutions and lack of road improvements claim a bus full of kids? Will their flowered memorials be enough to convince TransLink and the university that the current solution is as unsafe as it is ineffective?

Right now, students stand at an impasse with a transit provider stretched to its limits deprioritizing them now that we’re fully dependent, and a university bound and determined to sell off all of its parking space to developers while packing classes to their limit. Multiple administrations have ignored the fact that the logistics of moving people on and off this mountain are at the heart of SFU’s problems. They’re running the risk of making a school on a mountain exactly as daunting as it sounds.

Kill retail rudeness with smiles

0

By Michelle Seo

In the retail industry, employers constantly emphasize the importance of customer service. No, scratch that: they want ‘above-and-beyond’ customer service. With so many competitors selling similar goods and services, companies now spend considerable money and effort to train their employees to not only sell, but to make the customer experience extraordinary.

So what does ‘extraordinary’ customer service entail? Well, from my experience, a lot of smiling. Yes, smiling till my cheeks literally ache. When I look over at my coworkers, they have that same smile plastered on their faces — their mouths wide open and teeth showing. As we walk by each other, our eyes meet with a mutual understanding (our facial expressions do not change). Exceptional customer service also means introducing myself and asking, “How may I help you?”  or, “How was your day?” When the customer leaves, I close our conversation by acknowledging my appreciation for them choosing our company, and I wish them a wonderful day and to take care until we meet again. Then the next customer walks up — here we go again.

Every so often, I get customers who aren’t afraid to show rude, negative attitudes. They’re having a bad day. While they are waiting in line, I look over my current customer’s shoulder and, evidently, they are scowling at every person and thing surrounding them. Then, there are those who simply want minimal interaction with you, refusing to even make eye contact. Or, the ones who toss their payment cards at you. Some customers become so upset during the conversation that they look at your name tag, say your name aloud, and demand to speak to the manager immediately, while vigorously shaking their index finger in the air.

I reckon that most of us have been in similar situations. Many students work part-time jobs that require servicing, whether it is waiting tables or working at a retail store. I personally work for a financial institution and have had my fair share of difficult customers. And lo’ and behold, I not only learned about managing and controlling conflicts, I acquired a better understanding towards people and human nature. The first week into my current job, a customer yelled at me and made me feel so incompetent, I considered quitting.

Why would someone, a complete stranger, who I met for the first time, openly express her temper at me when I’m only trying to help them? Perhaps, being strangers, she had less interest in my feelings because she was consumed in her own. Or, maybe, there was an unpleasant event in her life, such as a death in the family or loss of a job. There could be a million explanations for her dreadful mood that day, but the bottom line is, I decided to not let it get the better of me. As a matter of fact, I’m glad it happened.

Ten months down the road, I came up with my own golden rules for ‘above-and-beyond’ customer service. Behind everything they taught me, I decided that having a genuinely positive attitude produces the best service. When I smile, I don’t smile because I have to; my day just seems brighter when I’m smiling and I love people smiling back at me.

On a side note, I think customers can tell you’re faking a smile — you’re facial muscles look awkward. When customers express frustration or dissatisfaction, I approach them with empathy and wish for their day to get better. Around 90 per cent of the time, the customer reveals a slight smile before walking away.

Looking back, I admit there were occasions when I was that rude customer having a bad day. Now being on the other side I am more aware of my attitude towards others in the service industry. Golden rule number one — treat others as you would like to be treated. You can’t argue with that.

Being better: Where did our empathy go?

0

By Denise Wong

In late October, the story of Yue Yue went viral. The surveillance footage from Foshan, China was posted online and depicted two cars that drove over Yue Yue’s tiny body in the marketplace where her parents worked; neither driver did so much as stop to see what they had run over. Eighteen civilians walked right past Yue Yue, who was bleeding to death on the ground, without even a hint of concern on their faces. They did not stop to stare; they did not stand in shock and contemplation for even a second. Eighteen people merely shot a glance in her direction and continued to walk away — one of which was a motorcyclist who rode around her, as if a baby lying on the ground crumpled in blood was no more than a rock to avoid. Yue Yue was left unattended on the ground for seven minutes before a garbage lady moved her off to the side and called for help. She received intensive medical care at the hospital but died seven days later due to brain failure.

 

Just imagine: what if that was your child? Would you be able to walk away as if it was nothing? If you can’t even imagine walking away from your own dying child, then you probably won’t be able to walk away from any dying child — right? Here’s the problem: those 18 citizens who walked by Yue Yue with no reaction whatsoever, would undoubtedly have an entirely different reaction if that was their child bleeding on the ground. Yet because this child was not their child, it was somehow treated as if it were not a child at all. This kind of reaction is known as moral disengagement, a severe disconnection leading to an inability to empathize with another. Jeremy Carpendale, a professor from SFU’s psychology department, recalls an example in World War II where a man declared his love for children, and yet he was responsible for the deaths of half a million Jewish children because he somehow failed to recognize Jewish children as children. Empathy occurs when people are able to relate and put themselves in another’s position despite all possible racial, ethnic, cultural, and other differences. Therefore empathy is absent when one allows differences to distance them from another. In extreme cases, it causes people to behave like Nazis in World War II or the extremely desensitized 18 people in Yue Yue’s case, but it happens in small everyday events as well.

 

Take, for example, illegally downloading music over the Internet versus walking into a store and stealing something. Many more people are guilty of the former offense because when you actually have to walk in and physically take something without paying for it, it somehow feels a lot more like you’re breaking the law. Maybe it’s the physical act, or maybe it’s the possibility of being seen by the store clerk or other shoppers, but regardless, there seems to be a disconnect. Somehow, stealing music on the Internet doesn’t register in our minds as ‘stealing’ the way that physically taking something from a store would.

 

So how do people acquire morality and the ability to empathize? Most would answer that it starts in childhood, where parents play a fundamental role in teaching their kids right from wrong. According to Carpendale, “The usual approach is, a kind of person-on-the-street idea: how do kids become moral? Their parents teach them. And, well, of course there are exceptions to that. We all know kids don’t always obey what their parents tell them. In fact, sometimes that’s a good thing.” So the idea of learned morality is not a consistent solution because sometimes kids grow up and learn to think for themselves, sometimes they make better decisions learning from their parents, and sometimes they don’t.

 

Another possible answer is that people are just naturally moral, an approach that focuses on moral exemplars: saint-like people who are exceptionally moral. Studies found that it wasn’t that these people engaged in high-staged reasoning all the time, but that it was part of their natural thought process. There was nothing else they could have done because doing something else would violate the person they are. Many people in China say they hesitate to help injured people for fear of being blamed for causing the harm. These fears aren’t unfounded:  several high-profiled cases have ended where good samaritans were ordered to pay hefty fines to the individual they helped. While this may have been a contributing factor to the apathy shown by the 18 citizens that ignored Yue Yue, I am convinced it is no more than an after-the-fact poor attempt at justifying immorality. Fear of apprehension doesn’t stop you from gasping at a bloody baby. In fact, when the garbage lady (who was the 19th person who saw Yue Yue, and the only one who called for help) was interviewed, she responded, “I didn’t think of anything at the time, I just wanted to save the girl.” In urgent situations, there’s no time for higher staged reasoning and logical planning — most people follow their gut instinct, a fight or flight response.

 

But what makes a person fight and what makes them flight? Are some people just naturally good and others naturally apathetic? If that’s true then do we call it a day and say, “Well! I guess it’s just who that person is!” and let them be? Do we just put all the immoral people on an island and leave them there to do whatever damage they might do because there’s just no hope for them? That doesn’t seem right either. Wanda Cassidy, a professor from SFU’s education program says, “Aristotle, 2,000 years ago was talking more about virtues, but he’s saying ‘How do you become courageous? How do you become loving and all these things?’ You become by practicing those habits of good behaviour, those habits of courage, those habits of love, those habits of whatever we’re trying to cultivate.” According to this belief, morality is something that has to be practiced. Perhaps we must constantly remind ourselves of how to behave and how to treat others properly so morality becomes second nature.

 

Social interactions also play a big role in moral development, a kind of trial-and-error method of learning. Eventually we learn through repeated social interactions with peers and people in general, that if we react morally, then good things will happen. For example, kids like to play together and as a result they must figure out a way to get along. “If you’re going to have friends, you have to learn to treat them properly, otherwise you’re not going to have any friends — which isn’t fun,” Carpendale explained. “So they work out a way of getting along with each other, which is based on moral principles even through they would have no clue about it if you asked them at that point. Some years later they could reflect on it and maybe talk about it, but first, what happens is they just work it out on a practical level, so there’s practical morality there before you get into what Kholberg was interested in, this kind of moral reasoning.”

 

But back to my original question: what makes some people compassionate and others dispassionate? What makes some people fight and others flight? Well, it certainly isn’t as simple as childhood upbringing, and it’s probably wise to discard the notion that there is some simple answer or formula to follow when it comes to empathy. Maybe it begins with parental role models; maybe its some gratifying experience where a child shares with another and suddenly realizes how good it feels; maybe it’s a natural reaction that stems from who you are as a person; or maybe morality is something that we must practice to perfect.

 

As for me, these questions of morality and immorality, empathy and apathy, serve more as a wake up call than anything else. Maybe that’s what angers us, when people don’t do the right thing because, to some degree, we think morality is supposed to come naturally for everyone. Just like the 18 passersby in Yue Yue’s case, it angers us because the right thing to do seems so obvious to us, and we think that helping her should have been a natural reaction. But maybe we need to realize that morality isn’t innate, and that making right decisions don’t just come naturally. Maybe it’s better to question ourselves in the face of such monstrosity, than to condemn the action or inaction of others, because it begs the question: are we really that much better?

 

Penny for your thoughts

0

What to consider before giving change to the homeless in Vancouver

By Kelly Thoreson

 

“Panhandling isn’t a very lucrative career,” Thomas explained as we sipped warm coffees outside the entrance to Insite, the Downtown Eastside’s supervised injection site. “Well, for me it wasn’t very lucrative — probably because I was never very good at it.”

It is difficult to walk through Vancouver without encountering someone in need of some spare change. Whether they are sitting at a corner with a grimy cardboard sign, or whether they approach you with an empty coffee cup, people in need of a few spare coins seem to be a bit of a fixture in Vancouver.

There is a lot to consider when giving out spare change, and people are often confused, indecisive, or impulsive regarding the matter. First, you have to determine whether you actually have spare change and how much you could potentially hand over. Do you set a standard amount for every person? Or is it on a case-by-case basis? Next you ask yourself whether they actually need the money, and you judge what you believe they are going to do with the money. If you do give money to this person, can you refuse to give change to anyone else throughout the day? With all of this to consider, it would be easy to give up and simply decide to never give change away.

 

Thomas once worked as an executive in Vancouver; however, after being diagnosed with multiple sclerosis (MS) — which Thomas described to me as “holes in the brain” — he wasn’t able to continue work in his executive position. He tried a number of career paths, such as a mechanic, in order to make ends meet. Now Thomas spends his days wheeling around the Downtown Eastside, and he spends his nights sleeping at the Union Gospel Mission’s housing program.

Before he became homeless himself, Thomas encountered panhandlers in Vancouver on a regular basis. “When I was working as an executive, I didn’t like giving out change,” he admitted. Laughing, he said, “I love socialism, but I don’t like giving my change away.” He explained that he thinks panhandlers should understand that nobody is obligated to give them change, and they should be thankful for whatever they do receive. “I think that most panhandlers around here understand that,” Thomas said. “Some of the younger ones, though, they might not understand that is how it works yet.”

“I love socialism, but I don’t like giving my change away.” – Thomas, DTES resident

There are a number of stereotypes about the homeless that discourage people from handing out change. A common misconception is that panhandlers are asking for change because they are lazy, and people don’t want to part with their hard-earned cash in order to fuel someone else’s laziness. This is a stereotype that most people who work within homeless communities would be eager to argue against. Brittni Arthur, a student at Columbia Bible College who has volunteered in the Downtown Eastside and worked in the Tenderloin in San Francisco, admits that she believed this stereotype before working with the homeless herself. “I thought that they got themselves there and so they should get some self-motivation and get themselves out,” she said. “But it’s really not that simple.” For instance, many of the people who live in the Downtown Eastside are like Thomas and face a mental or chronic illness that makes it difficult or impossible for them to work or live on their own. Rachelle Schellenberg — who works in the Downtown Eastside with women with backgrounds of sexual exploitation and mental illness — also points to the fact that many of the homeless come from abusive backgrounds. In fact, the City of Vancouver’s 2011 Housing and Homelessness Strategy reported that 50 to 70 per cent of Vancouver’s homeless have suffered some sort of trauma and that nearly 50 per cent have been in government care such as a foster home during their lifetime. Schellenberg explains that this kind of a background can lead to addictions. “There is a root to that problem [of substance abuse and addictions]. They are addicted because they are self-medicating.” Thomas also admitted that he fell into a period of addiction a number of years ago, but he has since been clean.

The prevalence of addiction in the homeless community is a major rationale for people who don’t give money to panhandlers: they don’t want to fuel an addiction. “I would never hand out money because, even though intentions might be the best, a lot of the time once people get that money in their hands, it becomes too big of a temptation to go back to their habit,” Arthur said, explaining that she would prefer to buy a meal or bus tickets for someone in need. Schellenberg, on the other hand, said that she would rather give people the opportunity to make decisions on their own. “I shouldn’t have that assumption of what their purchases might be,” she said.

This stigma surrounding addiction also stems from the general population being unaware of how difficult it can be to get clean. Many substances create a bodily chemical dependence, which results in long and painful withdrawal periods. People need moral and emotional support to quit and remain clean, and such support is even more important during these withdrawal periods. Going ‘cold turkey’ can also be medically dangerous and often necessitates the support of a detox or rehab program. Enrolling in such programs, however, is easier said than done. These programs often have certain criteria that candidates must meet, and their waitlists mean that enrolment could be months away. There is no guarantee that candidates will still be in good behaviour or have the strength, motivation, and support to enter the program that far down the road. Furthermore, Arthur points out that the programs are often short-lived at six to eight months, and the support afterwards could be more effective. “After [your program], then what? You don’t have a place, you don’t have anything. So where do you end up? Back on the streets. Back in the same place.”

Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside is dense with organizations and programs to help homeless people face addiction, sustain a healthy lifestyle, and help get them off the streets. This generous supply of resources is why many homeless people, including Thomas, choose to live there. However, if there are so many programs, why are there still people in the street, and why are there still people asking for money? “The services are great,” Thomas told me, “but they’re not enough.”

The low resources of the services in the Downtown Eastside was made evident as a woman stormed out of Insite, approaching Thomas and I yelling, “He won’t give me any fucking chill because I’m not a user!” (The “chill”, Thomas explained, was the coffee they were serving inside.) “I hope that guy gets fired!” After several minutes of heated complaints, an Insite worker came outside to calm the woman down. He explained that they had been very busy that day, which is why they couldn’t give out coffee to non-users.

After the worker left, the woman began complaining about how hungry she was and how badly she was craving pizza.

“Maybe they’re serving pizza tonight,” Thomas consoled hopefully, referring to the free meal they were hoping to receive from the Union Gospel Mission.

“It’s Thursday — so it’s probably liver,” one of Thomas’ friends offered up quietly.

“My favourite!” Thomas cheered — just a little too enthusiastically to be believable.

“There is a pretty long line outside UGM already. We should probably go,” the woman urged. It would be important for the trio to receive a proper meal on such a cold night.

Aside from not having enough supplies to go around, services provided by organizations and charities in the Downtown Eastside also aren’t entirely adequate for getting people off of the streets. There are a lot of things that people might need that these services don’t provide. For example, if a person gets clean from their addiction and wants to find a job, where do they wash up, and where do they find nice clothes for interviews? It would take a combination of organizations to meet these needs, if they could be met at all. That said, there are organizations to help the homeless get jobs, such as Mission Possible. They are one of the few job creation organizations in the Downtown Eastside, but they require that candidates fulfil a number of criteria before they can receive help. Schellenberg points to the prevalence of these restrictions within programs and how much control they can wield over participants. Staying on the street can provide a lot more freedom. For instance, Schellenberg explained that instead of being forced to sleep in a bedbug-infested single room occupancy (SRO) in order to receive certain services, a person sleeping on the streets has the freedom to choose where they want to sleep if it is warm outside. However, then they won’t be receiving any support and likely have a lower chance of leaving the streets. “Maybe there is a need to change the approach that we take towards these programs,” Schellenberg suggested — for more flexibility might encourage more participation and cooperation.

Donating your time or money to one of these organizations is a viable alternative for people who want to help the homeless, but don’t want to give money or food directly to people on the streets. Arthur suggests that you should research the organization first, however, to ensure that you support their mission and methods before getting involved with it.

Regardless of whether you give money directly to people on the streets, buy meals for the hungry, or donate to or volunteer with an organization — or even if you do none of these things — both Schellenberg and Arthur agree on one thing that every person should do when walking past someone on the streets: acknowledge them. “One of the biggest things that I have heard from people on the street is that they’re lonely,” Arthur explained. “And so when I have time, I stop to talk to them. Also, if I don’t have time, I always make sure I smile, and I make eye contact — because you would be amazed how many people will not even look at homeless people.” Schellenberg emphasized the importance of this, explaining that she always tries to make the people she encounters feel like an individual and a valuable member of society. “I try not to increase the level of excommunication and marginalization in society,” she said.

Arthur also suggests — if you are going to stop to chat with a homeless person — don’t talk down to them. If they are sitting on the ground, you should sit on the ground right next to them. “But always ask first,” Arthur warned. “For some people, the street is kind of like their living room — and you wouldn’t want anyone to come into your house uninvited and kick their feet up on your table, would you?”

There is a tendency to ignore homeless people or treat them rudely when they ask for money, and it is crucial that we don’t fall into that habit of behaviour. The most important thing to remember is to treat homeless people like humans, regardless of whether they are asking for money or not. “Yeah, they might be on the streets and they might be homeless,” Arthur said, “but that doesn’t change the fact that they’re still a person. If it were the other way around, how would you want to be treated? If you don’t actually take the time to stop and hear their story, you won’t know how they ended up there.”