|
Your post reminds me of the days when I worked in a mental hospital. When outsiders visited the locked ward, there were always a few patients who would surround them and try to engage them in conversation - ask who they were, etc. Some were quite ill and a very few were dangerous. The visitors inevitably felt intimidated. A typical response was to pick up the pace and ignore them - as if they weren't there. This often turned out badly, with shouted insults, etc. My job brought me to the wards rather infrequently, so I encountered the same curiosity from the patients. I never had a problem because I stopped walking, turned to face them, looked them in the eye, and answered their questions. I asked their names, said I was glad to meet them, and proceeded on to complete my business. It took maybe 2 minutes, tops, and I had the opportunity to meet some very nice people (and avoid a scene).
The point is, they are people, and there is a fine line separating success from failure - illness from health - "them" from "us". Everyone deserves to be treated with respect, courtesy, and kindness. If someone proceeds to act like a jerk, he/she should be dealt with individually (hence the need for security at the mall you mentioned). But I'd be opposed to any broad-brush effort to sweep the poorest among us from our sight.
That being said, I do believe that pan-handling demeans the person doing it, and as one who is aware of better alternatives, I look with great skepticism upon those who do it. I have known thousands of people with mental illness, physical disabilities, and addictions who were able to meet their needs without pan-handling - often through a combination of work, SSI/SSDI, and with the assistance of the various human service programs available. But that was then and this is now. As the Republicans work on eliminating the safety net entirely, while exporting our jobs and lowering our pay, there may be no alternative for some people.
|