The dilemma of beggars and their influence on Melbourne’s CBD has been debated for some years, with many agreeing that beggars should be given help through counselling, low cost housing or better welfare programs whilst others believing that beggars only serve to deride the city of Melbourne and thus encourages tourists into believing that Melbourne is full of social problems. In response to those people who believe the latter, Chris Middendorp in his opinion piece, “Begging: a problem we cannot hide” (The Age, 19/2/05), uses inclusive language, rhetorical questions and vivid descriptions, to convince readers that poverty needs to be solved and how a “crude zero-tolerance” will only fail in doing so.
The inclusive headline, “Begging: a problem we cannot hide”, purports to speak on behalf of all Melbourne’s citizens as the writer asserts that “begging” is not an issue we are able to conceal, furthermore; inclining readers into accepting Middendorp’s view on the issue as readers are urged to accept that the opinion of the writer is that of their own. The writer uses an anecdote as he vividly describes an encounter with a beggar named “Kenny”, demonstrating his vulnerability, “He sat on a footpath in front of a tatty cardboard”, in an effort to show readers Kenny’s misfortune whilst appealing to reader’s sense of ethics convincing them to agree with the writers opinion, as for them not to agree would deem them individuals who draw satisfaction out of the misfortune of others. The writer furthers his argument quoting that Kenny considers himself “lucky to make $15 a day” at the same time displaying that Kenny does not source pride out of begging, rather “embarrassment” as he claims he has “got to live too”, invoking sympathy from readers as they are urged to understand the immensity of not only Kenny’s situation but that of all beggars. By citing his credentials at the end of the piece, “works for Hanover Welfare Services”, it acts as a means of justifying his argument as it is assumed that one who works for Hanover Welfare Service would be a person of knowledge, making the opinion of the writer difficult to refute.
Included after the writer has swayed readers into accepting his opinion he offers the opinion of “State Opposition Leader Robert Doyle”, as he claims there needs to be a “crackdown of begging” and how begging belittles the “pride in ourselves as a city”, as a way to disparage Doyle’s argument showing its lack of logic in his resolve and the absence of a rational solution. The writer then agrees with Doyle that “we do take pride in ourselves as a city” in an appeal to citizens of Melbourne and so demonstrates the sheer respect he has for the city. He then offers a solution to the issue of heated debate through inclusive language claiming that, “disadvantaged citizens must be given access to housing, jobs and drug and alcohol services”, demonstrating that he is not only condemning the proposed policy, but offering a resolve. Moreover; by using inclusive language, the writer associates readers with the writer, making it more difficult for readers to rebut the argument presented by Middendorp that “zero-tolerance” is not the solution. Advancing his argument even more, the writer demonstrates his resourcefulness to readers in an attempt to show that the view of the writer is one of logic and is understood among members of the public such as a police officer, as he quotes how “these people need help, not prosecution and fines”. The writer then offers a rhetorical question, “and isn’t it somewhat perverse logic for the police to fine someone who has no money in the first place”, to show the foolishness of a zero-tolerance policy as well as attempting to make readers feel associated with the piece.
Referencing the evidence conducted by the Hanover Welfare Service in 2001, the writer shows how a total of 96,000 passers may see one or more beggars during the day juxtaposing this information with the information offered at the beginning of the article, that Kenny is “lucky to make $15 dollars a day”, showing readers that although that many people do see them, many people do not acknowledge their presence, condemning those ideas that beggars “make a fortune” or “rob people”. He then asks readers if “we are so frightened of poverty that we have to make up cover stories?” appealing to reader’s sense of values and how they perhaps do not recognise the enormity of poverty simultaneously suggesting “we” can make a difference. He calls our city the “land of plenty” as readers are urged to agree that a high percentage of people are financially secure, and how it’s “disgusting” that our community with so much do not help those in need, questioning the current values and beliefs of readers and urging them to question why they are not doing something. The writer states his hope in “facing up to Melbourne’s poverty” and “resolving it” rather than the suggested solution of a “zero tolerance measure”, demonstrating his expectation of Melbourne’s citizens to adhere to their value systems and social mores instilled upon them.
Through inclusive language, references to external sources and rhetorical questions to associate readers with the writers view, Middendorp elucidates the importance of fixing poverty in Melbourne rather than “[hiding]” it before the government finds a way to resolve it immorally such as the “shipping of all homeless and poor people to Sydney”.
_______________________________________________________________________
Article sourced from 2007 VCAA L.A -
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/02/18/1108709431238.html
Home
Help
Search
Login
