Alright, here we go.
Third, the head of the brand spankin’ new Canadian mausoleum of human rights reaches out to the gay community to assauge doubts of his gay-friendly credentials.
Fourth, who needs evidence? From State Of Vancouver: Business association says Pivot has produced no evidence for discrimination complaint:
This got issued earlier today, but got a bit lost in the flurry today over Rich Coleman’s proposed new homelessness law. I haven’t had a chance to call Pivot, so don’t know what their side of the story is. But I thought this news release would be of interest to readers here, given the passionate debate there has been about the Downtown Ambassadors on this site.
Pivot and VANDU Fail to Produce Evidence Against Downtown Ambassadors®
(Vancouver – September 21, 2009) – Pivot Legal Society and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users (VANDU) have failed to disclose any documentary evidence to substantiate their Complaint against the Downtown Ambassadors®.
In July 2008, Pivot and VANDU filed a claim of systemic discrimination against the Downtown Ambassador® program alleging Ambassadors deny homeless people the right to access and enjoy public space.
Last week, after being directed in July 2009 by the Tribunal to disclose any documents which
they have or intend to rely upon to support the Complaint, both indicated in a letter to the Tribunal “that the complainants do not have any documents to disclose in this matter.” In the Complaint filed in July of last year, Pivot described itself as “in a unique position to…effectively…coordinate the accumulation of and presentation of evidence” to support the claims Pivot and VANDU advanced.
The DVBIA has maintained from the outset that the Complaint is unfounded.
Charles Gauthier, Executive Director of the DVBIA, expressed concern that Pivot and VANDU appear to be abusing the Tribunal’s processes solely for political purposes and at the expense of the Ambassador program’s reputation.
“The DVBIA will have to consider its next steps in light of this remarkable admission by Pivot that it has no documented proof of any of the claims which it has sought to advance over the past 15 months,” says Gauthier.
“We are thoroughly frustrated, as our members should be, that they and other BC taxpayers are funding this ill-conceived and unsubstantiated Tribunal hearing while scarce resources are being diverted away from ending homelessness and other pressing priorities,” says Gauthier.
To date, this case has cost the DVBIA and its members in excess of $30,000.
Fifth, a half-way decent ruling. From CKNW: Human rights tribunal rules on service dog:
It appears having a very territorial dog is enough of a reason to refuse tenancy to someone with a service dog, according to a decision from the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal.
Jordan Mann and Heather Hutchinson wanted to rent a basement suite from Barb Rufer and Richard Simituk.
However, the landlords already had a dog named tango who is extremely territorial, and there was a strong possibility of one or both dogs getting hurt in fights because the only way into the basement suite is through the backyard where tango spends most of his day.
When the landlords refused, the prospective tenants filed a human rights complaint.
The tribunal has decided this case is not about discrimination, but rather a bona fide and reasonable justificiation for refusing tenancy.
Sixth, introducing the I HAVE FREE SPEECH blog, the latest project of poet Wally Keeler. Check it out.
Seventh, an interested development in the strange case of the whistle-blower. From Blazing Cat Fur:
Fairness Fairy to me
show details 1:28 AM (8 hours ago)
…I have been monitoring blogs and realize that people are getting critical of me to the point of personally attacking (and attempting to post my location/proxy). I realize that i don’t need that shit and since I’ve proven myself to Marc and he does good work, i’ll work through him from now on.
Blazing Catfur to Fairness
show details 2:11 AM (8 hours ago)
What else could you possibly expect? Until and if you can provide proof to substantiate your credibility no one will be able to take you at your word. Sorry but this is too serious a matter and due diligence is required.
Read it here.