Good news... and a wise court decision:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392
Quote from: "gbb"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392
Thank you for posting this gbb..
ac_smile
I don't know what to say about it though..
The social problems of addiction, family breakdown, sexual abuse, teen pregnancy, drug addiction, and mental illness are not solved by this ruling.
ac_dunno
I disagree with this current ruling. I think there needs to be a balance between occupying public spaces while respecting business. I think any discrimination stems from the nature of the loitering rather than the loiterer. If those who tend to loiter are homeless then where is the discrimination?
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "gbb"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/downtown-vancouver-ambassadors-discriminated-against-homeless-1.3029392
I don't know what to say about this gbb..
ac_dunno
Exactly!
Quote from: "RW"
I agree. I don't think there's anything unconstitutional about a
The ruling involves PUBLIC property... not privately owned places like supermarkets.
The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association. That is just wrong.
Quote from: "gbb"
The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association. That is just wrong.
Public property belongs to everyone and is there for the enjoyment of everyone. No one should have to hire private security guards at their own expense in order to give the public free access to their own land.
Technically, a homeless person's place of residence is wherever he or she happens to park himself. I can't build a house on public land so why should they be allowed to?
Quote from: "gbb"
The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association. That is just wrong.
Why is it wrong?
Quote from: "easter bunny"
The homeless, by definition, do not build houses on lands, private or public
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "gbb"
The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association. That is just wrong.
Why is it wrong?
Quote from: "gbb"
Quote from: "easter bunny"
The homeless, by definition, do not build houses on lands, private or public
"It was just a hole in the ground covered by a sheet of tarpaulin but it was a house to us."
Quote from: "RW"
I agree RW. Telling someone camping out in front of your business isn't discriminating at all, they need to move on to the park, or in front of the court, or government buildings.
Homelessness is a social issue, to me it's society failing at teaching, or taking care of the mentally ill.
Quote from: "Blue"
Quote from: "RW"
I agree RW. Telling someone camping out in front of your business isn't discriminating at all, they need to move on to the park, or in front of the court, or government buildings.
Homelessness is a social issue, to me it's society failing at teaching, or taking care of the mentally ill.
I agree Blue, this ruling inconveniences small business owners and doesn't fix the root problems of homelessness.
Quote from: "gbb"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "gbb"
The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association. That is just wrong.
Why is it wrong?
I see and agree with you.
Its a good thing that some homeless person camps infront of the market.
They should all come inside to keep warm.
Good point.
Perhaps the business owners should submit documented proof of a decline in business due to the homeless camping in front of their businesses and then the government can subsidize them to make up for the lost business. After all its just tax dollars. ac_rollseyes
Quote from: "seoulbro"
Quote from: "gbb"
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "gbb"
The people telling the homeless to move along were private security guards, paid for by a business association. That is just wrong.
Why is it wrong?
If someone is loitering in front of shops bothering people who enter and leave that store then they should have the right to tell that person to move along.
Most homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted or both. To call them 'human debris' shows a lack of empathy
Quote from: "gbb"
Most homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted or both. To call them 'human debris' shows a lack of empathy
So is forcing hard working small biz owners to go into the red so those social parasites can chase away their customers.
When you open a store, I will be the first one there harrassing anyone entering it. Sound fair?
Quote from: "kiebers"
Perhaps the business owners should submit documented proof of a decline in business due to the homeless camping in front of their businesses and then the government can subsidize them to make up for the lost business.
Haha, some people are very generous with other people's money.
We enter a very slippery area when we begin to dehumanize others. The 20th Century had many examples.
I have stopped patronizing places that have had a person sitting outside of them after enduring repeated comments.
The issue is not simply about homeless people hanging around stores, or the front of stores. It is about discrimination against the homeless for simply being in public areas.
Here is a fuller account of the court decision:
Justice Neena Sharma ruled Friday that the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal erred in 2012 when it dismissed a claim by the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users that the Vancouver Ambassadors program was unfairly targeting the homeless, who are disproportionately aboriginal, mentally ill or suffering from addiction.
"The Tribunal's approach to this case did not give sufficient weight to the social context of this case. The people on whose behalf the claim was brought are some of the most marginalized, vulnerable and poor members of society," Sharma said in a 45-page written ruling.
"The Tribunal concluded there was no evidence proving that individuals were subjected to adverse treatment because of their race or physical or mental disability. However, that conclusion was drawn without sufficiently taking into account the nature of the adverse treatment and the social environment in which it was taking place."
The Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association's Ambassadors program started in 2000, with "ambassadors" patrolling the streets to assist and greet potential customers, but also attempting to do crime prevention, Sharma noted.
For a year, the City of Vancouver chipped in funding so the Ambassadors could work overnight.
"I find that the tribunal erred because it did not apply the correct legal test to the facts before it. It applied a standard of proof to the claim that was too strict and inconsistent with leading Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence," she said.
She noted that "the program focused on the same behaviours that are the focus of legislation aimed at the street homeless. At the very least, that raises a presumption that the program would affect street homeless more than other members of the population."
VANDU lawyer Jason Gratl said Friday that his client is very happy with the ruling because it accepted that "if you discriminate again a homeless person, it is (likely) you are discriminating against a person with a mental or physical disability or who is aboriginal."
http://www.vancouversun.com/technology/Vancouver+ambassadors+told+homeless+move+along+discriminated+judge+rules/10962308/story.html
Quote from: "gbb"
Most homeless people are either mentally ill, addicted or both. To call them 'human debris' shows a lack of empathy
I love it when lefties accuse those that dispute their doctrines and dogma as lacking in empathy. Left leaning proponents have long been the experts in demonising those that don't view the world the same way they do. From the extremities of dictatorial communist governments persecuting, incarcerating and executing those that lacked "empathy", to the banner carrying loudmouths denigrating their opposition as "sexist", "racist" or "fascist".
Presumably, spouting epithets at those with contrary views is a means of stifling debate, and trying to claim moral high ground by denigrating their opponents as lacking some element of what they believe is required to be called "human" has been fine tuned into an art form by socialists.
Let me cite 2 examples of what the left in Australia believes evidences the fact that their political opposites "lack empathy".
Prior to the last federal election, Australia was inundated with illegal immigrants arriving by boats from Indonesia. The boats were frequently about as seaworthy as a brick, but due to the "empathic" policy of the leftist government, the risk was considered worthwhile, because their chances of being accepted and granted asylum was almost certain. In other words, our socialist government held the door open and kept the porch light burning.
It is estimated that about 3,000 people died at sea trying to reach Australia. That is what empathy delivers. Since a change of government, and a policy of "Sorry, but we are closed to illegal immigration" has been enforced not ONE fatality has been reported.
Example 2.
Chloe Valentine was a pretty, cute 3 year old who lived with her drug addled mother. The policy of the leftist government is to show "empathy" towards people like Chloe's mothers and assist them with encouragement, and guidance and advice...and every other stupid remedy left wing politics invents. Chloe was an on-running case with the Family Affairs Department...with the bureaucrats making every possible error of judgment imaginable to try and keep Chloe with her vile and reprehensible parent.
Chloe died aged three, after being forced to ride a small motorcycle for hours, to appease her mother's latest fuck. They took video, and laughed as this poor little girl kept crashing on her tiny vehicle.
She was killed by "empathy", viz;//http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/chloe-valentine-inquest-findings-handed-down-by-sa-coroner-mark-johns/story-fni6uo1m-1227296561371
"Empathy" as defined by left wing politics, is just another term for "Government control", and is a root cause of terrorism, illegal immigration, battered and murdered children and dysfunctional education systems.
By giving these "homeless" people "empathy", you will simply create a system of proliferation, until your "empathy" results in the death of one or more of these mendicants due to exposure, violence or lack of medical care.
I am not empathetic to life's losers. I've seen them exploit and manipulate "empathy" too many times, as much to their own demise as others.
Society is being bullied by leftards into believing that not demonstrating empathy is a "crime against humanity". It is the grand deception of the modern era, when we are convinced that doing the right thing...intervening, acting, de-motivating...is abhorrent, and that fostering the circumstances whereby these losers suffer and die at a greater rate is humanistic and showing "empathy".
Welcome to the world of "1984" and the proliferation of double-speak.
Intriguing Leo...and off topic.
The thing that gets me GBB, is by default the homeless would be targeted because they are the ones loitering in front of businesses. The general population of non-homeless tend to not sit, lie, eat, etc on the street. So I am not sure how thus qualifies as a human rights issue.
Quote from: "RW"
RW: Not all of them congregate outside (or in front of) businesses.The point is that these folks were 'moved along' from public areas.
Here's an example of how NOT to treat the homeless:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/tim-hortons-apologizes-after-water-poured-on-sleeping-homeless-men-1.2949742
I agree GBB. What that Tim Horton's employee did was disgusting.
I think I need to read the case decision because this isn't making sense to me as a human rights issue.
Quote from: "RW"
The thing that gets me GBB, is by default the homeless would be targeted because they are the ones loitering in front of businesses. The general population of non-homeless tend to not sit, lie, eat, etc on the street. So I am not sure how thus qualifies as a human rights issue.
I'm sorry. Was it the big words?
It is precisely THE topic. It is based on the principle, rather than the detail.
I know you despise debating me...but that comment was ludicrous.
No, it precisely isn't. The topic is the right to access public spaces and the extent of discriminatory practises when dealing with the homeless. I didn't recall seeing an invitation to rant about lefties.
Quote from: "RW"
Because, as you well know...it is LEFTIST ideology and policy that drives these "leave them alone, we'll deal with it" strategies.
The Court decision reflects that ideological irrationality perfectly. No wonder your State government are appealing.
What this demonstrates is the leftist tendency to "protect" the underclass...or put another way, create the underclass to show how society is divided and only socialism can fix. Allowing "the homeless" to lurk wherever they choose at the expense of the greater good is the issue...and this leniency extends to all societies wastrels.
Nothing good comes of leniencies such as these. Nothing at all. It creates more homeless people, and generates more conflict in a society already struggling to handle the existing inequities and inanities it has created.
Like "domestic violence", "homelessness" is just another piece of socialist nonsense designed and intended to create the political divide that essentially divides us all.
My heart breaks for people suffering and few are suffering more in this country than those that do not have a roof over their heads..
But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..
What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..
It seems to be a lose-lose situation.
ac_umm
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "kiebers"
Perhaps the business owners should submit documented proof of a decline in business due to the homeless camping in front of their businesses and then the government can subsidize them to make up for the lost business.
Haha, some people are very generous with other people's money.
lol it is so.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..
What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..
It seems to be a lose-lose situation.
ac_umm
Exactly my point...but I was relating it to a broader scale.
Apparently the Debating Queen (that's RW, who thinks she is the best debater on the forum) missed the bigger picture!!!
No-one wins when we condone, tolerate, encourage, abet or simply ignore something that is WRONG!!!
No-one asks why these people are "homeless". In my experience, they are homeless for one of two reasons...they are mentally handicapped and cannot assimilate into what we call a standard lifestyle, or cope with the dilemmas and stresses of feeding, managing a house or finances. They are to be pitied...and their situation is irresolvable whilst we acknowledge they have human rights, and thus should not be incarcerated for their own good.
The others are shitbags. By choice, and by intent. They are not to be pitied. They are the masters of their own demise, and thus choose to live a life that is incompatible with our overall community living standards.
To compare these with the underclass of nations such as India is facile. Those in that nation have no choice, are given no incentive and certainly have no opportunity.
But thats what we do...we compare them with the abandoned souls of third world countries and categorise them in the same way. That's bullshit. They had EVERY chance and opportunity, but fucked it up. Now they litter our streets and want sympathy.
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "RW"
Because, as you well know...it is LEFTIST ideology and policy that drives these "leave them alone, we'll deal with it" strategies.
The Court decision reflects that ideological irrationality perfectly. No wonder your State government are appealing.
What this demonstrates is the leftist tendency to "protect" the underclass...or put another way, create the underclass to show how society is divided and only socialism can fix. Allowing "the homeless" to lurk wherever they choose at the expense of the greater good is the issue...and this leniency extends to all societies wastrels.
Nothing good comes of leniencies such as these. Nothing at all. It creates more homeless people, and generates more conflict in a society already struggling to handle the existing inequities and inanities it has created.
Like "domestic violence", "homelessness" is just another piece of socialist nonsense designed and intended to create the political divide that essentially divides us all.
Oh what a load of horse puckies!
The left did not create the underclass. That is absolutely ridiculous.
There is no debate that a bigger problem needs to be addressed. That doesn't mean the symptomatic issues can't be addressed as well - you know, the ones that have a hope in hell of seeing resolution.
The homeless, as outlined come from various backgrounds including the mental health system. It wasn't the left that shut down mental hospitals here.
If you truly want to see who is creating the divide look to your capitalist right.
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..
What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..
It seems to be a lose-lose situation.
ac_umm
Exactly my point...but I was relating it to a broader scale.
Apparently the Debating Queen (that's RW, who thinks she is the best debater on the forum) missed the bigger picture!!!
No-one wins when we condone, tolerate, encourage, abet or simply ignore something that is WRONG!!!
No-one asks why these people are "homeless". In my experience, they are homeless for one of two reasons...they are mentally handicapped and cannot assimilate into what we call a standard lifestyle, or cope with the dilemmas and stresses of feeding, managing a house or finances. They are to be pitied...and their situation is irresolvable whilst we acknowledge they have human rights, and thus should not be incarcerated for their own good.
The others are shitbags. By choice, and by intent. They are not to be pitied. They are the masters of their own demise, and thus choose to live a life that is incompatible with our overall community living standards.
To compare these with the underclass of nations such as India is facile. Those in that nation have no choice, are given no incentive and certainly have no opportunity.
But thats what we do...we compare them with the abandoned souls of third world countries and categorise them in the same way. That's bullshit. They had EVERY chance and opportunity, but fucked it up. Now they litter our streets and want sympathy.
What percent are "the others"?
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..
What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..
It seems to be a lose-lose situation.
ac_umm
Exactly my point...but I was relating it to a broader scale.
Apparently the Debating Queen (that's RW, who thinks she is the best debater on the forum) missed the bigger picture!!!
No-one wins when we condone, tolerate, encourage, abet or simply ignore something that is WRONG!!!
No-one asks why these people are "homeless". In my experience, they are homeless for one of two reasons...they are mentally handicapped and cannot assimilate into what we call a standard lifestyle, or cope with the dilemmas and stresses of feeding, managing a house or finances. They are to be pitied...and their situation is irresolvable whilst we acknowledge they have human rights, and thus should not be incarcerated for their own good.
The others are shitbags. By choice, and by intent. They are not to be pitied. They are the masters of their own demise, and thus choose to live a life that is incompatible with our overall community living standards.
To compare these with the underclass of nations such as India is facile. Those in that nation have no choice, are given no incentive and certainly have no opportunity.
But thats what we do...we compare them with the abandoned souls of third world countries and categorise them in the same way. That's bullshit. They had EVERY chance and opportunity, but fucked it up. Now they litter our streets and want sympathy.
Just because I do not feel this ruling will help homeless people does not mean I lack empathy or I am incapable of feeling sympathy for them..
The opposite is true..
But a ruling that is bad for two sides is still bad.
Most of these homeless people are lost causes.
Have been homeless in a foreign but I look like I belong to somewhere and thats why I have got a place to stay.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
But, I cannot see how this court ruling helps homeless people at all..
What it does seem to do is cause problems for store keepers..
It seems to be a lose-lose situation.
ac_umm
Exactly my point...but I was relating it to a broader scale.
Apparently the Debating Queen (that's RW, who thinks she is the best debater on the forum) missed the bigger picture!!!
No-one wins when we condone, tolerate, encourage, abet or simply ignore something that is WRONG!!!
No-one asks why these people are "homeless". In my experience, they are homeless for one of two reasons...they are mentally handicapped and cannot assimilate into what we call a standard lifestyle, or cope with the dilemmas and stresses of feeding, managing a house or finances. They are to be pitied...and their situation is irresolvable whilst we acknowledge they have human rights, and thus should not be incarcerated for their own good.
The others are shitbags. By choice, and by intent. They are not to be pitied. They are the masters of their own demise, and thus choose to live a life that is incompatible with our overall community living standards.
To compare these with the underclass of nations such as India is facile. Those in that nation have no choice, are given no incentive and certainly have no opportunity.
But thats what we do...we compare them with the abandoned souls of third world countries and categorise them in the same way. That's bullshit. They had EVERY chance and opportunity, but fucked it up. Now they litter our streets and want sympathy.
Just because I do not feel this ruling will help homeless people does not mean I lack empathy or I am incapable of feeling sympathy for them..
The opposite is true..
But a ruling that is bad for two sides is still bad.
That is consistent with what I am trying to say. GBB played the "empathy" card, and that ruffles my feathers. We ALL empathise. But pandering to their utter inability to make an effort to rehabilitate and re-start a broken life is NOT in their best interest.
We need to start sending different messages to the "feral" community. Single motherhood is not good. Have a baby without a responsible father, it is fostered. You may have your child when you prove you can care for it according to proper standards.
Drug addiction is not good. Don't present at hospitals affected by drugs, or alcohol. If you die in the street, you made a dumb choice.
Gambling your money away is dumb. If you throw your money down slot machines...eat from dumpsters.
Safety nets are a must for those who try, who have contributed, who have made an effort. Not for fucktards that give no fuck what happens to themselves.
This socialist nonsense must end. You help by NOT helping.
Quote from: "RW"
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Quote from: "RW"
Because, as you well know...it is LEFTIST ideology and policy that drives these "leave them alone, we'll deal with it" strategies.
The Court decision reflects that ideological irrationality perfectly. No wonder your State government are appealing.
What this demonstrates is the leftist tendency to "protect" the underclass...or put another way, create the underclass to show how society is divided and only socialism can fix. Allowing "the homeless" to lurk wherever they choose at the expense of the greater good is the issue...and this leniency extends to all societies wastrels.
Nothing good comes of leniencies such as these. Nothing at all. It creates more homeless people, and generates more conflict in a society already struggling to handle the existing inequities and inanities it has created.
Like "domestic violence", "homelessness" is just another piece of socialist nonsense designed and intended to create the political divide that essentially divides us all.
Oh what a load of horse puckies!
The left did not create the underclass. That is absolutely ridiculous.
There is no debate that a bigger problem needs to be addressed. That doesn't mean the symptomatic issues can't be addressed as well - you know, the ones that have a hope in hell of seeing resolution.
The homeless, as outlined come from various backgrounds including the mental health system. It wasn't the left that shut down mental hospitals here.
If you truly want to see who is creating the divide look to your capitalist right.
And here we have the leftists mantra..."Capitalism created poverty".
Poverty existed LONG before capitalism dear. LONG before. Modern poverty is more likely a consequence of socialism than capitalism. Trade unions in industrialised countries have pushed for higher and higher wages, with little or no regard for capitalism to pay for those wages, or to be able to reduce them when economic influences wane.
So, employers faced with a larger and larger wage bill are simply reducing it by reducing their workforce numbers.
Got a 5% pay rise? The number of unemployed rises by 5%.
We probably agree on those afflicted with mental health incapacitation...for obvious reasons...we are not doing enough to care for them for fear of impinging on their human rights, thanks to socialism once again. Their health and welfare are NOT trumped by this silly concept of human rights. In fact, they have the right to be cared for, and we are letting them loose in the street. THAT is a breach of human rights.
And them being on the streets is not a result of those who subscribe to socialism. The mentally ill homeless are a result of fiscal conservatism - who gives a fuck, save a buck.
Minimum wage tends to chase inflation btw - not vice versa.
Poverty existed before socialism as well. DERP.
They arent a result of anything but weakness and being lazy...
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
That is consistent with what I am trying to say. GBB played the "empathy" card, and that ruffles my feathers. We ALL empathise. But pandering to their utter inability to make an effort to rehabilitate and re-start a broken life is NOT in their best interest.
You and me both dude. People like gbb are ENABLERS.
You use fancy words. :D
Quote from: "RW"
Your wish is my command:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm
Quote from: "gbb"
Quote from: "RW"
Your wish is my command:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm
Hello gbb, I can tell your heart is in the right place.
ac_hithere
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "gbb"
Quote from: "RW"
Your wish is my command:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm
Hello gbb, I can tell your heart is in the right place.
ac_hithere
No, it isn't. You've probably given more of your time and financial resources to helping the most useless sacks of shit in our society than bullshitter Bob has in his entire life. He's all about self-indulgence and you are about serving others. Don't fall for his BS ffs!! acc_angry
What bullshit Shen?
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
That is consistent with what I am trying to say. GBB played the "empathy" card, and that ruffles my feathers. We ALL empathise. But pandering to their utter inability to make an effort to rehabilitate and re-start a broken life is NOT in their best interest.
You and me both dude. People like gbb are ENABLERS.
It is no surprise that people who have been unjustly ostracised, persecuted and vilified...not to mention discriminated against..take up the cause of other groups they perceive as being a common ally.
Their quest for equity becomes a crusade, and thus we see activists for women's rights aligning with their counterparts in multiculturalists and asylum seekers, and of course the trade union movement. It is this sort of political subversity which has wielded too much influence for far too long.
Their blunt weapon is guilt. They are masters of the art of engendering guilt in the greater community. The rise in poverty is YOUR fault. The juvenile crime rate is YOUR fault. The plight of the homeless is YOUR fault. Easy accusations to make.
Socialism seeks to disempower the individual in lieu of state control. What better way to do so than convince the individual that the misery of the homeless poor is THEIR fault.
That is The Great Lie. And bullshit.
WTF does your rant have to with telling homeless people to move along? What does it have to do with the discrimination of a select group on public property?
Care to get on topic?
It has to do with people deciding that its NOT OK to tell them to move along?
Why is THAT a breach of their human rights?
Big picture.
Get some.
You don't even know what side of the argument I'm on because you can't see past your nose.
Why is it a breech of their human rights? Read the case findings.
Uh-oh, lovers quarrel in process. ac_popcorn
A "breech" is what you load bullets in, inside a gun.
I assume you mean "breach".
Quote
Is that clear enough for you? I will go out on a limb here, and assume that if you act against the ruling, you are NOT upholding their "human rights".
What is not clear is your point as it pertains to this case...
The allegation is that ambassadors actively dissuaded the "street homeless" from occupying public space, which resulted in discrimination because people with Aboriginal ancestry and/or mental or physical disabilities were disproportionately subjected to that adverse treatment. The original complaint was filed on behalf of "individuals who are or appear to be street homeless and/or drug addicted and engaged in rough sleeping, sitting or lying down in public spaces, panhandling, vending, begging or binning, or other behaviours related to those personal circumstances.
A private group of "Ambassadors" set up by the business community, engaged in the following:
a. Telling people who are sitting or lying down on the sidewalk to move along;
b. Waking up people who are sleeping on the street and telling these people to move along, regardless of location or circumstances;
c. Driving along slowly beside or behind people who are walking down the street or in back lanes, and telling people to move along if they stop, sit down or lie down;
d. Patrolling back lanes and telling people to stop searching for recyclables in garbage cans, telling people doing so to move along;
e. Identifying particular individuals as undesirable and telling them that they are not allowed within a particular geographic area ("no go areas");
f. Following or staring at individuals identified as undesirable;
g. Taking photographs or notes in order to collect information about people on the street which has the effect of harassing and humiliating the individuals photographed and "observed", all for an unknown and potentially illegal purpose.
"Legal Basis" of this case as follows: "on the facts found by the Tribunal, the [Ambassadors] have discriminated against individuals on the basis of race, ancestry and physical and mental disabilities, contrary to s. 8 of the Human Rights Code.
Section 8 states:
(a) deny to a person or class of persons any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public, or
(b) discriminate against a person or class of persons regarding any accommodation, service or facility customarily available to the public
because of the race, colour, ancestry, place of origin, religion, marital status, family status, physical or mental disability, sex, sexual orientation or age of that person or class of persons.
The Tribunal stated that the
When analyzed under the correct legal test, [the above actions] do constitute
A couple additional things to note from the decision:
"
"
Do you agree with the findings of this case on a philosophical level?
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Quote from: "gbb"
Quote from: "RW"
Your wish is my command:
http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/jdb-txt/SC/15/05/2015BCSC0534.htm
Hello gbb, I can tell your heart is in the right place.
ac_hithere
No, it isn't. You've probably given more of your time and financial resources to helping the most useless sacks of shit in our society than bullshitter Bob has in his entire life. He's all about self-indulgence and you are about serving others. Don't fall for his BS ffs!! acc_angry
I do not know gbb and I will not assume that about him.
Quote from: "Fashionista"
Sometimes, I think this board should be called "Rush To Judgment" ac_cool
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
Prior to the last federal election, Australia was inundated with illegal immigrants arriving by boats from Indonesia. The boats were frequently about as seaworthy as a brick, but due to the "empathic" policy of the leftist government, the risk was considered worthwhile, because their chances of being accepted and granted asylum was almost certain. In other words, our socialist government held the door open and kept the porch light burning.
It is estimated that about 3,000 people died at sea trying to reach Australia. That is what empathy delivers. Since a change of government, and a policy of "Sorry, but we are closed to illegal immigration" has been enforced not ONE fatality has been reported.
[/quote]
Just because they stopped reporting them doesn't mean that people aren't still dying.
Quote from: "Leopardsocks"
"Empathy" as defined by left wing politics, is just another term for "Government control", and is a root cause of terrorism, illegal immigration, battered and murdered children and dysfunctional education systems.
What a pile of nonsensical gibberish - the reason there are so many mentally ill homeless people is that governments across North America closed mental hospitals where these people used to be treated. Riverview's closure is a good example. There were lofty promises of 'community-based' treatment facilities.... few of which ever found the light of day....
As for lack of empathy:
From the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-IV:
"Narcissists do not consider the pain they inflict on others; nor do they give any credence to others' perceptions," says Dr. Les Carter in the book Enough of You, Let's Talk About Me (p. 9). "They simply do not care about thoughts and feelings that conflict with their own." Do not expect them to listen, validate, understand, or support you.
This is exacerbated when the person has a touch of antisocial personality disorder. Then it becomes frightening......
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/stop-walking-eggshells/201201/lack-empathy-the-most-telling-narcissistic-trait
Boy do I know a lot of people who make that grade.
Quote from: "RW"
I know Fash and I know she actually walks the talk. Bob, talks about others lacking empathy, but does fuck all about what he sees as society's big problems.
How do you know he does nothing?
Quote from: "RW"
In my experience people that berate others seldom do what they accuse others of NOT doing. Fash never berates other people, she just does what she thinks needs to be done. If I was some junkie social parasite, I would know that she has my back more than Bob.
BTW, I think they are both wrong. Homeless drug addicts should be used for medical research and organ harvesting.
Holy fuck Shen! hahaha
Quote from: "Shen Li"
If you are not 'joking', you need professional help. A great deal of professional help, actually.
I would send them to a mental hospital/detox center where they can get the treatment they need. Living on a sidewalk is not something you would do unless you were wanting help. Anyone who thinks a drug addict has control of his will doesn't understand the nature of addiction.
Quote from: "RW"
No joke, let the useless fucks contribute for once in their disgusting lives.
Bad Shen!
Majority of those will never be rehabilitated.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "RW"
In my experience
You certainly aren't irony deficient, Shen
Quote from: "easter bunny"
Yeah, it's probably a good idea to detox them before their organs are harvested, especially if you need a liver.
Quote from: "Berry Sweet"
That may be true Berry Sweet, but some can which is why we don't give up on them.
Quote from: "Berry Sweet"
What if LO becomes a drug addict? Would you want LO to be rehabilitated?
Hence why I said "majority" and not all.
Very low percentage of addicts can overcome and get better....but for most its a lifelong struggle. Having support like family and good friends help...sadly majority of those addicts on the streets don't have family who care for them (or even cared for them while they were growing up, and that is a huge impact on their lives).
I wish there were programs that could help the homeless addicts but provided they have the support, its very difficult for them to achieve...unless a person come from nowhere and decides to help them.
Well I'm glad I never did drugs.
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "easter bunny"
Yeah, it's probably a good idea to detox them before their organs are harvested, especially if you need a liver.
ac_tongue
Quote from: "Berry Sweet"
Very low percentage of addicts can overcome and get better....but for most its a lifelong struggle. Having support like family and good friends help...sadly majority of those addicts on the streets don't have family who care for them (or even cared for them while they were growing up, and that is a huge impact on their lives).
I wish there were programs that could help the homeless addicts but provided they have the support, its very difficult for them to achieve...unless a person come from nowhere and decides to help them.
Sorry Berry Sweet, I misunderstood what you meant..
You made some good points about the symptoms of the disease.
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "easter bunny"
Yeah, it's probably a good idea to detox them before their organs are harvested, especially if you need a liver.
ac_toofunny
Quote from: "Berry Sweet"
Very low percentage of addicts can overcome and get better....but for most its a lifelong struggle. Having support like family and good friends help...sadly majority of those addicts on the streets don't have family who care for them (or even cared for them while they were growing up, and that is a huge impact on their lives).
I wish there were programs that could help the homeless addicts but provided they have the support, its very difficult for them to achieve...unless a person come from nowhere and decides to help them.
So true.
A part of me envies a life without strings.
Quote from: "RW"
You're not alone. I think almost everyone would like to have a little of that every now and then.
Quote from: "Renee"
Quote from: "RW"
You're not alone. I think almost everyone would like to have a little of that every now and then.
I would not at all Renee..
I would not want to even think about life without my husband and children.
I don't want to think of a permanent life without my family but life without bills would be nice.
Quote from: "RW"
Taxes too.
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "RW"
Taxes too.
Actually, my income tax return was very easy to do.
I just did the exact same thing I did last year, but with this year's numbers.
I always end up getting an income tax refund (usually CPP overpayment) once a year, plus low income tax credits once every 3 months.
Quote from: "RDL"
Quote from: "Shen Li"
Quote from: "RW"
Taxes too.
Actually, my income tax return was very easy to do.
I just did the exact same thing I did last year, but with this year's numbers.
I always end up getting an income tax refund (usually CPP overpayment) once a year, plus low income tax credits once every 3 months.
Life is so easy for you underemployed, unskilled, unambitious white trash types. ac_tongue