Actually

A measles outbreak in Vancouver  has been linked to the anti-vaccination movement. It's a good reminder that even just a few unvaccinated people in the community can have huge unintended consequences.

Community immunity is the science behind the idea that when enough people are vaccinated against a certain disease, it can’t transfer  easily from person to person. The entire community is less likely to get sick — even people who aren’t vaccinated.

"Handwashing is like a “do-it-yourself" vaccine" says the US  Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.  Since many wheelchair users' hands are in constant contact with their wheels, handwashing is self preservation.

Anytime there is a collection of people who are more likely to carry contagions - anti-vaxxers in Vancouver or grubby-handed wheelchair users in Halifax - it endangers everyone.

The Mayo Clinic lists more than a dozen causes of foodborne illness; poor handwashing is certainly connected to some of the 70 gastrointestinal outbreaks in Nova Scotia between Jan 2014 and June 2015.  From Harrietsfield to Halifax, food poisoning is a constant presence.

Six months ago, five Nova Scotians obtained an order from the Human Rights Inquiry requiring the enforcement of food safety regulations for people using wheelchairs on an equal basis with others.  The regulations require convenient public washrooms.

How the hygienic honchos at Environment Nova Scotia overlooked this problem for many years is a good question.  

Now, rather than fleeing at the sight of a wheelchair, restaurant patrons can have some confidence that sanitary amenities are universally available.

Yet six months later, its business-as-usual at the Food Safety Division.  Rather than fixing the menace to health, both regulators and restauranteurs have chosen to do nothing.

Restaurants without decent and  convenient washrooms are public health land mines, waiting to explode.  They should clean up their act.  

And at a restaurant that actually complies with health regulations. some wheelchair user might actually get a job.  Actually.

Familiar?

An excerpt from Alice, a fun book about an un-fun situation.  Cheap on Amazon:

-->

Paul Vienneau and the Carpenter

‘The sun was shining on the decks,

Shining with all her might:

She did her very best to make

The patio level and bright

And this was odd, because it was

Behind a set of steps

Paul Vienneau and a Carpenter

Were wheeling ‘neath the lamps;

They wept like anything to see

Such paucity of ramps

“If this were only better planned,”

 They said, “we’d be access champs!”

“If seven men with seven drills

Worked for fifty nights,

Do you suppose,” Paul Vienneau said,

“That they could get it right?”

“I doubt it,” said the Carpenter,

That’s certainly our plight.

 “O Council, come and wheel with us!”

 Paul Vienneau did beseech.

“A pleasant wheel, a pleasant talk,

A chance for us to teach

We cannot do with more than four,

To give a hand to each.”

The CAO looked at him.

But never a word he said:

The CAO winked his eye,

And shook his heavy head—

Meaning to say he did not choose

To leave his comfy bed..

But four young councilors hurried up,

All eager for the treat:

Their coats were brushed, their faces washed,

Their shoes were clean and neat—

And this was no surprise , because, you know,

They seldom left their seat.

Four other Councilors followed them,

And yet another four;

And thick and fast they came at last,

And more, and more, and more—

All hopping through the dirty path,

And scrambling to the fore.

Paul Vienneau and the Carpenter

Wheeled on a mile or so,

And then they rested by a rock

Conveniently low:

And all the little Councilors stood

And waited in a row.

“The time has come,” Paul Vienneau said,

“To talk of many things:

Of ramps—and doors—and steepest slopes—

Of washrooms and commodes—

And why the curb cuts are so bad—

And whither building codes.”

“Just wait a sec,” the Councilors cried,

“Before we have our chat;

Grandfather rules the access game

and with business we side!”

“We know it well!” said the Carpenter.

"There is no thanks for that."

“To wash my hands,” Paul Vienneau said,

“Is what I chiefly need:

Some privacy besides

Is very good indeed—

Now if you’re ready Councilors dear,

Our views begin to heed.”

“It’s not on us!” the Councilors cried,

Turning a little blue,

“After our hard work, that would be

A dismal thing to do!”

“I rest my case ,” Paul Vienneau said

“You haven’t got a clue!”

“It was so kind of you to come!

And you are very nice!”

The Carpenter said nothing but

“The washroom’s full of mice:

I wish you were not so obtuse—

I’ve had to ask you twice!”

“It seems a shame,” Paul Vienneau said,

“To play them such a trick,

After we’ve brought them out so far,

And made them trot so quick!”

The Carpenter said nothing but

“These people are so thick!”

“I weep for you,” Paul Vienneau said.

“I deeply sympathize.”

But really now, we pay our tax

And it’s agreed we get little back

Few jobs, not much respect,

Lip service, we surmise.

“O Councilors,” said the Carpenter.

“You’ve had a pleasant run!

Shall we be trotting home again?”

 But answer came there none—

And that was scarcely odd, because

They’d been outvoted, every one

Another Failure of Human Rights

If you don't see the timeline below, click the title to visit the website.

More than four years ago, I and four other wheelchair users embarked on a  campaign to be treated equally in the enforcement of food safety regulations.  We were ignored, dismissed and treated as nuisances.  We complained to the Human Rights Commission.  Again, we were ignored, dismissed and treated as nuisances.  We took them to court.  We won.  We had a Board of Inquiry, but the Human Rights Commission was no help - they chose to adopt a neutral stance - 'watching brief' they called it.  We were belittled by the Restaurant Association.  Nova Scotia Environment opposed us and and treated us to bizarre interpretations of common English words like 'convenient'.

Four months ago the Board of Inquiry ruled in our favour.  The Minister of Justice promised to fast-track a solution.  Even though we had suggested a solution in the summer of 2016, we have never been contacted.  Nothing has happened.  Nothing.

We asked the Human Rights Commission to remind government of the decision.  We pointed out that the Human Rights Commission can impose penalties.  We did not receive a response.

It's becoming clear that nothing will happen.

The government doesn't care that some restaurants are health hazards.  They are unwilling to enforce their own regulations.  The Human Rights Commission ruling is being ignored.  The Human Rights Commission isn't interested in Human Rights.  The Food Safety Division of Environment Nova Scotia isn't interested in food safety.   The Restaurant Association is contemptuous of us and unfamiliar with basic hygiene. The Chief Medical Officer of Health is silent.  Four months later.  Nothing.

Here is a a complete timeline with links to important documents.

PS:   Be sure to read Paul Vienneau's excellent article.

To the Human Rights Commission, requesting enforcement

Dear Ms. Hansen,

Here is the response I received to my November 24 email to you, Dr. Strang, Minister Miller and Minister Furey from Adrian Fuller Executive Director Inspection, Compliance and Enforcement Division, NS Environment.  

In the letter, Director Fuller says  the Human Rights Board of Inquiry "has ordered Nova Scotia Environment to require restaurants to have accessible washrooms in order to comply with the Food Safety Regulations, unless the permit holder applies for an exemption based on undue hardship."

This is untrue; a misinterpretation of a perfectly straightforward order:

An order that the Respondent interpret, administer and enforce the words washroom facilities for the public available in a convenient location" in s.20(1) of the Food Safety Regulations as requiring those washroom facilities to be accessible to members of the public who use wheelchairs;

There is no mention of anything remotely resembling 'undue hardship'.  Undue hardship is frequently the weapon of choice used against people with disabilities, and signals that their own undue hardship is of no consequence.  This reinterpretation, along with deliberate footdragging reflects poorly on the Human Rights process.  It calls into question your commission's independence and accords special treatment to other branches of government.

In more than three months since the decision the Department of the Environment has failed to comply.  Furthermore, it seems unable to correctly interpret a forty-three word order.  I request that you remind the government of the actual words and meaning of the decision and ask it why it hasn't complied with such a simple directive.  Indeed, Section 38 of the Human Rights Act addresses noncompliance:

Every person who does anything prohibited by this Act or who refuses or neglects to comply with any order made under this Act is guilty of an offence and is liable on summary conviction to 

(a) if an individual, a fine not exceeding five hundred dollars; and 

(b) if a person other than an individual, a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars. 

It is discouraging that NS Environment has so badly misunderstood their Public Health obligations to vulnerable Nova Scotians.  Noncompliance certainly will bring the the administration of the Human Rights Act into disrepute.

I have posted this email to my blog.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Warren Reed

Unappealing

The winners of the recent Human Rights decision, Reed, Marston et al, expect the Nova Scotia Government to announce Friday that the province will not appeal that decision.

However, we expect the Government to say only that they will work with stakeholders to develop a specific accessibility standard for restaurants that will not be in place until 2022.

This is a wrongheaded and unacceptable response to the decision, which unequivocally concluded that the province is discriminating in its enforcement of public health regulations. The Food Safety Regulations require that all restaurants have an accessible washroom for patrons. This latest move by the Government demonstrates its indifference to the impact of this discrimination on the health and well-being of people with disabilities. It is a matter of public health and science, not building codes.

The winners will seek legal remedies to enforce the decision of the Human Rights tribunal

Warren Reed
406-1540 Summer St
Halifax, NS B3H 4R9

902 482 4017
919 200 8078 (if traveling)

Giving Thanks

A celebration of pre-Thanksgiving for the skill of David Fraser and generosity of MacInnis, Cooper in securing a resounding affirmation of the rights of people in wheelchairs.  All self-explanatory.




CBC Article

770 Days later.........

A Board of Inquiry under the Nova Scotia Human Rights Act today ordered the province to enforce the regulation requiring restaurants to have “washroom facilities for the public available in a convenient location”, requiring those washroom facilities to be accessible to wheelchair users.  Click here for the decision.

The order came in response to a complaint of discrimination by Warren Reed, Ben Marston, Paul Vienneau, Jeremy MacDonald, and Kelly McKenna, all of whom use wheelchairs. The complainants issued the following statement in response to the ruling:

We are very pleased. Today's decision on our Human rights complaint, filed 770 days ago, affords us the same health protection as other Nova Scotians, and better protects all Nova Scotians from food-borne illness.

In her lengthy decision, Board of Inquiry Chair Gail Gatchalian found that the food safety regime has discriminated against wheelchair users. She rejected each of the many arguments put forward by the province.

Her decision complements an earlier ruling in the case by Supreme Court Justice Frank Edwards, who rejected the Human Rights Commission’s longstanding practice of refusing to accept most of the complaints it receives. He ruled that the Commission must consider all complaints.

We are especially pleased that the Board of Inquiry cited Section 10 of the Human Rights Act, opening the doors to challenges of the many government regulations that are enforced in a discriminatory fashion:

136. Subsection 10(1) of the Human Rights Act provides that regulations that are discriminatory on their face are void and of no legal effect:

10 (1) Where, in a regulation made pursuant to an enactment, there is a reference to a characteristic referred to in clauses (h) to (v) of subsection (1) of Section 5 that appears to restrict the rights or privileges of an individual or class of individuals to whom the reference applies/ the reference and all parts of the regulation dependent on the reference are void and of no legal effect.

137. If s.20(l) of the Food Safety Regulations were amended to state that food establishments need not have a washroom that is accessible to wheelchair users, it would have the same effect as the practice of the Province being challenged in this case, and would run afoul of s.l0(l) of the Human Rights Act.

In terms of remedies, the decision offers this:

192. Some food establishments may be able to provide accessible washrooms for the public. Some may not be able to do so without experiencing undue financial hardship. Some may need time to comply. This does not justify the Respondent's approach, which is that no accommodation is necessary.

We completely understand that in a business with razor-thin profits, the provision of washroom facilities my be a hardship.

Let's be clear: the province has failed in its enforcement duties and must make good in a responsible manner. Subsidized loans, tax credits, and differential property assessments are some of the many ways the province can and should help.

The province let this injustice happen and the province should find the solution. 

********************

We are immensely indebted to the talent and forthrightness of our pro-bono attorney, David Fraser of McInnes Cooper.  

Ellsworth Campbell of the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta provided the scientific support to counter the Chief Medical Officer's contention that public health is subservient to the building code.

Despite rejecting our complaint twice and losing an appeal in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia, the Human Rights Commission chose to remain officially neutral.

Grits in Charleston just aren't the same as Grits in Halifax

Thanks to Elizabeth Portman of the N.W.T. for pointing to this very timely article.

People with disabilities are awaiting a decision on the equitable enforcement of public health regulations in Nova Scotia.  While the Charleston article has a slightly different slant, there are some commonalities with the situation in Halifax:

With the Charleston area graying faster than the rest of the country, thanks in part to the city’s repeated appearances on lists of “Best Places to Retire” published by Kiplinger, Forbes and U.S. News, mobility experts say it won’t be long before a significant portion of the population will need a cane, walker, wheelchair or other assistive device to go out on the town. And in a city lauded by those same magazines for “well-preserved antebellum architecture” and “cobblestone streets,” that could present a problem.

In a low-margin business like the restaurant industry, it’s not hard for an owner to claim there’s no money in the budget for reconfiguring booths or installing ramps.  (In Nova Scotia, the government makes more on your meal in HST than the restaurant does in profit)

...members of the city’s Committee on Disability Issues are trying to encourage more open discussion of what it takes to make everyone feel welcome in a restaurant. They want the hospitality community to understand that seemingly arcane guidelines dictating the height of sinks and width of corridors determine whether they’ll order a second drink or just nurse one, because the bathroom is essentially off-limits to them.

While diners who walk without assistance might zero in on stairs as the main obstacle for wheelchair users, bigger frustrations are often invisible to them, such as being directed down a back alleyway to wait outside an accessible door alongside a Dumpster. Ultimately, Saxon says, “It’s discrimination. Disability rights are civil rights.”

Wheelchair users quickly learn that people who aren’t in wheelchairs tend to have a liberal definition of “accessible.” A restaurant may describe itself as accessible because there’s only one step leading to the door, or because it has low-top tables. Marka Rodgers remembers being told Taziki’s Mediterranean Café in Mount Pleasant was accessible, only to discover before dessert that there wasn’t a bathroom she could use. Since then, she says, she’s always called restaurants before visiting to go over their amenities in detail.