Update on Breastfeeding Rights Rally in Ontario
November 12, 2008 by Angela White, J.D., breastfeeding counselor
Filed under activism, breastfeeding, law
While I have not heard official word from the mothers involved in the rally, readers Kate and Kelly both alerted me to an excellent article at Parent Central. Susan Pigg reports:
Fearing that dozens of angry lactivists might show up at her pool, Karkouti contacted York Regional Police.
When it became clear they had no intention of sending uniformed officers, she says, Karkouti hired $400 worth of her own protection – four security guards who kept the 20 or so protesters, many of them children, at bay.
“I guess that’s what they come with,” Karkouti said yesterday of the Kevlar-clad guards. “I didn’t even notice. All I thought was, `If I have 400 people trying to force their way in, what am I supposed to do?’”
Says Longuinho: “We weren’t carrying signs or anything. The idea was to go and talk to her (Karkouti) and nurse in the pool. One of the guards even had handcuffs. I believe it was to intimidate us.”
Karkouti was so concerned the protest might foul the water, forcing a costly cleanup or shutdown, she refused to let the group in.
Does anyone else think that by admittedly refusing to let in a group of nursing mothers for fear they might breastfeed in the pool, Ms. Karkouti just violated the law again, and on a far grander scale?
Two other key points from the article: (1) the region was right in the middle of its “Anytime, Anywhere” breastfeeding campaign, and (2) after a rash of breastfeeding discrimination incidents at city pools, the Breastfeeding Action Committee of Edmonton counseled municipalities to develop breastfeeding-friendly regulations, “saying there is no evidence the practice is unsafe for babies, their mothers or others in the pool.”
They were not coming to ‘talk’ and be quiet, plus the owner did not know what to expect, she knew of the hundreds of posts around the internet (which surprisingly, they only got 20 peole INCLUDING children!! They did not get more because they are being ridiculous. The whole point, as the dozens of posts around the internet was to NOT be quiet and to amass a crowd, sure peaceful, but the idea of a protest to to get attention.
She is a business owner and has the RIGHT not to be threatened, harassed or have people in her place threatened by a disruptive group. Plus, the pool owner had received hate mail!!! She is then suppose to open the doors and let them in to her private business, when they are there not to breastfeed OR talk, but to purposely be disruptive??
I am 100% for breastfeeding anytime, anywhere, and I have including tandem nursing my twins everywhere in public (well, expect a pool, I do have common sense)!!! BUT these people are being obnxious and are not trying to solve this in a positive manor. The business owner has even publicly stated she wants them to take it to the Ontario Human Rights Commission, where the case belongs. The health code in this area states”No Food & Drink” and the OHRC states “anytime. anywhere” but which trumps which? It needs to be heard at the OHRC so it can be SOLVED. Harassing the ownwer does not clear this issue up (no matter what you ‘believe’ or studies one has read) these two things contradict each other, hence it needs to go in front a judge, the owner WANTS that.
I hope they stop harassing her, so this case can be heard and tried. Let the case be heard.
Ok “Reality” – how do you know what the group was going to do? were you there? are you a part of this “group”?
I’ve heard (note I do not take what I’ve heard as fact) that the group was in contact with the police, the police knew that it was just going to be a group of people going for their USUAL swim, who were going to support ANY mother’s human right to breastfeed – if she chose to. They expected to be going for a meeting with the owner and swim with their families AS USUAL. The owner prevented that. The police would not send uniformed officers because they felt the group was not a threat – and they weren’t now were they?
I would love to see where the owner has “publicly stated she wants them to take it to the Ontario Human Rights Commission” – please point me to that – also to how you know the owner has received hate mail and that it was in anyway affiliated with the group and that “they” (I assume you mean the “group”) are harassing her – if someone is actually harassing her then she has the ability to call the police and get it stopped… I seriously doubt that the people at the heart of this would “harass” anyone.
You also mention “hundreds of posts” – where were the HUNDREDS – there were a few – yes – I saw those – but hundreds? Again – please point us to those so we can see for ourselves that this woman was just trying to create a huge problem.
“It needs to be heard at the OHRC so it can be SOLVED.” “Let the case be heard”. It HAS been solved… if you take the time to follow all the RELEVANT material you’d find that this EXACT situation (breastfeeding IN a pool) was RESOLVED… in favour of the mother.. and yes it was in Ontario – Guelph.
Today on 1010 she said she wants it to go the OHRC, she welcomed it. She simply asked for people to stop harassing her and her business, and to take it to proper channels. If this is so clear cut, like you all say, it should be simple and resovled without protests (so why are you protesting, except for attnetion)??). The OHRC will step in, and give the final word. She says she is just following Health Regulations and until told otherwise, she will continue to do so. Breastfeeding is very welcome at her facility, however not IN the pool.
Okay, hatemail might be strong, and that was my words. The point is this is being taken to the ridiculous extreme, and she also said that she had received many emails & phone calls, and asked for them to stop. Moreover, the owner was not trying to ask her to cover up, simly not to feed IN the pool. And the stairs are in the pool even if she is not immersed. She even said on 1010 CFRB today that it would be fine if she were topless, but NOT to feed in the pool.
Yes, of course they were not a ‘threat’ in a physical sense, but REALLY you thinks he should have let them in?!! You think she should let in people who are obviousy irrate into disrupt her pool and business? Do you people have NO compassion for anything BUT breastfeeding? Again, I am PRO-breastfeeding in a HUGE way, but all people have lives, and feelings!! I feel for the mother, Cinira, she was clearly embarassed. But this should not have escalated to this!!Again, it is OBVIOUS the intent was to cause attention and disruption, otherwise it would have been just this ‘regular’ group and they would not have elicited outside support. It sounds like that is what it ended up being just that (no outside support after all those posts (including a now defunct group just for this incident …. no support came!, does that tell you anything?), but the owner had no idea with tons of posts trying to elicit protesters on the net who many irrate people there would be. There were messages bords set up, press releases, the organizer of the ‘protest’ was even taking count. Your faulting her for what not allowing her to protect herself, where are her rights? If it was done on the QT without trying to rally protesters, she would not have gone to the cost to hire guards. Of course, this should have all been quietly taken up with the OHRC without pretense, agendas OR protests!
There is an economic cost to the owner if she has to clean the pool. Also, it is under different regulations (ones I do not know) because it is a salt water pool. Also was it private? This too could make a difference if it causes her undue economic cost to keep the pool clean. Which makes it not exactly like any other case.
Again, if it is so cut and dry, it should be EASY. The OHRC will say it is allowed to the business owner. If it is different it will go to a hearing.
Either way, stop the silly antics. It makes all the breastfeeders look like raving lunatics. Take it up with OHRC, they will give the final ‘answer’.
From what I’ve read, in the case in Guelph, the mother wasn’t in the pool. She wasn’t swimming. She was supervising her older child while on the pool deck and turned to dip her toes in while breastfeeding a 5 month old. The only link I have is to a newspaper article. The mother was also clearly asked to cover up or move to a more discreet location because the lifeguard thought breastfeeding in public was inappropriate and had nothing to due with health/safety concerns.
The city apologized profusely and reviewed its training procedures. The mother mentions she was considering a complaint, but it doesn’t say if one was actually filed or not. From my reading of the newspaper article, I get the impression the mother was happy with the actions the city took to resolve the issue. You’ll also notice that she didn’t organize a big protest after the fact and resolved the conflict when it happened by having the police and the lifeguards boss come. She knew her rights and stood by them. In this case, I would agree that she was clearly discriminated against and the city of Guelph agreed too.
http://news.guelphmercury.com/News/article/353555
I have been debating this topic on numberous websites. A new question I have:
This all started when someone complained to Ms. Karkouti, the owner of the pool, and Ms. Karkouti then proceeded to not question that complaint but to ask Ms. Longuinho to move from the pool steps. What exactly was the complaint? Was the person uncomfortable by the act of breastfeeding in public? Was the person concerned that the breastmilk may end up in the pool? Was the person concerned that the baby may be at risk health wise from the pool water that may have been on the mother’s breasts before they went in the babies mouth? The reason I ask these questions is because it goes to motive as to why the nurse-in/protest/media attention after the fact is necessary. The pool owner obviously did not know enough about a mother’s right to breastfeed anytime, anywhere nor did she know the fact that breastmilk is not a biohazard and does not in anyway contaminate a pool or any surface it comes in contact with nor did she know that the baby is protected against any pool water (that may have been in contact with mom’s breasts prior to the feeding) by the mother’s own breastmilk (antibodies and antibacterial properties) – which by the way is why breastfeeding in the pool is undeniably safer than bottlefeeding formula would be. The nurse-in/protest/media attention after the fact therefore helps to educate the public and hopefully all pool owners that if someone complains to them in the future, instead of passing on the complaint to the breastfeeding mother the owner can educate the complainant about the law and human biology and support the breastfeeding mother by suggesting the complainant leave the pool if they are still uncomfortable with the situation.
it’s a private pool. If the owner does not want to let a group of people in to protest she does not have to. I didn’t know that the human rights commission has a directive that protects protestors from people who want to protect their employees, clients and property against a bunch of bullies. Stop throwing the word discrimination around. You have gotten more negative press from this then you can believe. You’ve set back the positive work that you were doing by placing a small business owner in the center of it. Even if it is allowed to bf in a pool, why would anyone want to do it anyways?
The owner has a sign infront of her business that clearly says no breastfeeding in or AROUND the pool. That sign in itself is an act of discrimination. The group that showed up at the pool were not protesters. The owner knew this because the York Region police told her this. The group that showed up was the same group of people that come swimming every week. The group was asked if they would be protesting and they said no. The owner then asked if anyone would be breastfeeding in the pool. They replied that it is a human right and if someone wants to they will. She said no one could come into the pool unless they agreed their would be no BREASTFEEDING in the pool. That is discrimination as outlined by the OHRC. Thankfully there is video of the incident that clearly shows there was no one protesting. It was a group of disgruntled customers asked to discriminate against members of their group. Ms. Karkouti may not care about the law but there are many others that do.
Ms. Karkouti has tried to say that it was one of the lifeguards that complained but I don’t think someone would want to take that responsibility and be co-named in the discrimination complaint if they didn’t actually complain. That means that the person who did complain (perhaps a physiotherapy client?) will be called infront of the OHRC to explain…
I would also like to add that because of the sign she has opened herself up to further OHRC complaints. Every woman going to swim at the pool, and doesn’t go in because they know they will be discriminated against for breastfeeding, is therefore denied a service…
sam, do you know why this has never been an issue? because no one would want to breastfeed inside a public pool. Except of course, cinira…..
you actually think that any commission is going to find the owner guilty… they would have to be out of their minds….. with all the negative publicity cinira has caused. as for the person who complained… good for them. i would complain as well if i saw a woman breastfeeding inside a pool.
There has even been people recommending that the owner should have called child services. Maybe she should have.
As for the group not being protesters…. they had it on their website that they were going to PROTEST. This is in their own words. They even planned to brings dolls and balls so that the men and women who were not able to breastfeed could join in the PROTEST as well.
Maybe they changed their mind last minute when they found out that the owner had contacted the police. Did they mention this to the owner.
I hope the owner has these emails, because if she does not, I do. I will make sure to pass them along to her.
Now signs are an act of discrimination. OMG…… You must be ciniras husband… oh no… his name is marvio!
He was also there to help his wife with the PROTEST. He actually wanted his wife to go in to a public pool and breastfeed AGAIN…
Have you not looked at any of the media coverage. A case EXACTLY the same as this has already been ruled on – in favour of the mother. It was on CBC @ 6 and the mother was Laura Brady. So yes, this has come up, many times. There is also a case in Hamilton. The city of Hamilton changed their policy and now have signs up clearly stating that breastfeeding is allowed in and around the pool. But let’s not stop there…There was an incident in the City of Edmonton and they also now have written policy which states breastfeeding in/around a pool is allowed…The CEO of the YMCA issued an apololgy after a similar incident at one of their pools. And yes – a sign that is discriminatory is an act of discrimination. We support the disabled just not in or around our pool?…Making a bit of sense to you now?…You cannot discriminate against a group and refuse them services.
And yes, as I said before, both groups were in communication with the York Region police. They knew there was no protest. They told the owner there was no protest. The group of REGULAR customers (the group is actually a regular group of 50 people) thought they were going there to have a meeting with the owner and go swimming, as per the facilitation of the police. The owner decided to have here security guards there. She asked the group to agree to no protesting. They once again told her there would be no protesting. She asked if there would be breastfeeding in the pool. THAT is what she has a problem with and THAT is why she turned this group of families (many children) away. And THAT is another act of discrimination…
You know, Angela, I have come across many people who would breastfeed in a pool – there is no more danger to a child breastfeeding in a pool than there is if you take the child to a swimming lesson – where they are told to open their mouth and blow – MORE water goes in that way than is even possible if nursing (if you have any firsthand knowledge of breastfeeding that’s obvious). There’s lots of info out there to support the “no health issue” stance – where is the info that shows there is a health or safety issue (for child or others)?
Please point out where in the original info/press release that anyone was asked to bring dolls or balls to the “PROTEST” (what on earth would they want a ball for?).
It has been made clear that the term “protest” was not the best choice of word, that because english is not Cinira’s first language she did not know the ramifications of using it – and that the “protest” was always stressed as peaceful.
As I understand it, the group had close contact with the police throughout the whole time – so why would they change their plans? Seems to me the police knew there was a non-issue as far as a protest and that’s why the owner hired security – because the police told her they wouldn’t come – there was nothing to be concerned about – do you really think if the police thought there was a concern about a “PROTEST” that they would have told the owner they wouldn’t be coming? You seem to be leaving out where there was to be a meeting between the owner and those involved during the swim time while the rest of the group swam… but once the group arrived the owner made it clear that she wouldn’t allow for anything except what she wanted – no negotiation – no discussion.
Are you aware that it is on video that the group told her they were not protesters, that they were just going for their scheduled swim time? It’s on video that she would not let in ANYONE (which includes fathers with children, teenagers, those who are far-removed from the possibility of breastfeeding – the ENTIRE group) unless EVERYONE agreed that no one would breastfeed in or around the pool?
And if you think a sign can’t be an act of discrimination perhaps you should ask the Ontario Human Rights Commission.
Really – if you think the use of the word “PROTEST” is the problem… (and it seems you do since you use it often and in uppercase)… well I think you have more research to do.
I’m so very happy Cinira has the support of her husband, Marvio – and that they and many others would stand up for my rights if I was wronged.
I am putting this same disclaimer on each of the recent controversial posts:
I leave the comments open to opinions on both sides. In general, comments will not be deleted unless, in my opinion, they involve name-calling or threatening, or are generally offensive. Debate is fine, opinion is fine, calling someone “a terrible person” is not fine (yes someone did this and that is why her comment did not appear). I have also edited comments to delete inappropriate material but let the rest of the comment stand. If a particular post becomes too much of a problem, I will close the comments.
Here is the comment policy, but I use my discretion in all cases:
http://www.breastfeeding123.com/let%e2%80%99s-talk-about-breasts-baby-let%e2%80%99s-talk-about-you-and-me/
To clarify- I meant that Cirina is clearly doing this to try to make some money.
Meg…Then you obviously don’t know Cinira!
Sam S- This was an addition to another comment I made (which was respectful, but was not posted for some reason). Anyhow, there’s just no other reason to make such a stink over it other than money. It was a perfectly reasonable request for her to feed her child on the deck. The same request that would have been made of anyone attempting to feed a child anything in the pool, I’m sure. It would have been so much more dignified to have simply said “Oh, okay”, and move over 6 feet, right? Protests, articles, interviews, tribunals…. if not for money, then why? Revenge? Infamy? Trying to make the pool lady suffer?
I just posted about this elsewhere- I have a friend who bottlefeeds (her breasts were removed due to cancer). If Cirina is allowed to feed her child in the pool, then shouldn’t my friend be allowed to bottle-feed in the pool as well? If not, isn’t that discrimination? And if my friend can bottle-feed in the pool, why can’t everyone bring drinks into the water? Should the pool owner make exceptions for babies only? Isn’t that ‘ageism’? Can’t Cirina understand that it’s easier, and fair, to have one rule that applies to everybody?
I just feel so badly for the pool owner, trying to run a fair and equal establishment and getting caught up in this lady’s wrath.
Does it seem so bizarre for someone to do it because they feel it is right? Cinira was asked to go to the CHANGEROOM, not to simply get out of the pool. Regardless, she knew that it is her right to breastfeed anytime, anywhere.
Let me ask you a question. Why are you ignoring the overwhelming evidence that is presented to you that there are no health risks to the mother, baby or other swimmers?
Another question. Would it not have been easier, and more polite, for the person who complained to simply turn their head instead of insisting that a mother and her baby must leave the warmth of the pool for what could be a 20+ minute feeding?
Cinira isn’t the one that has violated the Ontario Human Rights Code. It seems odd that you keep talking about discrimination but refuse to acknowledge that is exactly what happened here. Read up on the information that has actually been provided because otherwise it really doesn’t seem like you are trying to understand the situation. It seems more like you are just attacking.
The evidence is clear. The owner was provided with that evidence and given the chance to apologize. The owner decided to ignore it all, put on her blinders and continue with her discriminatory practices. As a society, people have the right to voice their concerns, in a peaceful way. Many people contacted the owner to try and educate/inform her.
At what point would a responsible owner stop, contact a lawyer or the human rights legal support line and learn that what they did was wrong. Instead she is attacking everyone else.
I guess I can say that I don’t want to wear a seatbelt but the law requires it. If I get caught without my seatbelt then I would have to take responsibility for that decision. It’s not like I would blame the police. Laws are in place for a reason and this owner has repeatedly made the choice to ignore them…
There are conflicting stories here. I’ve read that Ellie asked Cinira not to feed her child IN the pool, telling her that there were comfortable seating areas to use, or that she could move a meter away from the water (on the pool deck).
The health risks, or lack thereof, are irrelevant. Cow’s milk, formula and soda pop aren’t toxic either. But we don’t drink them in a private pool unless the owner says it’s okay.
Has the nature of the complaint been published anywhere? I haven’t seen it. Perhaps it was another mother asking why it was okay for Cinira to feed her kid in the pool when no one else was allowed to? Like “Hey, if she can do it, why can’t I?” Or “Hey, pool owner, what’s the point of posting these rules if some people don’t have to follow them?” You’re assuming that it’s the breasts that were the issue- is there any evidence of that?
I mean, yes, it sucks to have to get out of the pool, but everyone else has to do it if they want a snack, right? The child is old enough to understand about rules. It’s good for children to learn about rules at a young age.
Again, it’s not discriminatory when the rules apply to everyone equally. If others were allowed to bring drinks into the pool, and not Cinira, then sure, that’d be discrimination. This is more like a case of reverse discrimination- Cinira wants to be the exception to a rule, and is angry that the rules were not bent for her.
Think about it from the owner’s perspective. If the child chokes or spits up in the pool, she has to close the pool for cleaning, which is expensive. She has no way of knowing whether Cinira’s kid is a puker or not. She politely asks Cinira to feed the child on the deck or to sit comfortably in the chairs, and gets this ruckus to deal with in return. I’m sure she’s as surprised as anyone that Cinira took this as far as she did.
I would like to hear your opinion on the dilemma of my bottle-feeding friend (above)- what are her options?
Also- I manage a furniture store. This Cinira case concerns me, because what are my options if a breastfeeding mother comes into my store and starts feeding her child on one of my upholstered sofas? Do I have the right to ask her to move to a plastic chair, lest the upholstery be dripped or spit up on? If I make such a request, can the woman then kick up a fuss and try to make me pay her a settlement? (It’s never happened (yet), mind you, but what if it does?)
Firstly – if you are concerned about your furniture store, call the Human Rights legal support centre and ask them, don’t post you question on a blog…
Secondly – the owner never disputed that she asked Cinira to go to the changeroom. It was only after one of her supporters brought up a case in an antique store, funny that you now mention chairs. Then THE OWNER changed her story to say she also said she could go to the viewing area.
Thirdly – all of those questions have already been answered and you continue to ignore all the evidence and precedents set. Exactly what is your stake in this? Why are you completely refusing to look at the information you have been provided with? You are right, this is a non-issue because it has already been argued in the courts. No need for you to bring out this silly excuses. The OHRC has already ruled that they have no sound basis and therefore DO NOT trump a woman’s legal, protected, basic human right to breastfeed. You continuing to argue it just makes you seem stuck in a ‘because I said so’ arguement with yourself…
It’s unfortunate that you take such a confrontational and accusatory stance rather than just answering my (legitimate) questions, Sam. Ah well, such is life.
You really think that this owner, being a pregnant woman who probably plans to breastfeed herself, has a problem with boobs? Honestly, you think that’s what this is about? Such a shame that this woman is being demonized unnecessarily by Cirina’s few supporters.
The furniture issue- I’ll await the outcome of Cirina’s ‘case’ to answer that question, I suppose. I suppose that if she wins, the ruling would apply to my store as well. I can only hope that most people would have the courtesy not to feed on a bed or sofa…. but as we’ve seen, common courtesy is sadly lacking in our society. It’s been replaced by demands, a sense of entitlement, and lawsuits. *Sigh*
It’s not a ’sense of entitlement’ it is an entitlement. The owner was asked for a simple apology and refused. Then she continued to discriminate. There are many people that support Cinira yet it seems like the same very few people that are supporting this owner. You seem to have some trouble reading the actual posts here. This EXACT case, a mother breastfeeding IN a pool has already been RULED on by the OHRC so you don’t need to wait for any ruling on this case – it’s already been done! Perhaps you missed the CBC @ 6 report where they interviewed her? Or perhaps you are simply ignoring all the information…Do you happen to be the owner of the Aquacentre?
No, I’m not Ellie. I just explained to you my interest in this case.
My interest is- Does the right of a mother to breastfeed *anywhere* trump the right of a small business owner to protect their property and investment?
I’ve searched the OHRC website and can’t find a copy of the Brady decision there- do you have a link to a transcript of the case? I turned up a one-sentence snippet in a CBC story, and that’s it.
Sam,
I doubt that the ruling has already occurred since the mother is not meeting with the tribunal lawyers until Dec. 15. There is also time (30 days?) after that for the respondent to respond to the complaint, and only then will the judge be able to consider a ruling. I do believe that the judge has some time to consider the case before ruling on it as well. I’m thinking spring before we have an update. Until the, this remains an ALLEGED case of discrimination.
Also, the owner has not published her first-hand account of what happened. We have quotes from newspaper articles, but we all know how reporters sometimes misquote or leave out information for sake of the 30 second sound bite, so I wouldn’t take that as gospel. I asked the owner for her version and she was kind enough to respond to me. As you would expect, it is quite different from the mother’s THREE versions. I think that it wouldn’t be hard to blow the mother’s creditability out of the water (pun intended) when her story keeps changing, especially when I suspect the only proof that she has is her word versus the owner’s. If her supporters are part of the regular swim group and witnessed the event, I highly doubt they wouldn’t have said something then. In all these versions there is no mention of a witness to her versions of events. Maybe by going public, she was hoping someone would come forward? Otherwise, why not save the grandstanding and go directly to the OHRC?
I’m quite certain that the owner would have contacted a lawyer and they must think that their case is quite strong to stick to her guns this way because it wouldn’t make sense to be so stubborn if losing is a foregone conclusion. You may not be aware that complainants have their legal costs covered, but respondents do not. It does not make any sense for the pool owner to spend money in her defense, especially when offered to settle this case, if she did not feel she has a valid and robust defense.
Finally, you say that the 20 supporters were not there to protest. They changed their story. I read their newsgroup and their strategy for planning their protest. They were quite clearly there to cause trouble. But even if you didn’t see that information, again the details don’t make sense. My understanding is that this group went to the pool weekly. If that is so, why did they wait TWO weeks after the incident to have their nurse-in if it was just the group that normally goes? Why wouldn’t they talk to the owner the following day/week and have their nurse-in then? Why would they publish the story all over the internet if to not make trouble for the owner?
There is so many things about the mother’s story that just doesn’t make sense. Her own details just doesn’t fit with what she says happened. I curious to see how the judge sees it. There has been a case in Manitoba where the mother was asked to move but it wasn’t discrimination because the place offered was equivalent to the place the mother chose. Of course, Manitoba does not have the same language on breastfeeding that Ontario has, and the judge ruled in favour of the store owner because the owner only had to provide reasonable accommodation. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t know if this applies to Ontario or not. I think the decision in this case will depend a lot on how the law is read, and not so much on what is “right”. I don’t think it is as black and white as you think it is.
An argument I keep reading from Cirina’s supporters is that breastmilk is perfectly safe, not the same as other bodily fluids, etc, etc. I accepted that, at the same time thinking “Okay, but that doesn’t mean that other swimmers should be happy to be exposed to your body fluids, if only for the ick factor alone”. Yet a simple search online reveals that yes, there are several diseases transmissable through breastmilk, including HIV, Hepatitis B and more. Sure, it’s unlikely that you’d catch them through breastmilk in a pool, but why take that chance, no matter how small? Can you understand why people would be squeamish about it? Most pools require patrons to shower before entering the pool- I mean, sweat is hardly toxic either, but we expect folks to hose it off before diving in. It’s just common courtesy to try to keep your fluids to yourself as best you can, right?
Actually the organizer of the group books things in 8 week blocks. One of their dates they were away on a field trip so only booked 7 dates. The pool cancelled another date because it was closed for Halloween. Halloween was the week after this incident so no one was at the pool. The next booked date was therefore November 7th. Word was put out prematurely about a rally and anyone that contacted them was told it was not being planned for November 7th. There was talk of perhaps doing one in 2-3 weeks but everyone felt it was too soon to organize something that big. It was also decided that the group wanted the chance to see how the owner would respond with the same group coming to swim again. In addition there were discussions with the York Region Police. They were very clear that a protest/rally is allowed and were more than willing to work with organizers to ensure they stay within the law.
As for the mother’s story changing…she has always said that she was asked to go to the CHANGEROOM. There has been no need for bringing other ‘witnesses’ into it as the owner has clearly stated there is no swimming allowed IN or AROUND the pool. That fact isn’t in dispute. She even has a sign infront of her business…So what do witnesses need to verify again?
Of course this exact case has not gone before the Human Rights Tribunal. But, there is another case that was the same that did. Do you really think the ruling would be different? Mother IN the pool, asked to get out of the pool. That was ruled as discrimination…All you have to do is call the Human Rights legal support centre and they seem to think it’s pretty straight forward. You could also contact INFACT Canada as they also have information on previous cases.
Even when a mediation has led to a settlement, it has been in favour of the mother. The Hamilton mom that was breastfeeding IN the pool. The city of Hamilton now has signs in their facilities clarifying that breastfeeding is allowed in/around their pools. The city of Edmonton case again led to the city of Edmonton clarifying that breastfeeding is allowed in/around pools in a written breastfeeding policy. There was an incident at a YMCA and the CEO issued an apology. He said that there is written policy allowing it but that the employee involved had only skimmed that part of the training. He then went on to say that if there was a complaint then staff are to deal with the feelings of the person making the complaint and NOT bother the breastfeeding mother.
You may not like the law, but it still is the law. And there are a ton of people that support it…
Meg, firstly the ick factor isn’t a valid reason to violate someone’s human rights. I’m pretty sure it was a common argument for having white-only drinking fountains too and we all know how that turned out!
Secondly, if you do the research and check out the Center for Disease Control website, as well ast the Edmonton study mentioned, you will see that any risk of transmission is with DIRECT, PROLONGED contact between a mother and her infant. NOT with a few drops in hundreds of gallons of clorinated pool water…
I guess I was thinking about the ick factor more from Cirina’s perspective- I know that back when I was breastfeeding, I never would have dreamed of doing it in the pool. Just out of consideration for others. It is kind of rude to impose your fluids on others without their permission, right or no right. It may (or may not) be your right to dribble your fluids into a public pool, but it is definately shockingly impolite! Does Cirina just not care about manners at all, or….? I’m picturing her as the type of mom who will repeatedly send her kid to school with peanut butter sandwiches, allergies of others be darned. The type to sue her kid’s future soccer coach for shorting the kid a minute in a playing time. You know- the “me, me, me” type.
I DID check out the CDC. Here’s what I read:
“HIV and other serious infectious diseases can be transmitted through breast milk. However, the risk of infection from a single bottle of breast milk, even if the mother is HIV positive, is extremely small.”
“However, because human breast milk has been implicated in transmitting HIV from mother to infant, gloves may be worn as a precaution by health care workers who are frequently exposed to breast milk.”
The risks, while admittedly small, are still there. And look at how diseases and infections have mutated over time. The risk may be low now, but we really have no way of knowing when a virus might mutate and infect someone else. And the risk skyrockets if the mother happens to have cracked/bleeding nipples- is the pool owner supposed to do a nipple inspection, too? That alone is reason enough to keep this fluid, just like any other body fluid, out of the pool. I’m sure Cirina’s fellow swimmers would appreciate it.
Actually breastmilk has it’s own classification. The CDC states that universal precautions do not apply.
‘No special precautions exist for handling expressed human milk, nor does the milk require special labeling. It is not considered a biohazard. The Universal Precautions to prevent the transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), Hepatitis B virus, and other bloodborne pathogens do not apply to human milk.’ http://www.cdc.gov/breastfeeding/disease/hiv.htm
There is a very indepth report that was drafted after the same situation came up at a pool in Edmonton. It really is an interesting report and if you are truly interested then take the time to read it as it will dispell many of the myths here. Pages 15-20 in particular.
http://www.breastfeedingalberta.ca/files/BMPC-MainDoc.pdf
So if you take away any health concerns for moms, babies or the fellow patrons then the question becomes…Why not? It is because people are uncomfortable with seeing the act of breastfeeding. So then who really needs to be considerate? The person who can take a millisecond to turn their head, to avoid their personal discomfort, or the mom AND baby that have to get out of a warm pool to hide away in a changeroom for 20 minutes?
The owner is now clearly stating (she even has a sign out front of her facility) that there is no breastfeeding allowed in or AROUND the pool. Even if you want to ignore the information provided in the report (which led to the city of Edmonton allowing breastfeeding IN and around pools) then perhaps we can explore what actually happens when a mother breastfeeds.
Please keep in mind this mother was asked to leave because the FEEDING was taking place inside the pool area. Mom/baby’s lower boby was in the water, breasts were out and so was the baby’s mouth (since babies can’t hold their breath that long =} This is not about the baby/mother not being allowed in the pool before or after a feeding…
There really isn’t a bunch of breastmilk spraying around anywhere DURING a feeding. During a feeding the milk is going into the baby’s mouth. Babies have really great suction, actually they need it to effectively extract the milk from the breast. This is why moms are taught how to break that suction to avoid nipple damage. So, there is less chance of breastmilk getting into the pool DURING a feeding.
However there is a risk of breastmilk getting into the pool if a mother feels she has to wait BEFORE a feeding. Mothers will get a ‘let down’ reflex from simply hearing, thinking or looking at her baby etc. The ‘let down’ is not controlled by the mother. The milk will rush forward, from the ducts that produce it, so that it is easily available for the baby at the beginning of a feeding when they most need it. If the baby isn’t at the breast, then it will leak, this is why women have breast pads and/or wet spots on the fronts of their shirts;}
If a feeding has been interupted then a mother may still leak AFTER a feeding too. (like when she gets back into the pool)
So you can see that simply not allowing the mother to breastfeed in or around the pool will not eliminate the risk of breastmilk getting into the pool. It actually increases that risk…
Sam S
If you could please post the links to the previous cases, I’d really appreciate it, as I’ve been looking for it. Any case that I have found so far has not been the same thing at all. In the cases I have read, mostly from newspaper accounts, the mother was either not IN the pool, but next to it and/or was clearly asked to move because the respondent thought the exposure of the breast was indiscreet. If that was the case here, then, that would be clearly discrimination. The details that I’m aware of here don’t match that.
The mother also uses the word “fight” in her original email. I don’t think you would ever convince me that the intent here was peaceful. I’ve settled discrimination peacefully, and you certainly don’t find my name in the media or on the internet or even in a HRC case report. There is nothing “peaceful” about an action if you feel the need to contact the police before proceeding to stay within the law or elicit support from others to stage a confrontation.
If she knew her rights, why didn’t she just get out and nurse on the pool deck (which has been clearly decided before)? Or why didn’t she just stay in the pool? Why did she wait several hours before saying “wait a minute, that isn’t right”? Did it take that long to formulate her story to match a human right complaint? Read her accounts again..she has changed the story 3 times. Sometimes leaving out details she previously included, sometimes adding different details, each time making the case for discrimination a little stronger. So I have to wonder how much editing went into the first account? Since the details of her versions just don’t make sense to begin with and then they change several times, I have to conclude that her versions just aren’t credible. I’m hoping that the judge does the same.
Kelly,
It is a common phrase to “fight for your rights” — nothing physical about that, especially when in the same sentence you say it’s a peaceful nurse-in.
As for contacting the police, I have done so when planning a walk to celebrate World Breastfeeding Week. Sometimes a permit is required to gather.
“If she knew her rights, why didn’t she just get out…” 1) Her rights do not require her to get out of or stay in the pool, for one thing. If discrimination took place, that took place when the mother was asked to move, and is not changed by what the mother did after being asked to move. 2) Whether a woman knows her rights or not has nothing to do with whether or not she has been discriminated against. 3) Whether she waits a minute, a day, a week, or a month to speak to the owner, tell her story to the public, or file a human rights complaint also makes no difference as to whether or not discrimination occurred.
Without spending my entire evening doing this…
Not sure how many different ways others need to see it written in order to ‘get’ it…
Pregnancy and Breastfeeding
Under Section 10 (2) of the Code, the “right to equal treatment without discrimination because of sex includes the right to equal treatment without discrimination because a woman is or may become pregnant.” Birth and breastfeeding are natural parts of child rearing and are integrally related to the ground of sex. Refusing or denying a service to a woman who is pregnant or is breastfeeding violates the Code on the ground of sex.
In February 1999, the Commission settled a complaint related to an incident involving a woman who was breastfeeding her child in a restaurant and was asked by restaurant management to stop breastfeeding, to move to the restaurant’s washroom or to leave the restaurant. A key element of the settlement included a request by both the complainant and the respondents that the Commission develop an explicit policy regarding the rights of women to breastfeed in public, if they so choose. This includes the right not to be disturbed or denied access to services. Breastfeeding mothers have the same right to avail themselves of services, without discrimination, as all other people in Ontario.
As a result of the settlement, the Commission clarified and expanded its interpretation of the right of women to breastfeed and revised its Policy on Pregnancy to reflect the protection of breastfeeding in public areas. The Commission also developed a plain language version of its Policy on Pregnancy as well as a flyer entitled, Your Rights as a Nursing Mother. Both were distributed to public health units and midwives’ associations across the province during National Breastfeeding Week in October 1999. The right to be accommodated at work is also part of the Policy on Pregnancy. http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/annualreports/1999-2000_Annual_Report?page=9900AnnualReport-POLICY.html
What About Breastfeeding?You have rights as a nursing mother. For example, you have the right to breastfeed a child in a public area. No one should prevent you from nursing your child simply because you are in a public area. They should not ask you to "cover up", disturb you, or ask you to move to another area that is more "discreet". http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/issues/pregnancy
5. BREASTFEEDING AND DISCRIMINATION
As noted above, pregnancy includes the post-natal period, which includes breastfeeding.
Breastfeeding is a natural part of child-rearing, and so is integrally related to the ground of sex,
as well as to family status. Numerous studies have demonstrated the benefits of breastfeeding
for mothers, children, and their communities, in terms of physical and emotional health and
development. Women should not be disadvantaged in services, accommodation or employment
because they have chosen to breastfeed their children.
Breastfeeding includes pumping or expressing milk, as well as nursing directly from the breast.
Sometimes women are discouraged by others from breastfeeding in public places because of
concerns that it is indecent. Breastfeeding is really a health issue, and not one of public decency.
Women should have the choice to feed their baby in the way that they feel is most dignified,
comfortable, and healthy. pg 3 http://www.ohrc.on.ca/en/resources/Policies/PolicyPregBreastfeedEN/pdf
Here a news report on this incident and also mentions Laura Brady’s case…
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/11/13/breastfeeding-pool.html
And another that mentions the Hamilton incident where she was sitting IN the pool, on a built in seat/ledge for swimmers to sit on…
http://www.thestar.com/article/535969
Information on the Edmonton incident which led to the report mentioned in my previous post…
http://www.infactcanada.ca/edmonton_authorities_ok__breastf.htm
Again, please provide quotes showing that Cinira’s story has ‘changed’ at all significantly.
As I stated before, Cinira wouldn’t even need to say anything, the owner has repeatedly stated that she asked her to leave the pool. That is discrimination as defined by the OHRC. You can not disrupt breastfeeding in any way. Cinira was NOT doing anything wrong and she was disrupted by asking her to get out of the pool and go to the CHANGEROOM. Can’t make it any clearer than that…
To the Furniture store owner- I can see your point about not wanting your merchandise to be stained by breastmilk. However, this leads me to ask if you feel the same way about a baby being bottle fed (be it formula or expressed breastmilk) on your couch? How about having a person sitting on the couch holding a baby? How about a toddler sitting independently on your couch? How about an elderly person? A baby being bottle fed may throw the bottle, or the caregiver may accidently drop the bottle, causing a stain to your couch. A baby being held on your couch (not fed at all) may spit up at any time, or even have a blow out diaper, and stain your couch. A toddler may throw up or have a leaky diaper or an unfortunate accident as well. So may the elderly person. Would you allow any of these people to sit on your couch and still feel the same way about damage to your furniture?
I am not trying to be snarky or mean in any way when I ask you if you have ever breastfed? I just think that maybe you don’t know the mechanics of it. For breastmilk to get on your couch while nursing, it must travel down the mother’s stomach, around or under her baby, across her lap and land on your furniture. That’s a really long way for a little bit of milk to travel. The only way I could really see this happening is if the mother is nursing while laying on her side (then the milk only has to drip down off her breast onto the couch, much more realistic). However, I don’t really see anyone doing that (something usually only done at home while trying to sleep or relax). I both nursed and bottle fed my daughter, and I never had an issue with my breastmilk leaking onto any of my furniture. However, while my daughter was drinking a bottle, she would frequently throw it down, and it would leak all over whatever she was sitting on. Her pack and play still has the stains from the formula.
My point is that if you are concerned about your furniture getting stained and becoming unsellable, then just don’t let *anyone* sit on it. But if you single out nursing mothers, and tell them not to sit on your furniture while they are nursing, then prepare for a discrimination complaint.
To address the question about the police (I posted this before but for some reason it didn’t come through =}.
The owner contacted the police. The police contacted the organizer for the swimming group. She phoned them immediately, on November 6th. She spoke with them at length and reassured them that there was no protest planned for November 7th.
The police called the owner on the morning of November 7th and informed her there would be no protest. The officers (no uniforms) came by the activity the swim group does immediately before their swimming (as they were more than welcomed to). They were able to see for themselves that it was a group of families and that it was the group’s intention to go for their usual swim time. They once again called the owner and told her this.
They thought they were going up there to have a meeting with the owner while the rest of the group went swimming. The was obviously not the case though as they were greeted by security guards turning all of the ‘group’ away. The owner had also called a reporter and photographer.
So just to set that record straight too, Cinira did not call the press. They were there when the group arrived. Either that initial report triggered the wave of media that followed or the owner called them. They in turn contacted Cinira.
It seems odd that all the reporters that contacted Cinira had already spoken with and booked times with the owner. I guess she was trying to get her side out first but it obviously backfired as the reporters that followed were more professional and unbiased than the initial reporter. Cinira and her supporters felt it was important for Cinira to grant interviews so that the story wouldn’t be completely one sided by the owner.
Also, after the initial private request for the owner to apologize was refused, Cinira contacted the Human Right legal support centre for representation…
Hi Jennifer-
Thanks for asking. Yes- absolutely, bottle-feeding would be the same thing. Many businesses have the sign on the door about No Food/Drink- you know the one with the symbols? That’s what we have on the door. That said, I would definately allow a mom to bottle or breastfeed a baby in the store if necessary (don’t want to lose a sale on account of baby being hungry!) Just not on a bed or sofa or piece of soft furniture, please! I’d want to ask them to sit on something stainproof- but am I allowed to ask the breastfeeder that, or just the bottle-feeder??? I’ve actually never had anyone feed a baby in the store, though- not that I can recall, anyway.
This is why I’m confused. According to Sam, the breastfeeder is the only one of the examples you’ve mentioned that I cannot ask to sit elsewhere. The only one with the right to feed the child *anywhere* she cares to. And if I ask nicely, and she takes offense, she can sue me and ruin my business? It’s never happened to me, but I suppose that if Cirina wins some cash, it very well good encourage others to really push the limits of common courtesy.
We don’t have any customers doing any prolonged sitting or anything like that. But most people do want to sit on a sofa for a minute before buying it, understandably.
Yes, I breastfed all three of my kids. Some years ago, mind you.
Sam-
I saw posts to several forums and websites, written (apparently) by Cirina, asking the general public to come join in the ‘protest’. So she and her group were absolutely inviting outsiders (and aiming for as many as possible) to turn out for the big showdown at the pool.
Actually the email you are referring to was sent out prematurely and anyone that contacted the organizer for the swimming was told there was not going to be a protest but there may be one in the future… The swim group was also told their would be a group of 300 counter protestors. They however took the word of the York Region Police officers that there was none planned – that and it just didn’t seem likely as it had never been done before. However, it seems that this owner has used this technique before; lure someone in with the pretense of a ‘meeting’ and then ban them from the facility. There is another complaint lodged against her for an incident at the beginning of October. It’s not a human rights complaint though and has nothing to do with breastfeeding. It was about her unprofessional business practices.
The owner has stated she is concerned for the health and safety of her patrons and staff yet a few issues have been revealed since this incident…
1. She has cats in the facility. What about allergic patrons? Are there any health and safety issues with having them around the pool because they do go onto the deck and in the changerooms. Actually one person indicated that her daughter stepped in cat poop in the changeroom. Surely there are BIG issues there. Also, cats can carry germs that are dangerous for unborn babies, especially with poop around. As well, there is a physiotherapy clinic upstairs with many clients that have mobility issues. Wouldn’t most people be concerned that someone could trip over a cat and fall down the stairs? Anyone with cats know they love to cuddle up around your feet, especially when you are moving slowly.
2. Another complaint was again about the cats. Apparently a cat ate the person’s sandwich out of her purse. When she brought it to the owners attention she was told she wasn’t allowed food on the deck. Sound familiar? The person said the sandwich was put away in her purse not out on the deck. The owner did nothing.
3. Another issue was the broken door jam by the front door. A patron ripped her toenail off (ouch!) on it and when she brought it to their attention she was told it would be fixed. Weeks later it still had not been.
4. When this particular swim group booked the space they were told they needed 2 lifeguards for their group of 50 people. However, on the first date it was the receptionist (in her booth, with a window on the pool) that was the only staff near the pool. A lifeguard did come later. The organizer brought his attention to the fact that there were suppose to be two lifeguards there. The lifeguard assured the organizer that it wasn’t a big deal but the organizer was insistant since it is for the safety of all the swimmers.
These complaints were all from the last six months or so, and no, not all from the swimming group. This owner has been in business much longer than that so I’m sure there are others out there with issues.
These complaints are not directly related to what happened but they do show that the smokescreen of concern for health and safety issues really isn’t first and foremost on this owners mind. That and her unprofessional behaviour which is clearly obvious in the communications she has had with the swim organizer who has tried to resolve this…
Sam S
I’m still waiting for the links to the actual cases. I’d like to read the case report for myself and not depend on bias news reporting.
Thanks.
Angela, thanks for the clarification. I still don’t believe that the intent was peaceful because I have defended my rights peacefully and I never even considered the term “fight” or “protest”. I used terms like “educate” and “clarify” and “discuss”. And again, if the owner felt threatened enough to contact the police and the police followed up on the story..well, there you go. Anyone in a domestic abuse situation knows how difficult it can be to get the police to follow-up on threats (been there, done that), so there must have been enough there for them to clarify the situation.
I have seen Cinira’s “press release” posted on other sites. I’m sorry. I thought the point of having a press release was to release it to the press. I haven’t seen the owner’s press release, so I’d love a copy of it. Thanks.
And Jennifer, my couch has lots of stains on it from breastfeeding. Maybe I’m doing it wrong? The public nurse was here during one incident and she didn’t correct me. To the furniture store owner…maybe cover the couch with a waterproof cloth before anyone is allowed to try it out? I’ve tried vinyl and it is just to crunchy and slippery or you stick to it when it’s hot. Not at all a pleasant experience and could make it hard to sell couches that way.
Comparison of her three versions 1 = original email sent around the internet, 2 = press release, 3 – Toronto Star article I hope I’ve summarized this fairly, but I encourage everyone to make their own comparisons.
(a) Location – In 1 she was on the steps of the pool, in 2 she was simply breastfeeding her daughter, in 3 she was on the steps but her breasts where above water – Notice that she left out the location of where she was breastfeeding in her press release, which is trying to solicit the support of the media (”We hope that it will also find positive support from your media outlet.” appears at the end of the press release). Since most comments seem to reflect that NIP is OK, but it’s in the pool which have most people up in arms, to me this omission is significant.
(b) why she needed to nurse in the pool – in 1 it is implied that it was because the child was hungry, but it isn’t specified. 2 doesn’t even go there and 3 was because the child was cranky and she was too busy talking to her friends to leave the pool. Most feedback was against nursing to calm a cranky child, but would support hungry, until they found out the child was 20 months old and the lesson was only 1 hour long. Many found the neglect of her daughter disturbing and felt she was avoiding breastfeeding to make her point.
(c) what Ellie said to her – in 1 & 2 she says that the owner said there was a complaint (nature of complaint isn’t specified, in the city news she says she was asked to “cover up” but that appears no where else), she couldn’t feed in the pool and had to go to the change room. The change room is the only option. In 3 she says she was only told to go to the change room. Ellie is quoted as saying she was given options – the change room and the viewing gallery and the reason for the request was a concern for the health and safety of the baby and the pool patrons and the clean-up that would have to occur if baby fouled the water. I also find it interesting that Dr. McGeer also feels pool health issues (no open sores in the pool) would trump the right to breastfeed. When the “protesters” returned they were also given the option of the pool deck (which I’m assuming is based on previous OHRC settlements). Ellie also says that she is willing to change her policy once the Ministry of Health gives her the OK.
(d) what she said to Ellie – in 1 & 2, she says she tried to state her right to breastfeed immediately when confronted, in 3 she doesn’t do anything
(e) what happened after – in 1 she knew her rights, but stopped feeding and stayed in the pool, tries to pretend it didn’t happen and denied her daughter. A few hours later she starts thinking clearly and that’s when she realized she was discriminated against, in 2 she stays in the pool but shares the story with her friends, and with their support realizes she was discriminated against, in 3 she quickly leaves the pool, feeds the child in the change room and her car. It was while she was nursing in the car that she realized she had rights. Wow…that’s all pretty different. I wonder which one is right?
(f) her emotions – in 1 she was “sad, lost and numb” but after a few hours she had gained her courage, on her own, to fight for her rights. in 2 she was “degraded, embarrassed and numb” and it was the support of her friends that gave her the courage to go back. In 3 she was simply “embarrassed”. Again, notice how her emotions get stronger when she has had more time to think about it. Probably a natural reaction, but I think the first account is probably closer to the truth.
I’ve also noticed that Ellie’s story has remained consistent in that it is a health and safety issue and nursing in the pool could lead to fouling of the pool that would be unsafe, costly and inconvenient for others. It is only in Cinira’s accounts does she say Ellie’s changed her story, but since Cinira’s accounts are the ones that have changed, maybe she is confused?
1. The cats- ew, I’m not a cat fan myself. But it’s Ellie’s pool. She owns it, and nobody has to swim there if they don’t like cats. I’ve been to many stores where they have a dog or cat there. I was at a plant nursery recently, and a huge cat was sitting on the counter. If I were allergic to cats, it’s my right to leave and take my business elsewhere. I presume that the cats don’t eat in the pool, nor use the bathroom in the pool, so I’m not seeing the relevance here.
2. How could a cat get into a purse? Can cats open zippers and purse closures? Can cats open containers? (I assume that the sandwich would have been in a sandwich container, no? Not just stuck in the purse, surely?) Not buying this one. But let’s assume that it was a Houdini cat, and it did happen. Would it be fair for Ellie to buy the woman a new sandwich or give her a dollar for it or something? What kind of compensation was the woman looking for that Ellie didn’t provide? How silly. I’d be more inclined to take it seriously if the cat had stolen her wallet, but a sandwich? Oh please.
3. This ‘toenail’ incident hardly establishes a pattern of discrimination against breastfeeders. Every business has the odd incident. It happens. Sometimes, opportunistic people will even lie about these incidents to try to extort money from a business owner. Was this person wearing shoes? Must have been quite a hazard to rip through someone’s shoe and tear their toenail off! Did this person file a small claims case? A complaint with the BBB? Is there any evidence of any of these incidents actually happening, aside from anonymous internet rumors? Again, the beauty of choice is that we can take our business elsewhere if we dislike the way we are treated by the owner.
4. With all the doubletalk (come to our big protest! Oh, no one’s interested? You mean you all agree that breastfeeding shouldn’t be happening in the pool? Oh… umm…. nevermind, we were never planning to protest anyway, even though we said we were and posted it everywhere…. yeah, that was just a premature idea…) from Cirina and her gang, anything they’re claiming now needs to be taken with a grain of salt. Too many changing stories, new stories, and strange stories. No credibility.
Now, if there were a clearly established pattern of this owner picking on breastfeeders, you’d have a point. These stories are just silly and undocumented, and therefore worthless. Just made-up stories to try to slander this woman.
There have been 0 complaints filed with the BBB about this business, I checked. Case closed.
Kelly – thanks for the chuckle – you refuse “not depend on bias news reporting” but then you go on to use the media to say why you think Cinira’s story changed. A bit of double-standard if you ask me.
Sam clarified the original e-mail (those who asked to join the group were told that it was premature).
The Star is fairly well-known for not always being unbiased or accurately representing all the facts.
per your a – don’t see the inconsistency – all true (just because the Star doesn’t use all her exact words – or just because she doesn’t use all the exact same words every time doesn’t make it wrong of less accurate)
per your b – still all consistent – hungry children are cranky and you’ve been inaccurate as there was no lesson, it was in the last few minutes of the hour of FREE-swim. Your suggesting that if she changed her story to have a younger child or a hungry child that she’d have support but she hasn’t done that – and the majority of comments I’ve seen show people have a problem with breastmilk in the pool – PERIOD. As for ignoring her daughter – to avoid being kicked out/further humiliation/whatever the unknown consequences might be as a confused/humiliation/embarrassed/numb mother she tried to protect her daughter from any further confrontation and did the best she could at the moment – and probably felt it was the lessor of two evils to deny her daughter than to incur further disruption and upset to her daughter by continuing.
per your c – Cinira is consistent – she says (and has always said) Ellie said there was a complaint and she had to go to the changeroom – that’s all she’s ever said. Ellie’s story may have changed from what actually happened once she reflected on it and realized that there was a mistake made.
per your d – again you’ve shown how Cinira was consistent – the Star may not have reported anything or omitted it (they are under size and time contraints) but again – that is not under Cinira’s control – and you yourself has said that you don’t believe media you want to see for yourself.
per your e – well I think you’ve misinterpreted the facts – Cinira stayed in the pool, feeling whatever confusing emotions she may have had, and only a few hours later discussed with others. And yes – she after the swim time was up she did change and get out of there quickly… again no real discrepancy
per your f – all these emotions are likely to be felt by someone – just because everyone of them is not listed every single time does not mean they do not exist… the paper certainly isn’t likely to print a list of 10 (or even 4) different words – they edit. Perhaps you should also consider that since English is not Cinira’s first language it may have taken her more time to be able to properly explain her feelings – I know it takes me much longer to put together the right words when I’m speaking French.
If you think Ellie’s story is more consistent than Cinira’s but you are basing it on the media perhaps you should put together a “comparison” for Ellie like you did for Cinira – you certainly helped clarify how consistent Cinira is.
Ellie has said that it was a complaint from another patron, she’s said she’s concerned for Cinira’s daughter, any children in the pool, her other patrons, the cleanliness of her pool, Health & Safety issues – which she herself has shown to be inconsistent on (see Sam’s post) as well as she has said ‘not in the pool but deck ok” as well as ‘not in pool or deck’ – so in one case she’s ok with the deck but health dept rules state ‘not on pool or deck’ – so she’s used whichever one is convenient at the time to make it appear she is flexible – but if she’s so adamant to follow the health dept rules and she is so adamant that she is right – why would she at some point state that on the deck is ok?
But if you believe that what you’ve put above is Cinira being inconsistent… well I guess you have the right to believe that – we all have rights – and that is what this is about: The right of any mother to breastfeed with discrimination – and asking Cinira to move was a specific violation of that right.
Jean,
Well I guess you’ll believe what you want to believe and I’ll believe what I want to believe and we’ll call it a day. I know that newspapers are biased so that’s why I compared it to Cinira’s own correspondence. Also, that’s all I have. I don’t know Cinira personally, as some of you do. I haven’t had the benefit of hearing her voice and seeing her facial expressions. I also have private communication from the owner and I have noticed that is the same as what is in the papers. There is always 3 sides to the story, the complainant, the respondent and the truth. It is the judge’s job to get at the truth, apply that to the law and make a ruling based on that. From what I’ve read, I believe that the pool owner’s story is more creditable, but who am I and what information am I basing that on? You believe that Cinira’s story is more creditable, but who are you and what information are you basing that on? Are we using the same information and coming to different conclusions? If so, why is that? Or are we using different information, so thus different conclusions are logical and expected? At the end of the day, either opinion doesn’t really matter. The judge will be in charge of determining whether discrimination took place in this case or not. I find it to be an injustice that the lactivists have already tried and convicted the pool owner before it has even gone to the courts and I think that is partly what I’m defending about the pool owner and partly because based on the information I have (which I fully admit is incomplete), I really don’t see the discrimination. I’m very interested in the judge’s ruling because, unlike anyone else. he/she will have the complete information needed to rule on this case fairly. If the judge does rule this as “discrimination” then I have an opportunity to learn why and work towards not making the same mistake as the pool owner. Maybe it will inspire me to “fight” more for my rights to breastfeed in public. Up to now, I haven’t found the need as I was able to find a solution that took into consideration the needs of everyone, but maybe I need to be more forceful?
I took a large amount of time to share my opinion in honour and respect of Sam S that asked for it. To belittle someone for that (glad I could give you a chuckle), gives me a good idea about your character and your motives. I have found lactivists that support this case have been very insensitive to the feelings of others. That it isn’t about other people, but about the “cause”. I guess that is another reason I find it very hard to support the “cause” as it has been presented. I believe we should be considerate of others above all else.
I’m also quite certain, that these words will not be respected and twisted once again to support the “cause”. So here you go…you can slap the other cheek now.
Meg, I guess the simple solution to this would be to have a “you break it, you buy it” policy. If any person (breastfeeding, bottlefeeding, babies, toddlers, elderly, etc) stains/damages a piece of your merchandise, you could ask them to cover the cost to replace it or repair it. Most stores I have been in have a policy like this- I once accidently broke a ceramic horse when I was much younger, and my mother had to buy the piece from the owner. Or you could just contact a legislator, or whatever commission is responsible for the oversight of the breastfeeding law, and ask them about your hypothetical (I assume) situation. Good luck.
Regarding the cat at the pool, I would think that there is a health code violation there somewhere. Animals of any kind are not allowed in stores where there is food being sold (unless they are therapuetic-seeing eye dogs, etc). I have also seen animals in stores, but not where they are selling food, medications, etc. because it is against the health code. If the cats are a nuisance, (people stepping in feces, cats getting into people belongings, tripping people, etc) then someone was right to complain.
Also, its not a private pool. I mean, it is in the sense that it is not municipal, but its a business, not someone’s pool in their backyard. And therefore subject to laws and healthcodes. the owner can’t just do whatever she pleases, if it violates a law or healthcode.
Kelly – I’m sorry if something I said offended you – certainly not the intent – only intention was to point out what I see as your conflicting arguments. I only used YOUR own points to show how Cinira’s comments actually are or could be consistent.
I too have seen personal correspondence from the owner, as well as the written info she apparently handed out to people who went to her centre and her reactions are not all in line with what has been reported.
I’m not sure which “lactivists” you are referring to but since this exact scenario (mother in pool breastfeeding) has been ruled on by Ontario Human Rights – I’m not sure what else there is to say… the facts bear that this would again be the same ruling – in favour of the mother. Pool owner admitted (several times and places) that she asked the mother to move – reason is truly irrelevant – it contravenes the Human Rights Code – period. It there a health issue – that has already been decided – and there’s independent data to back that there isn’t enough health risk to warrant asking a mother to move out of the pool. Seems pretty straight forward… but yes – it seems that a “judge” or however it is handled will indeed be decided in an official manner.
I hope you do have a chance to see Cinira – why not try the news interviews to see what you think of her demeanor – I know they were available online before – CBC was at least at one point.
I also hope that you always feel secure breastfeeding – no matter where you are – that no one gives you dirty looks, says something degrading, makes you feel like you are doing something wrong or asks you to cover up because it is not a good feeling. How can we as mothers do the best for our children if we are not free to nourish them as needed? I can understand why some women feel tied down with a baby when they breastfeed: they don’t feel it’s ok to breastfeed outside the privacy of their own home – they fear the social stigma. I certainly hope the future is different for my own (breastfed
children – and if I can be part of something (where it seems clear discrimination to me) that makes nursing in public more acceptable – then I’m for it.
Again – apologies if what I said upset you in any way.
Kelly
Let me start by saying that your double standards are really glaringly obvious. You come down hard on lactivist for not wanting to hear your arguments yet you have completely disregarded all of the information you have been provided with. You split hairs over what you think are inaccuracies and frankly the points you are trying to make will not come into play for a judge.
It doesn’t matter if she was in (oops sorry should have been IN) a pool or if she was sitting on the deck. The only time that would come into play is if there are legitimate health concerns with a woman breastfeeding in a pool – there aren’t any. You have had a ton of information provided to you on this, had quotes from many experts and you still essentially say…Well I don’t believe it… Are you kidding me?
You’ll have to do the searching on your own as I’m done wasting my time with someone with their blinders on. I would suggest you start with a phone call to the Human Rights Legal Support Centre. I’m sure they could direct you to the case files or how to get them as they don’t seem to be available online. The YMCA situation has the quote from the CEO in the Toronto Star but I’m sure you could contact them directly. Also there is this from the follow up article in the Toronto Star. “Ontario’s Human Rights Commission seems to agree. In every case so far, a mediator found the nursing woman had been discriminated against and awarded monetary compensation, said Jennifer Ramsay, spokesperson for the Human Rights Legal Support Centre…”
It doesn’t really matter what you felt the intent was. Did you speak with the swim group? Did you speak with the police? You already admitted that you have not been at all personally connected to this case but that several of those here have. Yet, you continue to argue the facts and the opinion of the police – they did speak to both parties and went to see the group before they went to the Aquacentre.
Actually the police that contacted the organizer are a second response team that is there to facilitate at any time there is a protest or rally type situation. Once they had spoken with both parties and arranged, what they thought was, a meeting they didn’t need to be involved. They were very clear in saying they wouldn’t get involved in this situation but they were/are available to facilitate if a rally/protest is planned for the future so any group could do so within the law. You could contact them yourself. Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it Cinira’s supporters feel it is important to work with local police to ensure anything further continue to be lawful, at least from their ’side’.
The press release was prepared incase there was a counter protest and therefore reporters there. Guess the swim group was right that the owner had called the press. And yes, the owner was handing out her own, prepared statement, 3 pages long.
FYI – My couch has lots of stains on it too but not from breastfeeding. I’ve never had breastmilk stain anything…
Interesting that you are completely unwilling to read the news stories I provided because “I’d like to read the case report for myself and not depend on bias news reporting.” Yet you are willing to include one news report as an exact example of what Cinira has said. Seems a bit contradictory…
Actually there are several sources available to demonstrate the consistancy of Cinira’s statements. I find that saying the exact same thing, with the exact same words is an indication of things being too rehearsed. Cinira has enough variations in wording but still with the same intent that it very creditable. Did you happen to see any of the new interviews or the photos of her? She a very nice, friendly and loving person. That come across in the interviews.
Here are some more sources for you to consider if you are going to continue ‘splitting hairs’ over Cinira’s statements. I don’t feel the need to repeat what Jean said as she has done a good job…
1. Original email sent to the swim group (wait you don’t have that!)
2. Original email sent to owner (oops, you don’t have that available either)
3. Email sent passed to group that was then passed on by others http://www.breastfeeding123.com/breastfeeding-rights-rally-in-ontario-on-november-7-2008/
4. Press release that was prepared for any press that the owner had called http://canadianlactivist.wordpress.com/2008/11/07/following-up-on-the-discrimination-at-the-aquacentre-in-newmarket/
5. Newmarket Banner article
6. Toronto Star article 1 http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/535310
7. Toronto Star article 2 http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/535969
8. Globe and Mail article http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081113.wlbreastfeed13/BNStory/lifeMain/?cid=al_gam_mostdiscuss
9. CBC @ 6 interview
10. Radio interview
11. City TV @ 5 & @ 6 more detailed interview http://canadianlactivist.wordpress.com/2008/11/13/continuing-the-newmarket-aquacentre-breastfeeding-discrimination-saga/
12. CBC news radio http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2008/11/13/breastfeeding-pool.html
13. A Channel News
14. Emails forwarded to the group organizer, from Ms. Karkouti, originating from other emails of concern by Cinira’s supporters. They included Ms. Karkouti’s reponses. (again you don’t have access to these but others here do)
You’ve really noticed that the owner’s story has remained consistent? From what sources? Actually there are several contradictory statements or additions to the owners story. As Jean already pointed out, the owner has repeatedly flip flopped back and forth between IN and AROUND the pool.
From an Aquacentre representative to the group organizer, “However, it is a common pool policy that no food and/or drink be present on the pool deck let alone IN the pool due to the possibility of contamination. This situation also has the potential for a pool fouling at which point the individual in question would have been charged a $75.00 clean-up fee and the pool would be required to be shut down for a minimum of 30 minutes.” So she is worried about the pool being contaminated from a food source. There is no mention of bodily fluids. She mentions a ‘pool fouling’ which she has repeately referred to as a bowel movement from the baby. Also notice the $75 clean-up fee. This fee was never mentioned to the group organizer before this time. A supporter of Cinira’s called several different pools and they all said they didn’t have clean-up fees. One owner even laughed. It only gets better.
Ellie is then quoted later as saying “She said she’ll follow the health ministry’s direction if it okays breastfeeding in the pool, "But I will up my fouling fee to $300." If the Health ministry okays breastfeeding she will up the fee to $300? Is that only for those breastfeeding or all clients? Who would want to swim in a pool with a $300 fee for any accidental fouling. Stub your toe and drip a drop or two of blood in the pool – $300! Your infant has an accident and fouls the pool – $300! You are struck with food poisoning and accidentally vomit – $300! Well I guess we all get the point of this one…And please don’t insult people’s intelligence by saying this would be ok…
And the complaint that has been lodge regarding the incident at the beginning of October – they send out three letters – to give the owner a chance to respond. If they ignore all three, then it goes on their file. There have been two letters sent with no replies…
Back to Ellie’s story. It has definitely not remained consistent. First she told Cinira there had been a complaint and then later (two weeks later) she said it was one of the lifeguards. There is already a source that has ties to this facility who has verified it was a physiotherapy client. Did Ellie change her story because the original person who complained has been clear that she was offended by breastfeeding? Perhaps that person is now concerned about being involved and will no longer back Ellie – now that she knows it is a human rights violation? I guess speculation can work both ways…
Second she told people that emailed her, and Ellie later forwarded those emails, along with her replies, to the group organizer, that the pool inspector would not allow breastfeeding in the pool. Taken directly from those emails “Our policy stands as per the health inspector” “You are more than welcome to speak to the newmarket health inspector directly. I stand by this point as does the health inspector. We are willing to take this as far as needed.” Even though she was repeatedly asked for the contact information of the health inspector, it was never given. Here is her reason “I don’t want to seem biased by giving you the names of the three that i have spoken to so far.” So in that last one she changes her story to it now being 3 inspectors. That seems unusual because the pool inspector (safe pools program) has stated there isn’t any written policy prohibiting breastfeeding in or around the pool. Also the pool inspector doesn’t seem willing to take this “as far as needed” since they have shown no intention of getting involved. Seems that she dropped that avenue VERY quickly after Cinira called and spoke with the manager of the Safe Pools Program…
So now the health inspector won’t back her anymore so she changes to “The health and safety of people using this facility (as per the the health department of ontario) outweighs the need for a mother who feels that she can place other peoples health at risk in order to feed her child INSIDE the pool.” (15) Firstly, it has already been well establised that no one’s health was at risk. Secondly when the health department (actually that is a really big umbrella as there are many departments within the health department) was contacted by Cinira she was told there is no written policy prohibiting breastfeeding IN or around a pool. Once again, note what Ms. Karkouti says in this article (7). “She said she’ll follow the health ministry’s direction if it okays breastfeeding in the pool, "But I will up my fouling fee to $300." So I guess she is out to really get those breastfeeders and will be sure to get everyone, even when the health ministry says breastfeeding is allowed in and around pools. Sounds like she is getting desperate… I find this one especially funny as she has indeed broken the law and bent things to her own beliefs. “We follow the law set my our government to protect the public. We here at AquaCenter do not bend the rules to meet our own beliefs and needs.” So charging a $75 ‘fouling fee’ and then increasing that fee to $300 isn’t bending things to her own beliefs either? Please note this statement from the Globe and Mail article “In Newmarket, there is no municipal policy banning mothers from breastfeeding in pools, town spokeswoman Wanda Bennett says.”
So I’m wondering if she has gotten word from the Ministry of Health because her stand in the recent interviews has been that she will wait for the Human Rights Commission ruling. So she isn’t interested in the stand of the Ministry of Health anymore? Is that because they too don’t agree with her?
When the organizer of the group once again tried to resolve this privately – “I would suggest you contact a lawyer. You are misunderstanding the situation. I did send you a news article that explained a similar incident at a YMCA pool in the GTA. The pool tried to use arguments like you have brought up but were unsuccessful. The public health department is one of the organizations that has spearheaded the right to breastfeed ‘anywhere, anytime’. There are no risks of contamination or fouling the pool from breastfeeding. Please be sure to check your resources as I am honestly trying to give you a heads up here.”
Ellie’s response was to threatened this entire swim group with “Trust me… you will be hearing from my lawyer very soon. It will be in a form of a VERY large slander law suite against yourself, your organization as well as the other families who have taken this skewed simple minded response to THE LAW.” Sounds like she is talking about her own interpretation of the law as it seems now that the organizer of the group was right on with her interpretation (Shannon Wray and Laura Brady cases).
The latest email from the owner includes this delightful threat… “After the disgraceful display of behavior from you and your homeschooling group on Friday November 7th 2008, i am forced to ban you from the following businesses permanently:… A trespass notice has been sent to both local police stations in Newmarket and Maple / Vaughan. This trespass notice will be enforced by the police if you or your group or anyone else that you work with tries to enter either site and to protest or swim in any way. Breaking this notice may even include jail time.”
This too is a bit of a contradiction because according to the police a trespass notice is more of a note attached to the facility letting the police know of prior situations if they get called. The notice cannot be ‘broken’. The organizer is awaiting verification from the police on exactly what this means as her statements above, including anyone the organizer knows, seems a bit vague for any type of official document.
Even Ms. Karkouti acknowledges the true reason the group was not allowed in the pool with her last email (Tuesday November 11th). “Please note that you would have been allowed entry into the pool on the 7th of November 2008 if you had agreed to follow the rules and regulations that were explained to you by the ministry of health ie not breastfeed in the pool water.” She makes absolutely NO mention of a protest or rally…
Man, I could go on all day but I have no desire to waste my time on someone with no interest of educating themselves but simply interested in being right. Once again, we do not need to wait for this case to go before the Human Rights Tribunal. An exact same case already did and they ruled it was discrimination. In addition all the other cases that were the same and/or similar have all led to the POOLS changing things to include written policies to clarify that breastfeeding is allowed in and around pools…Unless you have some other agenda – there is just no arguing that!
Lastly I would like to thank Angela for her patience and her obvious commitment to bring this issue forward. I know I should probably just ignore the type of ignorance and stubborness that has been shown here but I feel the need to stand up and fight against all the misinformation and misrepresentation of the facts. Oh wait…I said fight…doesn’t that mean I’m beating up my computer right now?
I also don’t stand to gain anything from answering these questions…perhaps real people only do things for money and it really has nothing to do with countering biotry and discrimination?! I wonder if Rosa Parks made any money when she refused to go to the back of the bus? Or how about the women that fought for the right to vote? Oh, I could go on all day…lol
Oh and I almost forgot…If you have breastfed then you know you cannot have your breasts submerged in the water while breastfeeding – babies just can’t hold their breath that long. ;}
Jean,
It was you laughing at my efforts to try to explain my point of view that offended me. The human right reports are very detailed and give both sides of the story and the application of the law all in one place. They aren’t edited for content to fit a page or make a good headline or support a point. So if they are available, I’d prefer to read those for myself rather than a newspaper report or to depend on other’s interpretation of those cases. I’d like to decide for myself if the previous cases are an exact match to this one, mostly for my own amusement because of course, the information I have on this case is incomplete. The case report will not be available for several months for this incident, so unfortunately what is reported in the media forms a large basis of the information I have. I fully accept and understand that this information is limited in content and accuracy. Currently, based on what I know now, I don’t see the discrimination. That doesn’t mean there wasn’t discrimination, just that I don’t see it. I don’t see how wanting to read the most accurate information available at the time is a conflicting argument?
It does seem that you have different information than me, so it makes complete sense that your conclusions would be different than mine. I now understand your point of view better, thank you.
I tandem nurse a toddler and a baby. If you think people are uncomfortable with one, you should see what happens with two. I have experienced people giving me looks, saying things that are degrading, and making me feel like I’m doing something wrong, especially nursing a toddler that is 2.5. I haven’t been asked to cover-up but I have been offered the employee bathroom. Yet, I’ve never felt the need to go to media or stage a nurse-in or file a human rights complaint. I was always able to work it out with the person involved. So then I wonder why I could work it out but this mother couldn’t? Did I let the people I had contact with get off too easy? Did I give away something I shouldn’t have agreed to? Is it Ok that I was happy with the outcome or should I have fought for others that aren’t as comfortable NIP as I am? A whole bunch of questions, that are more for myself and my place in society, than for others to answer, really.
Anyway, apology accepted and thanks for having the decency to offer it.
Kelly – perhaps we have different points of view but we sound similar – I have two breastfed children – and yes I tandem nurse – and yes they are more than 2.5 years apart – and yes I’ve had the looks and all the rest – I’ve seen what it’s like with 2.
If the Human Rights rulings are what you seek I suggest contacting them for copies (since I don’t believe they are published in the same way a court ruling might be and I don’t believe they are available in their entirety online) or contacting INFACT Canada.
If you feel that you are satisfied with the results you’ve received then great. It *sounds* like you have been discriminated against IF you were asked to move or cover up at any point – but for the record – no I do NOT think you MUST fight for NIP – that is – in my opinion – up to you.
I however am grateful that Cinira is standing up for the discrimination she received – sometimes it takes a few people to make a needed change in the world – and for me breastfeeding is important and what I am willing to wade into – but there are lots of causes out there – as worthy as they are – that I would not likely get involved with.
Perhaps this situation will give you cause to step up in the future, perhaps not – but when more people do then there will be less and less issues to deal with but it takes time and not everyone is up for the opposition. I don’t think I could handle all the accusations Cinira has had – so each person must decide what they are willing and able to handle.
So from one tandem nursing mom to another – do what is comfortable for YOU. And just to give you something to think about – I pushed myself far out of my comfort zone, long after nursing my older child was “in the closet” (maybe 3.5 yrs) and was part of an exhibit a photography student did of nursing mothers – and it was uncomfortable to see myself exposed (and no not my breasts!) but I have a wonderful memory, felt I may have contributed in some way to those who saw the exhibit and have copies of the photos as keepsakes for my children. And I am still not comfortable showing them to people I know.
So if you are asked to move – take whatever actions feel right for you and your children at the time but know that it is your right, if you choose to exercise it, to stay put, attempt to educate and/or file a complaint later.
As for the apology – you are welcome. I certainly do try my best not to offend. I think that tones and meanings are not always well-conveyed in print. (the downside of computers
Sam S
Thank you for your detailed reply to my questions. I am interested in hearing the information. It is quite apparent that you have different information that I have, so to me, it makes complete and obvious sense that your conclusions will be different then mine. You have made some incorrect assumptions that I’d like to correct.
1. I haven’t come down hard on lactivists for not hearing my arguments, because I haven’t presented an argument. Angela has actually been very gracious to allow us to post our comments here and I second the many others that have thanked her for that, especially since these comments are now getting way off topic.
2. I have not disregarded the information I have been presented with. Most of it consists of hearsay and speculation, which is not really valid “evidence”. (Note: I’ve been taught to reference primary sources, if available. Secondary and other sources introduce an element of bias that needs to be identified and considered. You’ll notice that if I am referring to material other than the primary source, including my own opinion, I caution readers to confirm for themselves). My opinions are hearsay and speculation and I don’t try to fool myself in thinking that I’m really going to influence someone’s opinion of the event. Just because you have failed to influence my opinion does not mean I’m incapable of understanding your point of view or that I have blinders on.
3. I actually agree with you on the lack of health risks of breastfeeding in the pool. I actually prepared a very long response defending the microbiology of that to Bill, but it didn’t post properly. I was once offered a job, based on my reputation (i.e. I didn’t apply for it, they sought me out) at the CDC (sadly, I couldn’t take it because I’m Canadian. I’d so love to work there.), so I know a little bit about microbiology and the role of the CDC in US public health. My question is why doesn’t the law reflect this position? If this happened years ago, why hasn’t it been updated? Is that even relevant? From what I have read, it seems that the pool owner, the mother and the Ministry of Health were unaware of this lack of risk until they went looking for it. Does that change things? Also, if they had this information beforehand, would it change how things played out? Again, total speculation and probably completely irrelevant but I’m still interested.
4. Since you seemed so familiar with the previous human rights complaints that are similar to this matter, I thought you would have easy access to them. I certainly didn’t expect you to spend time looking for them. I assumed that you had read them and had them sitting on the desk as you typed. I have been searching online, but haven’t found those cases. I’ve provided all the new information I could by providing links for others to read for themselves. I’m the one that found the Manitoba case that has been referred to by others. I won’t waste anyone’s time bothering the Human Right Tribunal lawyers as I’m sure they have much more important issues to deal with then satisfying my curiosity, but I thank you for taking the time to point me in that direction.
5. Can you please share how to get out breast milk stains? You are so lucky that you have had nothing stain. I’ve ruined a couple of my outfits and the babies’ outfits. The stains turn yellow after I wash them, especially noticeable on white fabric. My nursing bras look particularly horrendous but luckily only I see those. I have a patterned couch that masks the stains pretty well, but I know they are there.
6. Interesting point about not trusting information that is too consistent. I’ll definitely keep that in mind.
7. I have read the news stories, several times, long before you or anyone posted them. I even refer to them before you did. I went searching for them myself. I was also aware of the BACE report long before you posted that link too. If it has been online, I think I’ve been very thorough in finding it and reading it. I check several times a day for any new information as well.
7. “Fight” is a very confrontational word. No, it does not mean that you are beating on your computer (I hope you were trying to be sarcastic?), but it does give me the impression that you view me as an “enemy” to be “defeated” rather than someone to share information, learn from and teach. I feel I’m having a “discussion” and I sense that you feel this is an argument. Furthermore, that it is an argument that I cannot “win” and have not supported on my side and that you have “won” and can’t fathom why I don’t get it and bow down to your victory. In my “discussion”, I don’t think I have attacked anyone’s point of view in my contributions. I’ve tried to carefully read each contribution and just added my own point of view, questions or information that I thought might be useful to the discussion. Criticizing me for not reading information I don’t have access to is a rather interesting approach. Are you going to provide the missing information or are you just trying to reinforce the idea that I’m ignorant and you know more than I do? May I remind you again, of course we are going to have different opinions because we have different information. The story of the blind men and the elephant comes to mind. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make you more “right”. I use quotations because I really don’t care if I’m right or wrong at this point. I’m not the judge trying this case, nor do I have any stake in its outcome.
One only needs to scroll up to see the initial comments that have been made. There are definitely some very negative comments made. Interesting how some represent themselves as simply wanting a discussion – when in public… I particularly took offense to the comments about lactivists and it not being a peaceful event. If you read the initial email then you clearly saw peaceful in the subject line. Trying to state otherwise is just making assumption to support your argument. And I don’t think anyone is fooled. You have been arguing and making assumptions and drawing biased conclusions because you don’t agree with what happened…