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.

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

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.

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. ;}

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.

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.

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.

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.