The Shrill Shriek of the Abbotsford Shill – II of II.

There is a certain black humour in the fact commenting on the Viewpoint of December 2, 2015 requires more words than were in the Viewpoint itself; enough words to result in a Part I and a Part II. The need for all the additional words reflects how much easier it is to create a false impression than it is to correct that false impression.

It also reflects how much faster and easier it is to create the impression [or induce the conclusion] when you ignore and/or avoid the facts.

The spin continued in the Viewpoint of December 2, 2015 had roots in coverage of the shelter announcement.

“The legal case about camping in public parks in which homeless activists were represented by Pivot Legal Society came about after an escalating series of incidents between the city and an increasingly politicized group of tent city campers.”

A solid piece of drivel that fabricates the impression that the City of Abbotsford is a victim of activists and politicized campers, avoiding the facts that make it clear that it was the actions of the City of Abbotsford that were responsible for the homeless having to go to court.

The homeless wanted to Abbotsford to court in 2009 after Abbotsford refused to recognize that the decision striking down Victoria’s bylaws banning overnight camping in public parks applied to Abbotsford and continued to enforce Abbotsford’s bylaws banning camping in public parks.

The reason the matter didn’t go to court in 2009 is the willingness of Abbotsford mayors and councillors to spend however many taxpayer dollars it take on fees [consultants, PR, legal] to get their own way.

The disregard for the cost to taxpayers by mayors and councils served to deny the homeless the ability to seek relief from harassment by the City of Abbotsford. A harassment that the city escalated to include using chicken feces as a weapon against the homeless [a use that showed an utter disregard on the part of the city for local chicken farmers who had been forced to cull millions of chickens because of bird flu spread by contamination] and, as was admitted by Abbotsford police officers, the slashing and bear spraying of the tents of the homeless by officers of the APD.

Behaviours that came to an end. an abrupt end, only when Pivot Legal Society stepped forward and provided the homeless in Abbotsford access to the courts and the ability to hold the City of Abbotsford responsible for its actions and behaviours.

As a point of fact the membership of the Abbotsford chapter of the Drug War Survivors are those who are homeless, are in danger of becoming homeless or have been homeless in Abbotsford.

The Drug War Survivors provides the vehicle that granted Abbotsford’s homeless access to legal representation [Pivot Legal Society] and through that representation access to the protection of the court and the ability to hold the City of Abbotsford to account for its illegal behaviours.

If you ever wondered what facetious meant here is a fine example. “Even so as the case plodded through the courts the city resurrected an earlier unsuccessful plan for a 31-bed permanent low barrier, to be built next year.”

Facetious since the reason the plan is not already built and providing housing to the homeless is that the city killed the plan and so bears sole responsibility for the plan being unsuccessful. In the interests of accuracy the plan was for 22 beds, 31 is the current number proposed – assuming next year ever comes in terms of the housing actually being built.

“…. froze this chronic issue in the courts for about two years” and “…the city announced the temporary shelter as it could have done earlier had it not been legally hamstrung.”

Setting aside the question of veracity given there was no evidence of any plan or intention by the City of Abbotsford to open a shelter in the documents of the City of Abbotsford [unless the City or its cheerleaders are claiming the City committed perjury by failing to surrender the documents ordered surrendered by the BC Supreme Court?] there was no legal barrier – as claimed in the Viewpoint – to the City opening the shelter at any point it wanted to. A fact acknowledged by Mayor Braun’s statement that the City had delayed the announcement until now solely for reasons of appearance.

In fact, if you are not seeking to paint the mayors and councillors as saintly folk thwarted and forced to take actions they didn’t want to by those bad, bad Drug War Survivors [Abbotsford’s homeless], the haste with which the shelter moved forward and with which the shelter premises themselves will be thrown together all suggest that the purpose of the shelter is to permit the City to circumvent the intent and spirit of the court ruling and permit “….the speedy end of the Gladys camp.”

A behaviour which would be business as usual for City of Abbotsford.