Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Downtown ambassadors under scrutiny in hearing

June 2nd, 2010 · 9 Comments

The Sun has been covering the B.C. human-rights tribunal hearing this week on allegations of discrimination by Vancouver’s downtown ambassadors. There’s been a lot of commentary on this blog about ambassadors and security guards (sometimes erroneously seen as one and the same), so I thought you’d be interested in this if you haven’t already seen it. I should point out that the coverage so far has come from people brought forward by Pivot Legal (someone who ‘went undercover’ with the ambassadors and then testified about his experience earlier this week; today, a UBC expert). The testimony from the ambassadors or the Downtown Vancouver Business Improvement Association, which hires them, is presumably yet to come.

Categories: Uncategorized

  • Tiktaalik

    It’s pretty damning testimony. It’ll be interesting to see how the Downtown BIA tries to spin this.

    There’s another article from yesterday with more interesting testimony quotes. http://bit.ly/azhH6P

    The one part that I found particularly important to this human rights complaint is the statement that only certain types of drug users were bothered, and that the ambassadors ignored teens smoking pot seemingly because they were dressed well and didn’t look out of place.

    I know that the NPA was a huge supporter of this program, but I’m not sure what Vision’s policy on it was. It’s clear that while NPA was controlling council Vision was opposed to funding it (http://bit.ly/anp346), but I’m not sure if shutting it down was a campaign promise. I think it was, but I can’t really remember.

  • Sharon

    I wish a few reporters would stick around for cross examination. There is so much politics tied up in this hearing- it is scandalous.

    Frances, this is your kid of story. Please, do some digging on both sides of the fence.

  • Charles Gauthier

    Frances, you’re absolutely right that the testimony from the DVBIA and our witnesses is coming up soon. You will hear from social service providers who we have very positive relationships with and a number of Ambassadors who were formerly homeless and had challenges in their respective lives. I hope that the media will give this equal time.

    I like to remind your readers that we have been strong advocates of building more supportive housing, opening shelters, etc to address homelessness within our 90-block area.

    As a further example of our commitment, I am currently in Ottawa at a Canadian Downtown Symposium to discuss with my collegues a number of strategies to deal with issues such as homelessness since these are national in scope and require federal leadership and funding.We intend to develop a white paper and present this to the Federal Government.

  • Sharon

    testimony out of context is not testimony – it is a zinger to gain attention. Let’s hear the whole story not just the first half of day 1 in a 3 week hearing.

  • Stephanie

    Yes, yes…and all the folks who mentioned on this blog that they saw Ambassadors doing the sorts of things that witnesses are now testifying to were just hallucinating over a streetscape of ponies and rainbows. Next.

  • John Richardson

    Although Pivot and VANDU are bringing numerous expert witnesses to testify about the impacts of the Downtown Ambassadors on homeless people, the most interesting – and damning – evidence is yet to come.

    The DVBIA required its ambassadors to document, via PDA, all interactions with the public. That electronic data shows that the ambassadors have systematically ‘removed’ thousands, if not tens of thousands, of homeless and marginalized people from the Downtown core. This is discrimination on a massive and disturbing scale.

    We are hoping for a strong ruling from the Tribunal that will put a permanent end to such human rights violations, and send a signal to other BIA’s that hiring private security forces to exclude certain classes of persons from public space is a strategy whose negative legal consequences vastly outweigh any perceived benefits.

  • Sharon

    I would like to hear a definition of the word ‘removed’ and I would like to understand your definition of civility.

  • Stephanie

    I must say that while I find Sharon’s uncritical support for the Ambassadors contemptible, I admit a grudging admiration for her insistence on going down with the ship.

    John, I don’t know if you’ve read previous threads about the DAs on this blog. Several people who post here have written accounts of abusive behaviour they’ve witnessed by the DAs. The response from Sharon and Charles has essentially been “we didn’t get a complaint, so you’re making it up.” Give ’em hell.

  • Matthew

    I’m curious if John has any basis whatsoever to make such conclusions from data he has not seen. Are they removals from the downtown core or simply asking people to cease unwanted activity on PRIVATE property?

    Stephanie, there has no doubt been interactions between DA’s and people on the street that have become quite animated. What is to be expected? You have a guard asking someone to cease activity they’re clearly doing to make a living for themselves. I find it surprising there isn’t more situations of such given the circumstances. In a city where there is hyper sensitivity to uniformed authority (re: rampant reports of police use of force/brutality in recent times), perception of the fault in these interactions I would suggest are all too commonly automatically blamed on the guards/police. Your suggestion that just because there has been no formal complaints to the BIA that it doesn’t mean they haven’t occurred may be true; but it just as convenient and naive to assume that every apparent report of negative interaction observed is to be the fault of these guards.

    I’m lost for words on some of the testimony given by PIVOT this far. I could say more in regards to this evidence; but I fear the time may not be right until after the program defends itself from such idiocy. Not that I have any confidence you would believe me or at least give it some critical thought. It seems you both, and too many others, are always quick to pass judgment at face value so as long as it suites your agenda/beliefs.