<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
<title>blogTO Recent Comments: Everest: for the Discriminating Palate?</title>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/feed/recentcomments/?9292</link>
<description>Comments recently made in this post on blogTO</description>
<copyright>Copyright 2009</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:24:09 PST</lastBuildDate>
<item>
<title>Jster</title>
<description><![CDATA[
"I would often get phone calls from people asking if we were wheelchair accessible. When I told them that we weren't, I'd be given whatever the phone equivalent of a stink-eye is, and sometimes informed that we were being discriminatory."

I think that's a good thing. I'm glad you got phone stink-eye and comments. Only by bringing attention to this will things start to change in this city. Can you imagine -- just 30 years ago people who need mobility equipment to simply live their lives with some degree of independence were not even considered in city planning. It's seems so primitive. You all would benefit from this great exhibit at the ROM right now on disability history -- it'll bring some de-icer to your hardened hearts.

At any rate, I remain doubtful that if an able-bodied person was a regular patron of a restaurant, and they caused a small amount of damage in said restaurant, that they would be banned for life. A smart restaurant owner would probably realize that a regular customer is more profitable to them in the long run.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c276645</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c276645</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:50:34 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Jerrold</title>
<description><![CDATA[
@anti-opensource

Editor's note: removing the comment from opensource would be censoring an articulated opinion (regardless of how backwards it may be). I did, however, remove the comment from haha (which was nothing more than a petty insult).]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c275124</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c275124</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:18:25 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>anti-opensource</title>
<description><![CDATA[
why has someone not deleted the 2 most recent entries from opensource and haha?  

they are childish, and disgusting. For anyone to be taking the owners side in this argument, i'd like for you to spend some time wheel chair bound and see how it feels. ]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c275116</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c275116</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Sat, 12 Apr 2008 19:30:31 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>keven</title>
<description><![CDATA[
I feel that both parties handles this extremely poorly.

Mr. Shelbourne and assistant seemingly were jetting from the restaurant after breaking the bathroom w/o letting the management know (that was REALLY rude and if he loved the restaurant so much why not say 'hey oops, I broke your washroom cause it's not accessible')

On the other hand the manager should take some PR courses.  I find it funny that people are over analyzing phrases and words she spoke when it's quite obvious English is NOT her first language.

I do agree with the restaurant when they said, he should have just come in and talked to them maturely instead of 'rallying the troops' together and causing a huge fuss.

>Unless a restaurant or club is designated "Private or Members only" they should not have the right to say who may enter, and who may not

As far as I know it's ALL PRIVATE property, w/o the sign or not.

In fact they have the RIGHT to refuse you if they choose.  Just like you have the RIGHT to refuse to eat/visit there.

It works boths ways.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274686</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274686</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:35:03 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>concerned</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Also, If they served Mr.Shelbourne in the first place then they would have obviously noticed he was in a wheelchair and maybe that would have been the time to tell him that they weren't equipped for wheelchairs as far as their washrooms were concerned, however, since they had no problem serving him, and taking his money for the service I again have no sympathy for the restaurant.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274315</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274315</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 23:01:50 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>concerned</title>
<description><![CDATA[
I don't agree with opensource and well I hope that haha is joking because your comment is offensive and narrow minded.  

I think that the people protesting had a right to go and be heard and well from what I saw they mainly wanted an apology for the manner in which this was handled and how they addressed (or didn't address) Mr. Shelbourn.  There is absolutely no reason in this day and age for a restaurant (not to mention one in busy Queen West)to not be accessible.  It did sound to me that the owners were saying that they aren't equipped for wheelchairs so people who use wheelchairs shouldn't eat there, unless I misunderstood that part. (which sounds a lot like discrimination to me, funny huh?) 

Are there not regulations and codes that indicate that a place of business or a place providing a service must be accessible?

Maybe this could have been handled differently. Maybe Mr.Shelbourn could have apologized for the damage that he more than likely didn't do on purpose. Maybe the owners could have been more sympathetic.  Maybe making someone feel unwelcome because they are required to use a wheelchair by no fault of their own is a blatant act of discrimination.  What is done is done however and I find myself on Mr.Shelbourne's side to be quite honest.  

Besides, how effective is filing a polite little complaint  that may never be seen, that the public won't know about and will do very little to open the eyes of ignorant people who still discriminate really do?  Really?  

I'm pro-accessibility. ]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274314</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274314</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 08 Apr 2008 22:54:50 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Karen</title>
<description><![CDATA[
This is a tough one.

I've worked in a lot of those small, independent restaurants in old converted houses that are so prevalent around Toronto, most of which have their washrooms down a narrow basement stairwell. I would often get phone calls from people asking if we were wheelchair accessible. When I told them that we weren't, I'd be given whatever the phone equivalent of a stink-eye is, and sometimes informed that we were being discriminatory.

I'm all for restaurants being more accessible to people with disabilities, but what about all these restaurants that are structurally unable to accommodate wheelchair washrooms?

And finally, while I'm not a huge fan of Everest, I have to echo that the tactics used by OCAP are pretty unimpressive. Way to cause a totally ineffective scene.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274094</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274094</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 18:39:19 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>caitlin</title>
<description><![CDATA[
If Aaron Shelbourne has a problem with Everest not having a wheelchair accessibile washroom then he should take it up with the city, not the restaurant. It's building inspectors who decide if restaurants are supposed to have handicap washrooms. If Everest was supposed to have one, wouldn't the building inspectors have noticed and ordered them to install one?

Anyway I don't even have anything invested in this issue and from what I hear on both sides I side with the restaurant. There's way too much knee jerk reactions going on. Anyway couldn't this article have been a little more neutral?]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274053</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274053</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 14:38:50 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>chephy</title>
<description><![CDATA[
"Wouldn't it be easier for himself and the restuarant to just order delivery?"

Wow, now THIS is just ridiculous.  When I go to a restaurant, I don't just go for food - it's for the overall experience.  Why should someone in a wheelchair be denied that?  You're just suggesting that people in wheelchairs should just shut themselves inside their homes - for their own good, and so they don't create problems for the "normal people".  This sort of attitude is disgusting.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274029</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274029</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:19:34 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>chephy</title>
<description><![CDATA[
"But Mr. Shelbourne doesn't need his assistant to figure out what's being said to him."

Did the manager know that?  She was in a stressful situation and had to defend against attack.  So she was responding to those who were attacking her.  Most natural reaction.

To those who claim that a restaurant should just put up with damaged property I repeat my question: do patrons in wheelchairs have the right to call in demolition crews and destroy half the restaurant in order to access the washroom?  This is only the next logical step.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274026</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274026</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:15:37 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Christopher</title>
<description><![CDATA[
First of all, accessibility should not be just an option. Unless a restaurant or club is designated "Private or Members only" they should not have the right to say who may enter, and who may not, unless the individual in question has caused a problem in the past which adversely affects the business in question. 
Who cares if a gouge was caused in the door frame? It's the cost of doing business. End of subject. Shame on Everest for using that as their excuse in preventing Mr. Shelbourne from coming back and even greater shame on Sanchok for being such a wussy little coward by refusing to address Mr. Shelbourne directly.
I'm not a big fan of OCAP, although I do subscribe to their mailing list. 
OCAP's most recent debacle over the death of a homeless man who wasn't homeless has shown that they don't always like to use facts to promote their works.
However, in this case I feel that this may the only recourse, short of going through a lengthy battle in court. Public demonstrations have been useful in the past. Maybe they will prove so again now.

]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274022</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c274022</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 13:07:43 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>montrealshorts</title>
<description><![CDATA[
There are restaurants in Toronto that wouldn't let Mr. Shelbourne in the door.  As a matter of practicality, why would OCAP choose to pick on an establishment that was endevouring to accomodate Mr. Shelbourne in the first place?  

There must be a more compelling example of discrimination that they could get behind, because this one just seems to ring of bitterness and bad-tempers.

If I were in their shoes I'd step back and rethink their strategy.  This type of thing doesn't advance their agenda effectively, and so doesn't in the end help the people they claim they're trying to help.  ]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273997</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273997</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 11:12:07 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>David</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Having been to Everest recently, I can see how it would have been easy to scratch or gouge the stall door with a weelchair as I almost did it just standing in there.  In order to get in to the stall and close the door, one needs to nearly straddle the toilet (a difficult feat for one who does not need to rely on a wheelchair, let alone someone with CP).

Although I would disagree with the tactics employed by OCAP and it's members in this matter, it's not Shelbourne's fault that Everest's designer did not use common sense when laying out or altering the men's washroom.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273981</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273981</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 09:33:28 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Steve</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Rocketeer: I believe that the proper diplomatic protocol when speaking through a translator is to address the other person directly, eye-to-eye, as if they understood every word, and let the translator fill in the gaps for you.

But Mr. Shelbourne doesn't need his assistant to figure out what's being said to him. People like Ms. Sanchok would rather speak to his assistant because Mr. Shelbourne makes them uncomfortable and they'd rather not have to think about the actual frailty of human existence when their only concern is providing a nice relaxed dining experience where their clients can dine in peace without being reminded of the actual frailty of human existence themselves.

Pretending people with disabilities as if they don't exist is definitely not going to diffuse the situation, to say the least.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273971</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273971</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 08:28:31 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Don</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Wouldn't it be easier for himself and the restuarant to just order delivery? ]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273947</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273947</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 04:46:11 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Joe Clark</title>
<description><![CDATA[
An organization like a restaurant has an affirmative duty to accommodate people with disabilities (and the other groups encompassed by the Ontario Human Rights Code) up to the point of undue hardship. Indeed, some small businesses might be legitimately unable to afford wheelchair access (to use the topic under discussion here). But that has to be determined in each individual case. It is legally false to claim that businesses need serve only a claimed ?majority? group if doing so discriminates against or unfairly treats a person on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

You kids should know this already; the Human Rights Code is older than you are.]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273928</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273928</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 01:01:51 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Rocketeer</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Also, after watching the video I have to say my sympathies lie with the restaurant.  

"On Friday, March 25, Shelbourne returned to Everest to demand an apology (see video above, paying special attention to the fact that Sanchok still refuses to speak directly to Shelbourne, almost as his condition makes him invisible)."

That's drawing a much more imaginative conclusion than I would.  Sanchok responds to the person questioning her, which is mostly the assistant and the guy wearing a toque.  Seems similar to how when you're having a conversation mediated by a translator you tend to direct your comments to the translator.  Furthermore, rather than approach Sanchok personally, Shelbourne brings cameras and a crowd to demand an apology.  Are you really surprised the police eventually became involved?]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273925</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273925</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:14:19 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Rocketeer</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Jess said:
"the issue is not that he damaged the door. if i, as an abled bodied person had damaged the door i am sure i would have been asked to pay for the damage, and of course welcomed back. this is the normal logical solution to this situation ."

Speaking of which, did anything like this happen at some point?  The story seems to have a gap between the door being damaged and the banning.  According to the restaurant the assistant was approached and dismissed it.  What's the story on Shelbourne's side?  Did he ever offer to pay for the damages?  And since everyone here loves an analogy/hyperbole, if a fat man breaks a chair in a restaurant should he pay to replace it, be banned or call discrimination?]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273924</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273924</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Mon, 07 Apr 2008 00:02:21 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>ian</title>
<description><![CDATA[
As a small business owner, it would be far too costly to convert the entrance and washroom of my business in order to accommodate a disabled individual in a wheel-chair. Can't afford so can't do it - simple budgeting. Now can 'bryan' explain to me how this is a similar situation to posting a sign saying 'Jews Stay Out'? I mean if OCAP wants to be taken seriously by the public at large, they really have to be fronted by somebody other than yet another newly-minted university grad looking for a cause. ]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273923</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273923</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:40:32 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>chephy</title>
<description><![CDATA[
Wow, talk about misrepresenting the facts (referring to the protesters in the video, not the author of the piece).  "They don't serve people in wheelchairs here"?  How distorted is that??

The thing is, restaurants are not required to have accessible washrooms.  Maybe they SHOULD be - but that's a different question.  But since they aren't, my sympathies lie with the restaurant manager.  Suppose the washroom was so inaccessible that a wheelchair just could not have been brough there no matter what.  Would that give patrons in wheelchairs the right to call in demolition crews and remove all obstacles from the wheelchair path?]]>
</description>
<link>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273921</link>
<guid>http://www.blogto.com/city/2008/04/everest_for_the_discriminating_palate/#c273921</guid>
<category>Toronto, City</category>
<pubDate>Sun, 06 Apr 2008 23:23:33 PDT</pubDate>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>