Discussion in 'Dumaguete City' started by shadow, Aug 16, 2014.
Well that little note just further highlights their ignorance , it doesn't matter if he is not disabled , he may be training the dog, for that reason alone he should have been allowed access . I can see where this heading though , another classic Filipino example of we were never wrong , one of the biggest problems in the Philippines , people refusing to take responsibility for themselves or their bad policy's, a total lack of maturity. But what did we expect ?
Point # 1 , we do not allow pets , well it is an assistance dog , not a pet . If this happened any where else there would be an uproar .
In the United States, the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibits any business, government agency, or other organization that provides access to the general public from barring guide dogs. However, religious organizations are not required to provide such access. Whether guide dogs in training have the same rights or not usually falls on each individual state government. In addition, the Fair Housing Act requires that landlords allow tenants to have guide dogs, as well as other types of assistance animals, in residences that normally have a No Pets policy and no extra fees may be charged for such tenants. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development's Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity investigates complaints from the public alleging denials of reasonable accommodation requests involving assistance animals.
In most South American countries and Mexico, guide dog access depends solely upon the goodwill of the owner or manager. In more tourist-heavy areas, guide dogs are generally welcomed without problems. In Brazil, however, a 2006 federal decree requires allowance of guide dogs in all public and open to public places. The Brasília Metro has developed a program which trains guide dogs to ride it.
In Malta, The Equal Opportunities Act 2000 states that it is illegal to discriminate against a disabled person who needs an assistant, in this case, a Guide Dog. The few exceptions are restaurant kitchens, Hospital special wards, toilets and premises where other animals are kept.
In Australia, the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 protects guide dog handlers. Each state and territory has its own laws, which may differ slightly.
In Canada, guide dogs are allowed anywhere that the general public is allowed.
In South Korea, it is illegal to deny access to guide dogs in any areas that are open to the public. Violators are fined for no more than 2 million won.
In Portugal Guide Dogs (Assistance Dogs)are allowed anywhere that the general public is allowed. The Law - Decreto-Lei n.74/2007 - Establish their rights.
OK, after reading this I retract my previous statement on hoping that Robinson's will be cool and set good precedent when they meet with some government guys and Mark tomorrow. I hope the government guys now chew Robinson's a new one. (Dang, never thought I'd be rooting for the government guys here.) That "statement" Robinson's released is fekking disgusting.
Credit to the Filipino locals: They are ripping into Robinson's over on Hulagway ug Kasikas sa Dumaguete (Facebook). If you know some bisaya, it makes for some good reading.
What happens in other countries is irrelevant.
Replublic Act 9442:
SEC. 40. No individual, group or community shall execute any of these acts of ridicule against persons with disability in any time and place which could intimidate or result in loss of self-esteem of the latter. - See more at: Republic Act 9442 : National Council on Disability Affairs
I think Robinson's is bordering on breaking this section.
SEC 41. Vilification. – For purposes of this Chapter, vilification shall be defined as:
(a) The utterance of slanderous and abusive statements against a person with disability; and/or
(b) An activity in public which incites hatred towards, serious contempt for, or severe ridicule of persons with disability.” - See more at: Republic Act 9442 : National Council on Disability Affairs
Could be argued by a lawyer.
That law talks about discounts that are required to be given to disabled persons (discounts only available to Filipino citizens) and it goes on about not ridiculing them.
Republic Act 7277:
"(1) the imposition or application of eligibility criteria that screen out or tend to screen
out an individual with a disability or any class or individuals with disabilities from fully
and equally enjoying any goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or
accommodations, unless such criteria can be shown to be necessary for the provision of
the goods, services, facilities, privileges, or accommodations being offered;"
"(3) failure to take such steps as may be necessary to ensure that no individual with a
disability is excluded, denied services, segregated or otherwise treated differently than
other individuals because of the absence of auxiliary aids and services, unless the entity
can demonstrate that taking such steps would fundamentally alter the nature of the
good, service, facility, privilege, advantage or accommodation being offered or would
result in undue burden;"
This is the ONLY thing I see in that law that could even come close to applying to service dogs. I find that the gentleman did not mentioned that Robinson's, did in fact, communicate with him at the mall, and that they offered a NURSE to assist him shows that he has an agenda here. I'm not saying that I believe Robinson's story but if true, I think they can defend their case based off of the current law of the land.
If the dog does not assist in his mobility then what is the purpose? Is the dog going to provide medical assistance? Why would Robinson's offer of a nurse not accommodate his medical needs? Is there something a nurse can't do that a dog can? These are honest questions as I am ignorant on the issue. Providing that the nurse was cute, I probably would have gladly taken Robinson's up on the offer to have her follow me around....and then found a reason to play doctor with her.
I see no mention of service dogs in the Philippine law. Maybe he wants to draw attention to this and have the law amended. which I believe he is certainly entitled to do (even though I think his pleas will fall on deaf ears). Maybe I missed a law on my Google search though.
I think he should seriously consider finding another place to retire. The Philippines is not friendly to the disabled. He should make his video bashing Robinson's and the Philippines for this.....but I would advise he should make sure he is nowhere near the Philippines when it gets published. It's simply not a country I would want to be in if I were disabled and it's not a place I would want to be if I were being politically active. There are many ways the Philippines could screw him over with the laws currently in place (is he here on the proper visa, he is tarnishing the image of a large corporation, being politically active in the country...and those are just the legal recourse that could be taken. I won't mention horrible things that have happened to people for doing much less).
Note: I still find it odd that the police were called. I don't understand why that would happen unless he was being loud or refusing to leave the property. I believe the truth lies somewhere between the gentleman's story and Robinson's. Maybe he could come back to the forum and give a bit of a better description of the events that took place at the mall.
People need to accept this is NOT the US or a western country. While the US and western countries have more laws and such to protect tiny minorities such as disabled people such things also come with an added price and added issues. Its not right for us to sit here and say how bad they are in a rare occasion that such like this occurs when we don't have the full circumstances.
Few things, the foreigner was NOT blind so the dog wasn't a seeing eye dog meaning that highly likely the foreigner could have done w/o the dog or used another method locally as hiring someone for a day is dirt cheap. However what about everyone else? That's the important issue to me. What about anyone who has allergies or more specifically allergic to dogs? In Robinsons like the rest of the Philippines they don't have precautions to remove allergenics and the sanitation is pretty much laughable. What about if this ONE man's dog matter its use caused any issue for anyone else? Upset 5 people, 10 people, however many so one man can bring his dog inside? Then what about when other locals start trying to do the same making claims be it true or false? What about health establishments inside that complain or other business's inside that don't want the dog inside? Where are there rights?
Yes, its tragic for a disabled person to need assistance and everything should be done to assist them when it doesn't negatively impact the majority. However their were clearly other options available but the man chose against any of that. Instead he wanted special priviledges conveyed no matter who it effects in a negative way.
So please.... stop with the crap about how the US or whatever other country allows it. Or how its somehow so horrible to this one man. Most of the outcry I think is because its a foreigner who expects Philippine costs with Western treatment. This IS the Philippines and unless people want to start paying western prices for all the extra *rights* and protections its time to accept that basic sense like this also keeps costs down.
Agree with you all the way, 45 replys and yours is the only one that says it the way it is...
Its strange they had a pet shop there a few months back selling dogs .it would be nice if this would all go away now , I think every one has had enough .
Selling pets from one contained location and having a Labrador shedding hair in Shakey's, Jollibee, KFC and the food court while people are trying to eat are two separate and completely different topics. I am sure this is what Robinson's management had in mind when they created and enforced the "no pet" policy. People need to meet in the middle concerning this PWD service dog thing. I think it should be allowed in shopping areas so long as those businesses aren't serving food. But then again, why should you punish those with a severe allergy to pet dander? You punish them and their disability for catering to those who "need" dogs.
As for Cohen, I have a feeling he is packing his things. He knows the gig is up and he, judging from his past, knows when to get the hell outta dodge.
Link: ¡Para no más abusos! « Diario y Radio Uchile
Google Chrome has an automatic translator built in in case this only shows up in Spanish for some people.
If you want to take Nicaragua (the second poorest country in the world, Cohen's words...btw, it's not. It is the 57th poorest country....right below the Philippines at 58) for their word, he does have a disability.
He posted this, publicly for all to see, to my Facebook page:
View attachment 11694
I'm just guessing here but for a couple hundred pesos you, too, can get one of these in Nicaragua. You don't have to speak Spanish, most of our medical terminology comes from Latin, just read until you hit something that sounds familiar.