I have a question about this assertion in your article:
"Moreover, it was clear that from the July 9th meeting, the BCAEA had banned people from attending the convention without requiring a police report: they had done so at least once before for a furry banned from VancouFur 2019, whose identity I suspect but cannot prove."
Reading the meeting minutes pdf that you linked to here, I see nothing suggesting that there was or was not a police report available to the BCAEA leading up to the design y to ban. Your wording suggests a clarity that I'm not seeing here at all. On what are you basing your accusation and on what are ascribing it's clarity?
I have a question about this assertion in your article:
"Moreover, it was clear that from the July 9th meeting, the BCAEA had banned people from attending the convention without requiring a police report: they had done so at least once before for a furry banned from VancouFur 2019, whose identity I suspect but cannot prove."
Reading the meeting minutes pdf that you linked to here, I see nothing suggesting that there was or was not a police report available to the BCAEA leading up to the design y to ban. Your wording suggests a clarity that I'm not seeing here at all. On what are you basing your accusation and on what are ascribing it's clarity?