Silver from a Canadian pov

Hi all,
As a Canadian, I look at Silver from the perspective of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantees people with mental and physical disabilities equal benefit and protection under the law.  For this pov, I think web content accessibility guidelines need to be modeled to meet human rights criteria. If it doesn’t, I can’t see a legislative assembly adopting it only for it to buckle in the courts.  My sense is a human rights approach would recognize a digital infrastructure that makes it reasonably possible for a one-size-fits-one paradigm of producing web content. 
The Silver points systems for conformance is confusing, although I realize it's in draft still.  Is it assessing the content-creation processes rather than the content itself?  What if an innovative group comes up with a reliable and effective content-creation processes that aren’t contemplated by Silver, will they be able to get to gold?  

I appreciate encouraging organizations to adopt processes that minimize barriers but are some of the points about characteristics of organizational processes rather than content?  Is the Silver conformance model better understood as a standard for organizational activities (“our organization is at a Gold level because we do x, y, z”) rather than the web content itself?  Compare with the new ISO standard for human-centred design in organizations.

Also, removing “accessibility supported” from the authors responsibility raises a few questions.   If a public website makes a service available to some portion of the population but people with disabilities can’t use it because third-party browsers or AT aren’t adequate, then how is there equal benefit or protection under the law?  Am I missing something there? 

Sincerely,
Mark