Mr. Sterner is not the only disabled person to be assaulted by the police at the Orient Road Jail. A second case has come to light. According to John Trevena, Mr. Sterner's lawyer, Benjamin Rayburn, 32, who is paralyzed and currently serving a 10 year prison sentence was also dumped out of his wheelchair (Trevena represents Rayburn). Rayburn was arrested October 3, 2006 on charges of aggravated battery with a firearm and a warrant for grand theft. According to an incident report, Rayburn was verbally abusive and threw a crack pipe at the police officers. Rayburn refused to calm down and Detention Deputy Bret Strohsack wrote he was forced to "relocate Rayburn from his wheelchair to the holding cell floor". A video clearly shows Rayburn being dumped out of his wheelchair. Unlike Sterner, Rayburn broke the law and has a long criminal history. He was arrested for good reason--he shot a man in the back with a .32 caliber handgun (the victim recovered). No one at the jail has any intention offering Rayburn an apology.
The second case must prompt the Florida attorney general's office to broaden their investigation. Regardless of what a disabled person has done wrong, dumping them out of their wheelchair is inexcusable. I would also like the attorney general's office to investigate why it is standard practice to take away a person's personal wheelchair when arrested and replace it with a jail issued wheelchair. This by itself can cause a disabled person to be injured.
Sadly, the emergence of a second so called wheelchair dumping incident is not a surprise. I expect other cases will come to light in Florida and elsewhere. I suspect when disabled people are arrested they are more likely to be abused by police and inmates. The easiest and most effective way to abuse and humiliate a person that uses a wheelchair is to dump them onto the floor. This is clearly not only a physical violation but a human rights violation as well. Guilt is or innocence is not relevant. The sooner this fact is acknowledged the better.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Civil Rights People Do Not Understand
Yesterday was the sort of day that makes me love technology and yearn for social isolation. For my birthday last week my mother bought me an ipod touch. This new electronic toy is a useful tool and modern marvel. I absolutely love it. I have spent my evenings listening to music, podcasts, and audio books. After a week, I am confident that I know how to use most applications on the ipod and decided it was time to purchase a case for it in the event I drop it.
Content with the world and my place in it, I drove to local mall where the Apple store is located. My good mood came to an abrupt halt before I even got to the store. I found an empty spot in handicap parking and proceeded to get my wheelchair out of the car. A total stranger was walking by, came to a dead stop and began to stare at me as though I was a freak of nature. The behavior of this individual was not all that unusual--people often stare or at least take a long glance at me when I get my wheelchair in or out of the car. Why putting a wheelchair in and out of the car is so fascinating to people I will never quite understand. Regardless, when a person stops dead in their tracks to stare at me I get annoyed. I also stop what I am doing and stare back. This is exactly what I did yesterday in the mall parking lot. When I starred back the individual in question told me not to stop because, and I quote, "I didn't know people like you could get your twisted and ugly bodies out of a car by yourself. This is amazing, I wish I had my camera".
The person that accosted me undoubtedly took ignorance to a higher level than most people. Yet the behavior and statement was within the norm and highlights an inherent problem with American culture. Disability in the broadest sense of the term is not perceived to be a civil rights issue. The same person that accosted me yesterday would never make an over the top bigoted statement to a black person. He knows that would be wrong--it is a well understood and known cultural assumption that prejudice based on the color of one's skin is socially unacceptable. Can the same be said about disability rights? In a word, no. Disability rights author Mary Johnson has noted that no one wakes up in the morning and thinks "I am going to be prejudiced against disabled people today". Yet explicit prejudice against disabled people is routine and socially acceptable. Interactions such as the one I had with the person at the mall may seem trivial but when this happens day in and day out it has a cumulative impact. The message sent is clear: any one can comment on the mere presence of a disabled person because they are not fully human. Crippled people have no social standing--pun intended. We crippled people are not equal. Ordinary life is not possible and routine activities never thought of such as getting in and out of a car become major achievements. This thinking makes my guts churn. It makes me angry and what happens when I assert my rights? I am perceived to have a "chip
on my shoulder". The social predicament is a Catch 22 situation. I cannot assert my rights because I run the risk of being called bitter, mad at the world because I cannot walk. Conversely, if I do not assert my rights as a human being I am perceived to be the good cripple, subservient, happy for societal largesse.
My civil rights or lack of them as a crippled man never ceases to bother me. I have lost many nights sleep questioning why are bipedal humans so resistant to the inclusion of people with an obvious disability. Is it a matter of ignorance? Is it money? Do people resent ramps and elevators? What is inherently wrong with using a wheelchair? For the bipedal readers of this post I have news: there is nothing wrong with me or using a wheelchair. Walking is truly over rated. The problem is not mine it is yours.
Content with the world and my place in it, I drove to local mall where the Apple store is located. My good mood came to an abrupt halt before I even got to the store. I found an empty spot in handicap parking and proceeded to get my wheelchair out of the car. A total stranger was walking by, came to a dead stop and began to stare at me as though I was a freak of nature. The behavior of this individual was not all that unusual--people often stare or at least take a long glance at me when I get my wheelchair in or out of the car. Why putting a wheelchair in and out of the car is so fascinating to people I will never quite understand. Regardless, when a person stops dead in their tracks to stare at me I get annoyed. I also stop what I am doing and stare back. This is exactly what I did yesterday in the mall parking lot. When I starred back the individual in question told me not to stop because, and I quote, "I didn't know people like you could get your twisted and ugly bodies out of a car by yourself. This is amazing, I wish I had my camera".
The person that accosted me undoubtedly took ignorance to a higher level than most people. Yet the behavior and statement was within the norm and highlights an inherent problem with American culture. Disability in the broadest sense of the term is not perceived to be a civil rights issue. The same person that accosted me yesterday would never make an over the top bigoted statement to a black person. He knows that would be wrong--it is a well understood and known cultural assumption that prejudice based on the color of one's skin is socially unacceptable. Can the same be said about disability rights? In a word, no. Disability rights author Mary Johnson has noted that no one wakes up in the morning and thinks "I am going to be prejudiced against disabled people today". Yet explicit prejudice against disabled people is routine and socially acceptable. Interactions such as the one I had with the person at the mall may seem trivial but when this happens day in and day out it has a cumulative impact. The message sent is clear: any one can comment on the mere presence of a disabled person because they are not fully human. Crippled people have no social standing--pun intended. We crippled people are not equal. Ordinary life is not possible and routine activities never thought of such as getting in and out of a car become major achievements. This thinking makes my guts churn. It makes me angry and what happens when I assert my rights? I am perceived to have a "chip
on my shoulder". The social predicament is a Catch 22 situation. I cannot assert my rights because I run the risk of being called bitter, mad at the world because I cannot walk. Conversely, if I do not assert my rights as a human being I am perceived to be the good cripple, subservient, happy for societal largesse.
My civil rights or lack of them as a crippled man never ceases to bother me. I have lost many nights sleep questioning why are bipedal humans so resistant to the inclusion of people with an obvious disability. Is it a matter of ignorance? Is it money? Do people resent ramps and elevators? What is inherently wrong with using a wheelchair? For the bipedal readers of this post I have news: there is nothing wrong with me or using a wheelchair. Walking is truly over rated. The problem is not mine it is yours.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
More on Obama
I have never been driven to become active in politics. This week I have been reminded why I have consistently avoided getting politically involved. To be blunt, the more I have learned about Barack Obama the less impressed I have become. If he, the acknowledged best candidate for people with disabilities, is the fiercest advocate for disabled people we are in deep trouble. Change, if it is to take place, had better happen quickly or it will not happen at all. This came to me after a reading an article by Jim Dickson, Vice President for Government Affairs of the American Association of People with Disabilities. According to Dickson, primary elections are more important than the general election. In part, this is because the candidates who remain have identified their supporters and decided which issues to base their platforms on. This makes sense to me and based on my email exchange with Seth Harris at the Obama campaign they have decided they are doing the best they can to lure disabled voters. Their best may or may not include access at campaign events and interpreters for the deaf. Their best may include access information on their website but I would not hold my breathe waiting for that to happen. Change, if it is going to take place, will not be coming any time soon.
This is all profoundly disappointing and not only is part of me angry but I feel misled. Earlier this month I read an open letter written by former Clinton officials who endorsed Obama. Seth Harris, Paul Steven Miller, Sue Swenson, and Robert Williams, all major political figures, wrote that Obama was the "disability communities best choice for change" and urged people to "join us in voting and caucusing for Barack Obama". They maintained that there is a need for dramatic change and that Obama represented the best chance for us to change the world, one where it was possible "to build a society in which every person can feel that they belong". This may or may not be true. But one thing I am sure of--it is hard to caucus for a candidate if there is no way to find out if events designed to support a candidate are accessible. It is hard to caucus for a candidate if no interpreters are present.
Based on what I have read on line, I sense a growing dissatisfaction among disabled people with Obama. For instance, I read an interesting post by Ben Vess. Apparently Ness, a deaf man, went to an Obama rally in Virginia Beach and left decidedly unimpressed. He asked people staffing the event if an interpreter would be present and no one knew the answer and was told to simply wait and see if someone showed up. While an interpreter was present, he expected him/her to be on stage and off to one side, clearly visible to the deaf audience. Instead the interpreter was behind the stage, out of sight of many and could not hear Obama because she was behind the speakers. This led Vess to wonder why an interpreter was present (here is the link: http://blog.benvess.com/
Obama has not as yet lost my vote but I am certainly moving in that direction. Running a campaign is complex, costly, and time consuming. I have no doubt including information about a host of access issues is a daunting task. But the more I read the more I get the impression the Obama campaign is trying but ready to concede defeat. The desire may be there to include information about access but that does not help Vess see an interpreter placed behind a stage nor does it help me when I need to know if an event is wheelchair accessible.
Seth Harris wrote to me that he thinks "we're well ahead of the rest of society but nowhere near finished". Part of the problem for Obama is that they are dealing with people who have limited experience with accessibility issues. This observation is sadly not a surprise and an indictment of American society that passed the ADA almost two decades ago--a law that has been gutted by the Supreme Court and ignored and violated whenever possible. I wonder if with Obama we are going to get change or just politics as usual.
This is all profoundly disappointing and not only is part of me angry but I feel misled. Earlier this month I read an open letter written by former Clinton officials who endorsed Obama. Seth Harris, Paul Steven Miller, Sue Swenson, and Robert Williams, all major political figures, wrote that Obama was the "disability communities best choice for change" and urged people to "join us in voting and caucusing for Barack Obama". They maintained that there is a need for dramatic change and that Obama represented the best chance for us to change the world, one where it was possible "to build a society in which every person can feel that they belong". This may or may not be true. But one thing I am sure of--it is hard to caucus for a candidate if there is no way to find out if events designed to support a candidate are accessible. It is hard to caucus for a candidate if no interpreters are present.
Based on what I have read on line, I sense a growing dissatisfaction among disabled people with Obama. For instance, I read an interesting post by Ben Vess. Apparently Ness, a deaf man, went to an Obama rally in Virginia Beach and left decidedly unimpressed. He asked people staffing the event if an interpreter would be present and no one knew the answer and was told to simply wait and see if someone showed up. While an interpreter was present, he expected him/her to be on stage and off to one side, clearly visible to the deaf audience. Instead the interpreter was behind the stage, out of sight of many and could not hear Obama because she was behind the speakers. This led Vess to wonder why an interpreter was present (here is the link: http://blog.benvess.com/
Obama has not as yet lost my vote but I am certainly moving in that direction. Running a campaign is complex, costly, and time consuming. I have no doubt including information about a host of access issues is a daunting task. But the more I read the more I get the impression the Obama campaign is trying but ready to concede defeat. The desire may be there to include information about access but that does not help Vess see an interpreter placed behind a stage nor does it help me when I need to know if an event is wheelchair accessible.
Seth Harris wrote to me that he thinks "we're well ahead of the rest of society but nowhere near finished". Part of the problem for Obama is that they are dealing with people who have limited experience with accessibility issues. This observation is sadly not a surprise and an indictment of American society that passed the ADA almost two decades ago--a law that has been gutted by the Supreme Court and ignored and violated whenever possible. I wonder if with Obama we are going to get change or just politics as usual.
Monday, February 18, 2008
An Obama Update Updated
I received a polite, informative, and promising email from Seth Harris, co-chair of the Obama campaign's Disability Policy Committee. Apparently an accessibility check list has been in the works and will be released and, more importantly, used soon. According to Harris, who is also a professor at New York Law School, the Obama campaign website is managed out of Chicago but events are not. This obviously makes inclusion of access information more problematic but not impossible to resolve. While Harris' email was promising and supportive in general there were phrases of concern. For instance he noted access was a "desirable goal" while I would characterize it as a must. I replied to Harris email this morning and remain committed to insuring access information be posted at the Obama campaign website. In my email to Harris I wrote that it was not just the right thing to do but would demonstrate Obama is really a man of change. It would also distinguish Obama from every other person running for president. This I would think is very desirable for a politician. I have no idea if I will be successful in my efforts and part of me feels like the classic character in the children's book The Little Engine That Could who repeats "I think I can I think can". Obama is a man of power while I am a man with, well, a blog and determination.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Wheelchair Dumping and Counter Punch
I began to write a post about Brian Sterner and the infamous wheelchair dumping story that is still developing in Tampa Florida last week while I was getting four new tires put on my car. The entry became too long and I decided to send it to Counter Punch where is was published yesterday. Here is the link:
http://www.counterpunch.org/peace02162008.html
The responses to the story have largely been positive. And this is why I love to write for Counter Punch. As a writer, nothing is more frustrating than pouring work into a story and getting no feedback from readers. Counter Punch readers write to authors and most make some astute observations. This is why writing for Counter Punch is such a rewarding experience--it helps that the editor, Alex Cockburn, is not only dedicated but very smart and politically savvy. Please read the article and let me know what you think.
http://www.counterpunch.org/peace02162008.html
The responses to the story have largely been positive. And this is why I love to write for Counter Punch. As a writer, nothing is more frustrating than pouring work into a story and getting no feedback from readers. Counter Punch readers write to authors and most make some astute observations. This is why writing for Counter Punch is such a rewarding experience--it helps that the editor, Alex Cockburn, is not only dedicated but very smart and politically savvy. Please read the article and let me know what you think.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Pistorius Appeals Olympic Ban
Multiple news papers are reporting that Oscar Pistorius has appealed to the Court of Arbitration (CAS) against his ban from running at the Beijing Olympics with two prostheses. As discussed in previous entries, Pistorius was banned the IAAF from competing against non disabled athletes because his prostheses know as Cheetahs gave him an unfair advantage. This ban was based on two days of studies conducted by Peter Bruggeman at the German Sport University.
According to Pistorius, several studies conducted in the United States have contradicted the findings of Professor Bruggeman. The dispute centers around the amount of energy absorbed and returned by Pistorius' below the knee prostheses. This is the mechanical or biological source of disagreement between Pistorius and the IAAF. While I am not qualified to render an opinion on whether Pistorius' prostheses give him a competative advantage, I hardly think a two day study can provide conclusive evidence he should not run. This point has been made by Pistorius' lawyer who stated "The tests that were performed, we believe, were completely flawed and inadequate".
What interests me are the social implications of Pistorius' ban. Why, I wonder, did no one objected to Pistorius presence until he started to post impressive Olympic quality times and beat competators who raced without prostheses? This point has not been missed by Pistorius who in July ran in the 400 meters B race at the Golden Gala in Rome placing second. Pistorius has repeatedly stated that he would have preferred to keep his appeal within the athletic community--he simply wanted to be treated with the same respect as any other world class athlete. Instead, Pistorius has been forced to take his appeal public because he knows it is the only way he will be treated fairly. Pistorius also knows that his appeal has wider significance. He stated that was filing his "appeal not just for myself but for all disabled athletes. We deserve a chance to compete at the highest levels if our bodies permit us to do so".
I doubt Pistorius appeal will result in victory. Sporting events such as the Olympic Games are about much more than sports. They are laden with rampant nationalism and deep symbolic meaning. This leads me to speculate that Pistorius simply does not look like a world class athlete that most people imagine. Runners run with two feet. Winners walk up to and on a raised podium while the national anthem plays. This vision has not changed in more than a century. Thus Pistorius mere presence upsets this tradition and is a social affront to other athletes and viewers of the Olympic Games.
According to Pistorius, several studies conducted in the United States have contradicted the findings of Professor Bruggeman. The dispute centers around the amount of energy absorbed and returned by Pistorius' below the knee prostheses. This is the mechanical or biological source of disagreement between Pistorius and the IAAF. While I am not qualified to render an opinion on whether Pistorius' prostheses give him a competative advantage, I hardly think a two day study can provide conclusive evidence he should not run. This point has been made by Pistorius' lawyer who stated "The tests that were performed, we believe, were completely flawed and inadequate".
What interests me are the social implications of Pistorius' ban. Why, I wonder, did no one objected to Pistorius presence until he started to post impressive Olympic quality times and beat competators who raced without prostheses? This point has not been missed by Pistorius who in July ran in the 400 meters B race at the Golden Gala in Rome placing second. Pistorius has repeatedly stated that he would have preferred to keep his appeal within the athletic community--he simply wanted to be treated with the same respect as any other world class athlete. Instead, Pistorius has been forced to take his appeal public because he knows it is the only way he will be treated fairly. Pistorius also knows that his appeal has wider significance. He stated that was filing his "appeal not just for myself but for all disabled athletes. We deserve a chance to compete at the highest levels if our bodies permit us to do so".
I doubt Pistorius appeal will result in victory. Sporting events such as the Olympic Games are about much more than sports. They are laden with rampant nationalism and deep symbolic meaning. This leads me to speculate that Pistorius simply does not look like a world class athlete that most people imagine. Runners run with two feet. Winners walk up to and on a raised podium while the national anthem plays. This vision has not changed in more than a century. Thus Pistorius mere presence upsets this tradition and is a social affront to other athletes and viewers of the Olympic Games.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Obama Update
I will not be going to the local Obama event. It is being held at an inaccessible location. How do I know this? I got a reply from the person who organized the event. This is the good news. The bad news is that all such local events are created and run at the grass roots level. Even if a person organizing an event wanted to include information about wheelchair at an upcoming event it is not possible. At the Obama website one goes to "events" and under events there are three subheadings: "Find an event", "Create an event" and "Manage events". Anyone who desires can create an event. Once "Create an event" is clicked the person hosting the event is restricted to posting the time date and location.
Now that I know how the process works I will now try and find someone who oversees the website and strongly suggest access information be included. This is very important to me for practical and larger reasons: First, I would like to be a part of the process and second, I went to the website of every major candidate, Democratic and Republican, and not a single website includes any information about wheelchair access. Unless disabled people are part of the democratic process, and that means a recognized voting block, their existence will not be valued. I will continue to keep you posted on my progress as I am a man with a mission.
Now that I know how the process works I will now try and find someone who oversees the website and strongly suggest access information be included. This is very important to me for practical and larger reasons: First, I would like to be a part of the process and second, I went to the website of every major candidate, Democratic and Republican, and not a single website includes any information about wheelchair access. Unless disabled people are part of the democratic process, and that means a recognized voting block, their existence will not be valued. I will continue to keep you posted on my progress as I am a man with a mission.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Obama and Disability
I am not impressed by any candidate running for president. The Republicans are, well Republicans and will not be getting my vote. As for the Democrats, I dislike Hilary Clinton for a host of reasons. The only candidate that intrigues me is Barack Obama. He is obviously a gifted speaker and writer. As a fellow Columbia graduate, I liked his book and overall am impressed with how well he is able to articulate his views.
This morning I decided I needed to become a bit more educated about Obama and what he stands for. Readers of this blog will not be surprised to read that the first thing I wanted to know more about was his position on disability rights. I went to BarackObama.com and came away impressed and annoyed. A well reasoned position paper is available entitled "Barack Obama's Plan to Empower Americans with Disabilities". I liked the title and the four point plan that is both forward looking and reactive. There is also a short personal video statement about disability as well.
Given my positive reaction to Obama's plan to empower disabled Americans, I decided that I should try and see the candidate at an event. I also thought going to an event would be a good experience for my son who in a few years will be old enough to vote and has repeatedly told me not to vote for Hilary Clinton. The Obama website is very professional and easy navigate. I clicked on "Find Events", plugged in my zip code and multiple events popped up in less than a second. I then went to event details and this is where things broke down for me. I went to each and every event listing within 100 miles of my home and not once was any information about wheelchair access included. No information about interpreters for the blind--not a single word about accommodations for any disabled people. Obama and his staff have written a good position paper but missed the point about real inclusion. Sure Obama may support the rights of disabled people but neglecting to include information about access at each and every event is more than just a mistake. It is a slap in the face to every disabled person aware of their civil rights. I am angry and this morning I sent two firm but polite emails to the Obama campaign. My vote will now hinge on the reply I get. Is Obama a poser? Does he really support disabled people, want their vote, and support equal access? If so, someone from the campaign will reply to my email and the gross oversight on the website will be corrected. If Obama is a fake and simply seeking to garner votes via position papers I will get no reply. I will keep you posted. And if you want to be part of this experiment in the democratic process send the Obama campaign an email too. Let's see if he is for real--a man of words and actions.
This morning I decided I needed to become a bit more educated about Obama and what he stands for. Readers of this blog will not be surprised to read that the first thing I wanted to know more about was his position on disability rights. I went to BarackObama.com and came away impressed and annoyed. A well reasoned position paper is available entitled "Barack Obama's Plan to Empower Americans with Disabilities". I liked the title and the four point plan that is both forward looking and reactive. There is also a short personal video statement about disability as well.
Given my positive reaction to Obama's plan to empower disabled Americans, I decided that I should try and see the candidate at an event. I also thought going to an event would be a good experience for my son who in a few years will be old enough to vote and has repeatedly told me not to vote for Hilary Clinton. The Obama website is very professional and easy navigate. I clicked on "Find Events", plugged in my zip code and multiple events popped up in less than a second. I then went to event details and this is where things broke down for me. I went to each and every event listing within 100 miles of my home and not once was any information about wheelchair access included. No information about interpreters for the blind--not a single word about accommodations for any disabled people. Obama and his staff have written a good position paper but missed the point about real inclusion. Sure Obama may support the rights of disabled people but neglecting to include information about access at each and every event is more than just a mistake. It is a slap in the face to every disabled person aware of their civil rights. I am angry and this morning I sent two firm but polite emails to the Obama campaign. My vote will now hinge on the reply I get. Is Obama a poser? Does he really support disabled people, want their vote, and support equal access? If so, someone from the campaign will reply to my email and the gross oversight on the website will be corrected. If Obama is a fake and simply seeking to garner votes via position papers I will get no reply. I will keep you posted. And if you want to be part of this experiment in the democratic process send the Obama campaign an email too. Let's see if he is for real--a man of words and actions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
