I am not a supporter of John McCain or the Republican Party. I find too many entrenched Republican positions extreme and go against common sense. Yet I hasten to note I am no fan of the Democratic Party. If it were up to me our country would be well served if the two party system was overturned. This is an unrealistic expectation and for better or worse we are stuck with the Republicans and Democrats, our choice for President McCain or Obama. Deciding who to vote for is simple for me--I hope Obama will win the election even if I no longer like him as much as I once did.
In terms of disability who is the better choice, Obama or McCain? Based on my reading and examination of disability related websites the choice is clear, Obama has the support of most disability rights groups. However, McCain's choice of Governor Sarah Palin has thrown many for a loop. Palin is a strange choice for McCain. Her complex family life has created a furor in the press corp and the tabloids have a field day writing about her pregnant 17 year old daughter. But what is of interest to me is the reaction to her youngest child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome. Within days I have grown weary of one vacuous article after another that discusses "special-needs children". Thus I looked forward to Palin's speech last night as I wondered how she would perform. And let me make one thing clear--last night was a performance, a made for TV event designed to sway voters. Palin did a good job and she should put to rest any comparisons to Quayle that are damning.
So, what did Palin have to say about "special needs children"? Not much aside from platitudes. I did not expect anything of substance as last night because she goal was to prove she was simply a competent person. Palin accomplished this with an expected feisty speech. As to disability related issues, for those unfamiliar with the subject Palin might have impressed voters. But what she really did was provide powerful images. Cindy McCain sat between Mr. Palin and the Palin's 14 year old daughter who cradled her baby brother while Sarah Palin spoke. At one point, Mrs. McCain held Trig. This is just what the Republican Party wanted. The image spoke volumes and were broadcast in prime time--conservative Christians and anti-abortionists were thrilled. The image projected would have some believe the Republicans care about "special needs children" and all those that are disenfranchised. Can you say compassionate conservative? Ugh, how stupid can Americans be!
The reality is Palin said little about disability. The most specific comment she made were as follows. "To the families of special needs [crowd rises to its feet cheering forcing Palin to stop speaking] to the families of special needs children all across this country, I have a message for you. For years you've sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters. And I pledge to you that if we're elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House". I have no doubt Palin will indeed be a friend of parents who have a child with Down Syndrome. Although insulated, Palin will learn much stigma is associated with adults who have Downs Syndrome. As for her being an advocate, I find that hard to imagine given the fact the Republican Party record on support services for such special need families is abysmal. The skeptic in me thinks the Republicans got just what they wanted: a young, attractive, conservative woman that is unknown and has no track record in national politics. Palin will also provide a counter point to McCain's elderly status thereby negating the age disparity with Obama. Gosh, this sounds so jaded but national politics does this to me.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Is walking Over Rated?
Like most people I spent the first eighteen years of my life upright. I took walking for granted and thought nothing about what life must be like for people who use a wheelchair. Fast forward thirty years and my thinking process has changed. I do not think about what life is like for people who can walk. Instead, I wonder why people who walk think this form of locomotion is so great. Sure walking is efficient and humans are designed to be bipedal. But for people with a physical deficit such as paralysis is it worth devoting all one's time, energy, and money in an effort to walk? I for one think not. The overwhelming importance society places on walking is never far from my mind because it helps form the basis for oppressing those that use a wheelchair. It is a given that walking is superior to using a wheelchair. Those that walk often think and tell me life "in chair" must be very hard. This assessment is correct, life is hard for paralyzed people. However, what people do not realize is that the problems I encounter have little to do with my paralysis and inability to walk. What makes life hard for those that use a wheelchair is the moral superiority of those that can walk. This came to the forefront of my mind last night as I read Harriet McBryde Johnson's wonderful book, Accidents of Nature. Let me share a quote:
It is funny. Therapists, teachers, relatives--everyone--they all think walking is such a wonderful thing. And we don't question that. We believe it must be worthwhile, or they wouldn't torture us for it. And then, finally, you get up on your two feet, take a few halting steps--pardon me, I mean courageous and determined steps--and the cameras flash, and everyone's inspired. But then you find out walking is a lousy way to move from place to place... When you start to think for yourself, you realize a wheelchair is a better way to get where you're going.
For those unfortunate souls that do not use a wheelchair let me clue you in--using a wheelchair is often a far better and more efficient way to get around. For instance, I can cruise around a museum for hours on end and never tire. I can propel my wheelchair much faster than those that walk. In fact, I often need to slow down if I am accompanied by a person that can walk. To me a wheelchair is not only an efficient means of locomotion but much more. When I am zoned in I have a deep connection between myself and the wheelchair I use. On a daily basis I feel a great sense of freedom and independence as I move around. In sharp contrast, many who can walk think life "in a chair must suck". What is not verbalized is that they believe a wheelchair represents a symbolic failure physically and morally. In essence walking is good wheelchair use is bad.
The ability to walk in our society is a pre-requisite for equality. Those that cannot walk are expected to devote all their time in an all out effort to walk again. These people, think Christopher Reeve, are respected, lauded, fawned over and invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention. Huge sums of money are spent and bizarre devices such as Robo-Skeletons are invented to get people upright. All such efforts conveniently ignored the social consequences of disability and cast a negative light on people such myself and millions of others that express no interest in walking. Worse yet, I am disabled and proud. This sense of pride in my body and wheelchair subvert an unquestioned cultural norm. For violating this norm I am perceived to be difficult. I am the bad guy that does not know how to accept what society is willing to hand out. Well, I for one willingly piss on such pity. I expect and demand much more out of life: to be treated with the same respect and dignity of those that walk. I think this is a modest expectation, one I hope to experience some day.
It is funny. Therapists, teachers, relatives--everyone--they all think walking is such a wonderful thing. And we don't question that. We believe it must be worthwhile, or they wouldn't torture us for it. And then, finally, you get up on your two feet, take a few halting steps--pardon me, I mean courageous and determined steps--and the cameras flash, and everyone's inspired. But then you find out walking is a lousy way to move from place to place... When you start to think for yourself, you realize a wheelchair is a better way to get where you're going.
For those unfortunate souls that do not use a wheelchair let me clue you in--using a wheelchair is often a far better and more efficient way to get around. For instance, I can cruise around a museum for hours on end and never tire. I can propel my wheelchair much faster than those that walk. In fact, I often need to slow down if I am accompanied by a person that can walk. To me a wheelchair is not only an efficient means of locomotion but much more. When I am zoned in I have a deep connection between myself and the wheelchair I use. On a daily basis I feel a great sense of freedom and independence as I move around. In sharp contrast, many who can walk think life "in a chair must suck". What is not verbalized is that they believe a wheelchair represents a symbolic failure physically and morally. In essence walking is good wheelchair use is bad.
The ability to walk in our society is a pre-requisite for equality. Those that cannot walk are expected to devote all their time in an all out effort to walk again. These people, think Christopher Reeve, are respected, lauded, fawned over and invited to speak at the Democratic National Convention. Huge sums of money are spent and bizarre devices such as Robo-Skeletons are invented to get people upright. All such efforts conveniently ignored the social consequences of disability and cast a negative light on people such myself and millions of others that express no interest in walking. Worse yet, I am disabled and proud. This sense of pride in my body and wheelchair subvert an unquestioned cultural norm. For violating this norm I am perceived to be difficult. I am the bad guy that does not know how to accept what society is willing to hand out. Well, I for one willingly piss on such pity. I expect and demand much more out of life: to be treated with the same respect and dignity of those that walk. I think this is a modest expectation, one I hope to experience some day.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Blatant Discrimination at the Race Track
My father, John H. Peace, had a life long interest in thoroughbred race horses. Both my mother and father loved the track and the horses. Their life long dream was to own thoroughbreds and due to my father's hard work and great success in business this dream came true. For almost three decades my father owned and raced thoroughbred horses. Growing up, all of my siblings and I spent time with my parents at race tracks such as Aqueduct, Belmont, and Saratoga in New York, Gulf Stream and Calder in Florida. My parents love of the horses never fully rubbed off on me because I have never been able to look past the social and economic inequities at the track. For those unfamiliar with horse racing, going to the track is like stepping back in time. The "Sport of Kings" has been and remains a sport for very wealthy people. It is a rich man's game, one I find fascinating because the rich and poor mingle side by side. The social interaction that takes place at the track is unique in American society that often relegates the poor to places well out of sight of the middle and upper classes.
Since I was a kid I have enjoyed going to Saratoga race track. Thoroughbred race horses are majestic animals and the way they can run at such high speeds (about 45 mph) on spindle like legs is nothing short of awe inspiring. The crowds at Saratoga are large and festive. The track itself is an architectural beauty--I love the wooden floors that creek underfoot and fans hanging from the ceiling that circulate the air. The real attraction, the people and the horses, are amazingly diverse. The richest people in the thoroughbred business go to Saratoga every year. They not only run their horses at the track but attend horse sales that routinely set record prices for thoroughbreds. The amount of money spent at the horse sales is nothing short of staggering. The horses that run every August are among the best and the track holds special memories for me. My fondest memories of my father are associated with the horses he owned and raced at Saratoga. It is the one place I continue to feel a close connection with my father since his death. Every time I go to the track In Saratoga I have a beer with a frothy head in his honor and retrace the steps we once took together.
In the last two years my memories of Saratoga have been replaced with very different emotions--shock, horror, and the grossest violation of my civil rights that I have experienced in more than 25 years. Let me explain. When a person owns a horse the most exciting part of race day is meeting the horse trainer and jockey before the race in the paddock area. This is where the horses are saddled and last minute details ironed out. It is the place to be seen, all the movers and shakers in the business are present when their horses run. Symbolically, when one enters the paddock it is public recognition of the money, time and energy spent getting a given horse to this point. The paddock is thus much more than simply where one saddles a horse, it is the heart of the track.
I have been in the paddock area of many tracks and have never had a problem entering until last summer at Saratoga. After almost thirty years of entering and exiting the paddock without a hitch when my parents had a horse running I was told by a track security guard that "wheelchairs are not permitted in the paddock". The first time this happened to me last year I ignored the guard and entered the paddock. I dismissed this as the independent action of an individual who did not know what they were doing. Afterall, I was well dressed, I had a suit and tie on which is customary, and, most importantly, had the right to enter the paddock. I did not even mention this incident to my mother as I knew it would upset her as she is a powerful woman and no one messes with her baby (I am the youngest of six). A week later I was shocked to discover that my mother who became an above the knee amputee two years ago and uses a wheelchair was prevented from entering the paddock. Like me, she was told "wheelchairs are not permitted in the paddock". She not only owned a horse that was running but she had entered this paddock without ever being questioned before. The man that trained my mother's horse was just as shocked she was. A flurry of phone calls were made and after a delay my mother was able to enter the paddock.
Why I wondered were my mother and I suddenly prevented from entering the paddock? As a careful observer of horses and people, like many others at the track I always watch the paddock area. Who enters the paddock? Any person with connections to a horse running. By "any person" I truly mean any person with direct connections to the horses running. Young children and toddlers enter as do the very elderly. I have seen people with canes, walkers and crutches enter the paddock. The only people that are now deemed objectionable, barred from entering even if they own a horse, are those that use a wheelchair.
Why are people that use a wheelchair being discriminated against? Why is the track explicitly breaking the law? I was told that "wheelchairs" represented a risk to the horses and humans that use a wheelchair. In reply I asked three questions: first, what was the factual basis for this statement? I questioned why was my "wheelchair" suddenly a risk after entering and exiting a paddock without incident for 25 years. Second, what other humans entitled to enter the paddock banned? Third, were trainers that used a wheelchair such as Dan Hendricks banned from saddling a horse they trained? I was told wheelchairs were a safety risk because people using them could not get out of the way of a horse that might get lose. The ban was meant for the protection of people using a wheelchair. I was also told no one aside from people using a wheelchair were banned from entering the paddock. The person I spoke to could not provide any factual basis for why wheelchairs were suddenly deemed dangerous.
In short, Saratoga has banned one group of people from the paddock--those that use wheelchairs. This is not perceived to be a violation of one's rights but an issue of safety. This is the exact same logic that schools, universities, airlines, bus companies, and a myriad of other businesses used to prohibit the presence of people that use a wheelchair for decades. This type of explicit discrimination is why the American with Disabilities Act was made law, one that has been in place for almost twenty years. The Americans with Disability Act is very clear that any ban on the presence of "wheelchairs" is against the law. Businesses, stadiums, and, yes, race tracks, cannot target a particular group of people such as wheelchair users. The track is not being discrete, they are being aggressively discriminatory. You do not need to be a lawyer or disability rights activist to know this. When I was stopped from entering the paddock by track employees those that observed this were supportive. More than a few people looked shocked when I showed a horse owners license and yet was still told I could not enter. One man told me he had never seen this happen.
Many businesses, particularly sports arenas, learned that they cannot exclude people that use a wheelchair the hard way--they have been sued and all have lost. Banning people that use wheelchair from a stadium or race track, paddock included, is simply against the law. In spite of the fact my civil rights have been violated I do have some sympathy for the racing secretary at Saratoga and other tracks. Thoroughbred race horses are high strung unpredictable animals. Far too many people enter the paddock without reason and over crowding is a real problem. I for one think only the trainer and people with a horse owner license and as well as one guest should be permitted to enter the paddock before a race. As is the current custom, too many people are present in the paddock.
While I acknowledge too many people enter the paddock, this observation has nothing to do with preventing people such as myself and mother from entering the paddock. Every horse owner has the right to enter and exit the paddock when they have a horse running. This cannot at any level be questioned. Entering the paddock is of central importance to owning a race horse. It is part of the racing day and important from a business perspective. The paddock is not just a place to be seen but where connections in an exclusive business are sometimes formed.
In the last week I have called more than a dozen race tracks across the country and not a single one bans an owner that uses a wheelchair from entering the paddock area. I also did an extended internet search and could not find a single incident in which a person using a wheelchair was hurt by a thoroughbred horse. I could not find a single incident where a horse was injured by a wheelchair either. Why then has Saratoga instituted such an obviously discriminatory ban? I cannot help but conclude this ban is based on ignorance, fear, and appearance. Unlike all other minority groups, one can suddenly become disabled. Thus some people fear disability and disabled people. The easiest way for society to cope with this fear is to segregate disabled people. This segregation can take many forms--"special" buses, institutionalization, resource rooms in schools, group homes, etc. I think ignorance and fear play a part in banning people who use a wheelchair from entering the paddock. However, economics and symbolism play a part as well. One does not associate wealth and power with wheelchair use. Those that own horses are wealthy and powerful. Who does the track want to enter and be observed in the paddock? Powerful, rich and well connected people. This description fit my father--he was these things and more--member of the Jockey Club and the New York Race Track Association, and owner of graded stakes winers. This leads me to wonder if my mother and I would have had any trouble entering the paddock if my father was still alive. Somehow I sincerely doubt it. This makes me ashamed for those that work at the track who are forced to support a ban that is blatantly against the law. It also makes me furious with the ignorant bigots that have enacted such a ban. The big question is what should I do? Of course I am going to fight this but how is the real issue and one I have yet to figure out.
Since I was a kid I have enjoyed going to Saratoga race track. Thoroughbred race horses are majestic animals and the way they can run at such high speeds (about 45 mph) on spindle like legs is nothing short of awe inspiring. The crowds at Saratoga are large and festive. The track itself is an architectural beauty--I love the wooden floors that creek underfoot and fans hanging from the ceiling that circulate the air. The real attraction, the people and the horses, are amazingly diverse. The richest people in the thoroughbred business go to Saratoga every year. They not only run their horses at the track but attend horse sales that routinely set record prices for thoroughbreds. The amount of money spent at the horse sales is nothing short of staggering. The horses that run every August are among the best and the track holds special memories for me. My fondest memories of my father are associated with the horses he owned and raced at Saratoga. It is the one place I continue to feel a close connection with my father since his death. Every time I go to the track In Saratoga I have a beer with a frothy head in his honor and retrace the steps we once took together.
In the last two years my memories of Saratoga have been replaced with very different emotions--shock, horror, and the grossest violation of my civil rights that I have experienced in more than 25 years. Let me explain. When a person owns a horse the most exciting part of race day is meeting the horse trainer and jockey before the race in the paddock area. This is where the horses are saddled and last minute details ironed out. It is the place to be seen, all the movers and shakers in the business are present when their horses run. Symbolically, when one enters the paddock it is public recognition of the money, time and energy spent getting a given horse to this point. The paddock is thus much more than simply where one saddles a horse, it is the heart of the track.
I have been in the paddock area of many tracks and have never had a problem entering until last summer at Saratoga. After almost thirty years of entering and exiting the paddock without a hitch when my parents had a horse running I was told by a track security guard that "wheelchairs are not permitted in the paddock". The first time this happened to me last year I ignored the guard and entered the paddock. I dismissed this as the independent action of an individual who did not know what they were doing. Afterall, I was well dressed, I had a suit and tie on which is customary, and, most importantly, had the right to enter the paddock. I did not even mention this incident to my mother as I knew it would upset her as she is a powerful woman and no one messes with her baby (I am the youngest of six). A week later I was shocked to discover that my mother who became an above the knee amputee two years ago and uses a wheelchair was prevented from entering the paddock. Like me, she was told "wheelchairs are not permitted in the paddock". She not only owned a horse that was running but she had entered this paddock without ever being questioned before. The man that trained my mother's horse was just as shocked she was. A flurry of phone calls were made and after a delay my mother was able to enter the paddock.
Why I wondered were my mother and I suddenly prevented from entering the paddock? As a careful observer of horses and people, like many others at the track I always watch the paddock area. Who enters the paddock? Any person with connections to a horse running. By "any person" I truly mean any person with direct connections to the horses running. Young children and toddlers enter as do the very elderly. I have seen people with canes, walkers and crutches enter the paddock. The only people that are now deemed objectionable, barred from entering even if they own a horse, are those that use a wheelchair.
Why are people that use a wheelchair being discriminated against? Why is the track explicitly breaking the law? I was told that "wheelchairs" represented a risk to the horses and humans that use a wheelchair. In reply I asked three questions: first, what was the factual basis for this statement? I questioned why was my "wheelchair" suddenly a risk after entering and exiting a paddock without incident for 25 years. Second, what other humans entitled to enter the paddock banned? Third, were trainers that used a wheelchair such as Dan Hendricks banned from saddling a horse they trained? I was told wheelchairs were a safety risk because people using them could not get out of the way of a horse that might get lose. The ban was meant for the protection of people using a wheelchair. I was also told no one aside from people using a wheelchair were banned from entering the paddock. The person I spoke to could not provide any factual basis for why wheelchairs were suddenly deemed dangerous.
In short, Saratoga has banned one group of people from the paddock--those that use wheelchairs. This is not perceived to be a violation of one's rights but an issue of safety. This is the exact same logic that schools, universities, airlines, bus companies, and a myriad of other businesses used to prohibit the presence of people that use a wheelchair for decades. This type of explicit discrimination is why the American with Disabilities Act was made law, one that has been in place for almost twenty years. The Americans with Disability Act is very clear that any ban on the presence of "wheelchairs" is against the law. Businesses, stadiums, and, yes, race tracks, cannot target a particular group of people such as wheelchair users. The track is not being discrete, they are being aggressively discriminatory. You do not need to be a lawyer or disability rights activist to know this. When I was stopped from entering the paddock by track employees those that observed this were supportive. More than a few people looked shocked when I showed a horse owners license and yet was still told I could not enter. One man told me he had never seen this happen.
Many businesses, particularly sports arenas, learned that they cannot exclude people that use a wheelchair the hard way--they have been sued and all have lost. Banning people that use wheelchair from a stadium or race track, paddock included, is simply against the law. In spite of the fact my civil rights have been violated I do have some sympathy for the racing secretary at Saratoga and other tracks. Thoroughbred race horses are high strung unpredictable animals. Far too many people enter the paddock without reason and over crowding is a real problem. I for one think only the trainer and people with a horse owner license and as well as one guest should be permitted to enter the paddock before a race. As is the current custom, too many people are present in the paddock.
While I acknowledge too many people enter the paddock, this observation has nothing to do with preventing people such as myself and mother from entering the paddock. Every horse owner has the right to enter and exit the paddock when they have a horse running. This cannot at any level be questioned. Entering the paddock is of central importance to owning a race horse. It is part of the racing day and important from a business perspective. The paddock is not just a place to be seen but where connections in an exclusive business are sometimes formed.
In the last week I have called more than a dozen race tracks across the country and not a single one bans an owner that uses a wheelchair from entering the paddock area. I also did an extended internet search and could not find a single incident in which a person using a wheelchair was hurt by a thoroughbred horse. I could not find a single incident where a horse was injured by a wheelchair either. Why then has Saratoga instituted such an obviously discriminatory ban? I cannot help but conclude this ban is based on ignorance, fear, and appearance. Unlike all other minority groups, one can suddenly become disabled. Thus some people fear disability and disabled people. The easiest way for society to cope with this fear is to segregate disabled people. This segregation can take many forms--"special" buses, institutionalization, resource rooms in schools, group homes, etc. I think ignorance and fear play a part in banning people who use a wheelchair from entering the paddock. However, economics and symbolism play a part as well. One does not associate wealth and power with wheelchair use. Those that own horses are wealthy and powerful. Who does the track want to enter and be observed in the paddock? Powerful, rich and well connected people. This description fit my father--he was these things and more--member of the Jockey Club and the New York Race Track Association, and owner of graded stakes winers. This leads me to wonder if my mother and I would have had any trouble entering the paddock if my father was still alive. Somehow I sincerely doubt it. This makes me ashamed for those that work at the track who are forced to support a ban that is blatantly against the law. It also makes me furious with the ignorant bigots that have enacted such a ban. The big question is what should I do? Of course I am going to fight this but how is the real issue and one I have yet to figure out.
Monday, August 11, 2008
Cartoon
I love political cartoons and this one is outstanding. It appeared in The Coast, August 7, 2008, According to Bruce Wark it is easier to get a dog past the Canadian Boarder Services Agency than a disabled child.
O Canada: Disabled Not Welcome
Last month a British family tried to move to Canada. Paul and Barbara-Anne Chapman, their two children, Jack and Lucy, as well as their dog, planned to move to Nova Scotia and open a business. Three years of careful planning was undermined on July 12 when they met with a Canadian Border Guard in Halifax. Apparently the Border Guard told the Chapman's they could not legally enter the country because their daughter was disabled. Lucy, 7 years old has Angelman Syndrome, a rare chromosome disorder. The Border Guard stated her daughter was banned from ever entering Canada under section 38 of the Federal Immigration Act. Despite concerted efforts to appeal this ban, the family was forced to return to Britain on July 30.
The above bare bone facts do not tell the whole story. For more than three years the Chapman's have been planning on permanently moving to Nova Scotia. They want to open up a business, hire about 25 people and in 2008 purchased a house in Fall River. The Chapmans are each former police officers and have run a small business in Britain but are drawn to Nova Scotia for many reasons. Clearly, they are ideal candidates to enter Canada--they are well educated, financially stable, hard working people. This is not good enough because they have a disabled daughter. They know this because they tried to enter Canada in 2005. They were explicitely denied entry because their daughter was disabled. Shortly after being denied entry the Supreme Court of Canada modified the disabilities section of the Immigration Act. The Chapman's reapplied to move Nova Scotia under the immigration nominee program. After two years and the support of six sponsors the Chapman's received approval from the provincial government to enter Canada.
Before the Chapmans arrived at Halifax they were under the impression that they had leaped through all the hurdles that were required to enter Canada. They never tried to sneak into country nor did they hide their daughters disability. They did all that was required by law and even got permission for the family dog to enter Canada. All went well until a Boarder Guard told the Chapmans their daughter was being "red flagged". The family was held in the immigration office for five hours and their passports were seized, all because the Boarder Guard deemed their daughter unworthy of entry. In the Chapman's estimation the actions of the Boarder Guards was nothing short of pure discrimination. It is hard to disagree with this assessment.
After reading multiple news accounts in Britain and Canada, it is clear to me the Chapmans are being discriminated against. Canada may welcome a host of different people but disabled people are not among them. This story is about one thing: human rights. Human rights denied to a family and one 7 year old disabled child in particular. I cannot help but conclude that in Canada disabled people are perceived as an onerous and costly burden. I know this because the Canadian Border has explicitly stated this on "Visiting Canada: Who is inadmissible?" According to this information card people whose conditions "might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on the health or social services" cannot enter the country. Disabled people are thus grouped in with terrorists, war criminals, convicted felons, those bankrupt, organized criminals etc. as unworthy.
Attracted by the a high standard of living in Canada and the recent drive to attract skilled workers, the Chapman's came face to face with ignorance and bigotry of not just one Boarder Guard but a government that deems disabled people as being less than fully human. There is no doubt Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is embarrassed. Amazingly, this story has failed to garner much press but what it has attracted is overwhelmingly negative. A CIC spokesperson has been quoted as stating "People with disabilities can come to Canada. In Canada we have rules and regulations to protect the Canadian people and we have to make sure that the proper process is followed. It is not that we do not want them (the Chapmans) here. They just have to follow the proper process which includes ensuring the residency permit is in place before arriving in Canada". I find this statement misleading at best for I have no doubt had their daughter not been disabled the Chapmans would be happily residing in their home in Fall river instead of being forced to return to Britain.
Is it too much to expect the Canadian Border Service to acknowledge they were wrong? In a word, yes. The fact remains everyone in the Chapman family was welcomed to enter Canada except their disabled daughter. Paul Chapman is all too well aware of this and has stated that if he "arrived back in Canada tomorrow and I am alone, or without my daughter, I would be allowed in. I can come and do business, I am allowed to create jobs for Canadians and to invest my money here in Canada's economy. But if I arrived again with Lucy, we would both be put on the very next plane back to the UK". This reality is hard to accept and is nothing more or less than a gross violation of human rights. This cannot be explained away as a paper work error nor is the story about one family and one disabled child. Disability rights are human rights--a fact that many do not acknowledge in Canada and elsewhere. Until that changes I will continue to rail against the sort of ignorance and bigotry that the Chapman family encountered. Their experience also highlights why I am proud to call myself a bad cripple for all bad cripples need to fight for one another or face social invisibility and isolation.
The above bare bone facts do not tell the whole story. For more than three years the Chapman's have been planning on permanently moving to Nova Scotia. They want to open up a business, hire about 25 people and in 2008 purchased a house in Fall River. The Chapmans are each former police officers and have run a small business in Britain but are drawn to Nova Scotia for many reasons. Clearly, they are ideal candidates to enter Canada--they are well educated, financially stable, hard working people. This is not good enough because they have a disabled daughter. They know this because they tried to enter Canada in 2005. They were explicitely denied entry because their daughter was disabled. Shortly after being denied entry the Supreme Court of Canada modified the disabilities section of the Immigration Act. The Chapman's reapplied to move Nova Scotia under the immigration nominee program. After two years and the support of six sponsors the Chapman's received approval from the provincial government to enter Canada.
Before the Chapmans arrived at Halifax they were under the impression that they had leaped through all the hurdles that were required to enter Canada. They never tried to sneak into country nor did they hide their daughters disability. They did all that was required by law and even got permission for the family dog to enter Canada. All went well until a Boarder Guard told the Chapmans their daughter was being "red flagged". The family was held in the immigration office for five hours and their passports were seized, all because the Boarder Guard deemed their daughter unworthy of entry. In the Chapman's estimation the actions of the Boarder Guards was nothing short of pure discrimination. It is hard to disagree with this assessment.
After reading multiple news accounts in Britain and Canada, it is clear to me the Chapmans are being discriminated against. Canada may welcome a host of different people but disabled people are not among them. This story is about one thing: human rights. Human rights denied to a family and one 7 year old disabled child in particular. I cannot help but conclude that in Canada disabled people are perceived as an onerous and costly burden. I know this because the Canadian Border has explicitly stated this on "Visiting Canada: Who is inadmissible?" According to this information card people whose conditions "might reasonably be expected to cause excessive demands on the health or social services" cannot enter the country. Disabled people are thus grouped in with terrorists, war criminals, convicted felons, those bankrupt, organized criminals etc. as unworthy.
Attracted by the a high standard of living in Canada and the recent drive to attract skilled workers, the Chapman's came face to face with ignorance and bigotry of not just one Boarder Guard but a government that deems disabled people as being less than fully human. There is no doubt Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) is embarrassed. Amazingly, this story has failed to garner much press but what it has attracted is overwhelmingly negative. A CIC spokesperson has been quoted as stating "People with disabilities can come to Canada. In Canada we have rules and regulations to protect the Canadian people and we have to make sure that the proper process is followed. It is not that we do not want them (the Chapmans) here. They just have to follow the proper process which includes ensuring the residency permit is in place before arriving in Canada". I find this statement misleading at best for I have no doubt had their daughter not been disabled the Chapmans would be happily residing in their home in Fall river instead of being forced to return to Britain.
Is it too much to expect the Canadian Border Service to acknowledge they were wrong? In a word, yes. The fact remains everyone in the Chapman family was welcomed to enter Canada except their disabled daughter. Paul Chapman is all too well aware of this and has stated that if he "arrived back in Canada tomorrow and I am alone, or without my daughter, I would be allowed in. I can come and do business, I am allowed to create jobs for Canadians and to invest my money here in Canada's economy. But if I arrived again with Lucy, we would both be put on the very next plane back to the UK". This reality is hard to accept and is nothing more or less than a gross violation of human rights. This cannot be explained away as a paper work error nor is the story about one family and one disabled child. Disability rights are human rights--a fact that many do not acknowledge in Canada and elsewhere. Until that changes I will continue to rail against the sort of ignorance and bigotry that the Chapman family encountered. Their experience also highlights why I am proud to call myself a bad cripple for all bad cripples need to fight for one another or face social invisibility and isolation.
Catching Up
I have not been home for much of the last month. Like many others, August seems to be the time of year when I get away from home. I spent some time in Vermont and was with out local Boy Scout troop at summer camp. The weather while I was away was wild. My son and I got poured and hailed on. When in Vermont flash flooding destroyed a bridge and several roads were badly damaged. Further complicating matters was end of the summer class lectures and a broken computer. Thankfully I own an Apple computer and not a single file was lost.
Two fascinating stories have developed or emerged in the last month. First, BBC America broadcast a show that examined Oscar Pistorius efforts to compete in the Olympics. I came away from this show with decidedly mixed feelings. Pistorius is clearly a gifted runner and his life revolves around a single minded effort to compete as an elite athlete. Yet he does not consider himself disabled and a part of me thinks he is very much like Christopher Reeve: a person who is wealthy and thinks he is morally superior to disabled people. Variables that cannot be ignored, ones that I will comment on in a later entry, is the fact Pistorius is South African, the show broadcast about him produced in Britain, and this blog archetypically American.
The second story I will comment about that a reader pointed out concerns the Paul and Barbara-Anne Chapman family. These parents of two children, one of whom is disabled, were refused residence in Canada. The reason they could not enter Canada appears simple: their daughter would be a "burden" on the Canadian health care system. I need to do further reading about this story before I make any comments. Yet it appears at this point that the Chapman's experience reinforces my concern that a national health care system is as flawed as the private system. Do not misconstrue this statement as support for the existing private health care system in the USA but rather acknowledgment that a nationalized system discriminates against disabled people in a different way.
Two fascinating stories have developed or emerged in the last month. First, BBC America broadcast a show that examined Oscar Pistorius efforts to compete in the Olympics. I came away from this show with decidedly mixed feelings. Pistorius is clearly a gifted runner and his life revolves around a single minded effort to compete as an elite athlete. Yet he does not consider himself disabled and a part of me thinks he is very much like Christopher Reeve: a person who is wealthy and thinks he is morally superior to disabled people. Variables that cannot be ignored, ones that I will comment on in a later entry, is the fact Pistorius is South African, the show broadcast about him produced in Britain, and this blog archetypically American.
The second story I will comment about that a reader pointed out concerns the Paul and Barbara-Anne Chapman family. These parents of two children, one of whom is disabled, were refused residence in Canada. The reason they could not enter Canada appears simple: their daughter would be a "burden" on the Canadian health care system. I need to do further reading about this story before I make any comments. Yet it appears at this point that the Chapman's experience reinforces my concern that a national health care system is as flawed as the private system. Do not misconstrue this statement as support for the existing private health care system in the USA but rather acknowledgment that a nationalized system discriminates against disabled people in a different way.
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Protecting Crippled People
I just about spit up my lunch when I read a New York Times story about Oscar Pistorius. As readers of this blog know, Pistorius is a South African runner popularly known as the Blade Runner. A double amputee, Pistorius has been in the news on a regular basis. He was banned by the IAAF from competing in the Olympic Games because his prostheses were deemed "an unfair advantage". Pistorius reappeared in the news when the IAAF ban was overturned by the Court of Arbitration. Pistorius has again made headlines--not because of his running ability but because of the IAAFs inability to accept him for what he is--a gifted runner.
Pierre Weiss, secretary general of the IAAF, publicly stated that he hoped Pistorius would not compete in the Olympics for the South African relay team "for reasons of safety". According to Weiss, "It's a decision that rests with the officials of the federation of the South African Olympic Committee" but "we'd prefer that they don't select him for reasons of safety". Apparently Weiss's concern is that since only the first leg of the 4x400 meter relay race is run in lanes Pistorius might injure himself or other runners if he ran in a pack. The spokesman for the IAAF, Nick Davies, explained further that "It is a cautionary note. It is one of the few events where there is physical contact between athletes. You are jostling, crouched down at the line waiting for the baton in a group lined up hip to hip".
The reason I almost spit up my lunch is that for decades disabled were prevented from doing a myriad of ordinary things for reasons of "safety". Disabled people were barred from public schools because they were deemed a fire hazard. That is, the presence of a disabled child might prevent a quick evacuation of a school building or classroom. Of paramount concern was the safety of all children. Disabled people were barred from flying on commercial planes until the Air Carrier Access Act. It was thought disabled people represented a flight safety risk. These are just two examples of where "safety" was used to as a form of social oppression. In the exact same way, the IAAF is trying to oppress Pistorius--what exactly is the safety risk? I am sure Pistorious has fallen during his racing career. I am also sure he has gotten up off the ground as well. Likewise, those he is competing with and against have surely fallen in a race. So what if Pistorius falls--is this a reason to ban him from running? In my estimation, no. To me, the IAAF objects to Pistorius inclusion because he does not represent the symbolic ideal they want to project. The first excuse the IAAF tried, that Pistorius's prostheses gave him an unfair advantage failed, and now they are pulling out yet another well worn excuse--we must protect the "safety" of a disabled person. The subtext, what is not said, is that Pistorius should know his social role, specifically be a dependent docile disabled person grateful for society's largesse.
The end result is that the IAAF is shocked and amazed Pistorius has rights and the ability to assert them.
It is unfortunate that the IAAF has not expressed any interest in taking even cursory glance at how disabled people have been ostracized by society. Had they done so, I doubt the IAAF would have fought so hard to ban Pistorius from running in the Olympics. To me, the saddest part of this story, what is lost or only mentioned in passing, is that Pistorius has not reached the qualifying standard. His personal best time is over a half second shy. This is a legitimate reason for Pistorius not making the South African team, particularly if another runner, with or with two legs, can run faster. The fact Pistorius runs with prostheses is not relevant for at issue is an individual's ability and speed.
Pierre Weiss, secretary general of the IAAF, publicly stated that he hoped Pistorius would not compete in the Olympics for the South African relay team "for reasons of safety". According to Weiss, "It's a decision that rests with the officials of the federation of the South African Olympic Committee" but "we'd prefer that they don't select him for reasons of safety". Apparently Weiss's concern is that since only the first leg of the 4x400 meter relay race is run in lanes Pistorius might injure himself or other runners if he ran in a pack. The spokesman for the IAAF, Nick Davies, explained further that "It is a cautionary note. It is one of the few events where there is physical contact between athletes. You are jostling, crouched down at the line waiting for the baton in a group lined up hip to hip".
The reason I almost spit up my lunch is that for decades disabled were prevented from doing a myriad of ordinary things for reasons of "safety". Disabled people were barred from public schools because they were deemed a fire hazard. That is, the presence of a disabled child might prevent a quick evacuation of a school building or classroom. Of paramount concern was the safety of all children. Disabled people were barred from flying on commercial planes until the Air Carrier Access Act. It was thought disabled people represented a flight safety risk. These are just two examples of where "safety" was used to as a form of social oppression. In the exact same way, the IAAF is trying to oppress Pistorius--what exactly is the safety risk? I am sure Pistorious has fallen during his racing career. I am also sure he has gotten up off the ground as well. Likewise, those he is competing with and against have surely fallen in a race. So what if Pistorius falls--is this a reason to ban him from running? In my estimation, no. To me, the IAAF objects to Pistorius inclusion because he does not represent the symbolic ideal they want to project. The first excuse the IAAF tried, that Pistorius's prostheses gave him an unfair advantage failed, and now they are pulling out yet another well worn excuse--we must protect the "safety" of a disabled person. The subtext, what is not said, is that Pistorius should know his social role, specifically be a dependent docile disabled person grateful for society's largesse.
The end result is that the IAAF is shocked and amazed Pistorius has rights and the ability to assert them.
It is unfortunate that the IAAF has not expressed any interest in taking even cursory glance at how disabled people have been ostracized by society. Had they done so, I doubt the IAAF would have fought so hard to ban Pistorius from running in the Olympics. To me, the saddest part of this story, what is lost or only mentioned in passing, is that Pistorius has not reached the qualifying standard. His personal best time is over a half second shy. This is a legitimate reason for Pistorius not making the South African team, particularly if another runner, with or with two legs, can run faster. The fact Pistorius runs with prostheses is not relevant for at issue is an individual's ability and speed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)