I believe there should be a new ‘rights and responsibilities’ Act, a piece of law with informs everyone in detail what their civil rights are as well as their responsibilities and it would cover many issues like employment, housing, transport, education and much more.
I believe it would be outcome based and worded so to explain the principle without causing rights that are economic short cuts to good living as I believe the act should support and reward effort in a context of equal opportunity rather than equality. So one right may be somewhere to sleep which may not necessarily mean the right to their own home as if they live with their parents in a safe and stable relationship, they will have somewhere to stay.
A responsibility may be to follow any health plan agreed with their GP or any health professional to the best of their ability, where failing to do so may delay their access to specific health services like if they do give up smoking or drinking for specific operations.
I believe by having a clearly rights and responsibility agenda, I feel a lot of the battles over human rights can be sorted.
Many disabled people, especially those with minor/hidden impairment, have a problem with the word ‘Spaz’, saying it is offensive and it is too early for people like myself to reclaim the term, as someone with cp. I find this interesting when these people refer to themselves as ‘broken’ or ‘benefit scum’ is a similar way.
Language is complex but the fact is different impairment groups will be developed their own language and culture. If people what to refer to themselves as broken, that is fine, so long as they understand they are not demand every disabled person think that way to make themselves feel better.
Spaz is a term claimed by people with cp, who are very comfortable with their identity and use the term to describe themselves, not all disabled people, as a notion of comedy rather than sarcasism. People without cp do not have any right to dictate whether the term spaz can or can not be used because of their own prejudices.
So many sweeping statements are made about what disabled people need and how discriminated they are by this or take policy based on every mounting so-called research and evidence. But when you really examine this evidence, it is weak and corrupted to suit the wishes of the ‘campaigner’ who motives are often money rather than any greater cause.
The class phrase of ‘statistics, more statistics and lies’ is so true and it is possible to research using specific questions which are guaranteed to get the desired answers. For example, the myth of ‘hate crime’ is fashionable and embedded and so people will be ready to sign up to being victims of hate crimes for minor incidents in their past they did not consider worthy of attention at the time. Further research will likely show the hate crime are from ‘spats’ between 2 people where everyone is at some fault. Disabled people are not china dolls, too fragile to touch for fear of breaking, however much a new generation of activists are fighting for this.
We need to check the evidence being presented as fact and ensure being are campaigning with honest information if that is indeed possible. I try to be honest with what I am presenting.
I have never understood why people need to be negative, especially disabled people. I am a critical person but I can always evidence my concerns with detailed explanation rather than inaccurate sweeping statements. These blogs may be simple and short, but they are written on solid foundations and a positive outlook on the world.
I have always been able to find the positive in the most difficult situations and look at what can be achieved rather than the difficulties. It is clear to be many so-called disabled activists frown upon people who are positive, as they prefer to spout negative government hating nonsense on how bad life is for disabled people.
Life is what you put into it and if they want a negative world, that is what they will receive. Life is not always easy but it is worth living and being positive about.
I believe fundamentally that everyone should get a proper education. I am however sure many disabled children in special schools are not receiving the education they deserve especially as it is hard to prove whether the schools supports academically and social weak adults or rather they create them.
My argument against special schools is it failed to teach children the informal education which can only come from mixing with your peers like social skills and inter-personal skills. It is so easy to spot someone who has gone to a special school, simply from their body language, as well as their low aspirations.
The key argument for special schools at the moment is ‘bullying’ which firstly assumed disabled children are unable to bully each other, and there goes a flying pig! Bullying is wrong but it is a part of growing up. I was bullied at school constantly and the so-called adults handled it badly, added fuel to the flames rather than trying to assist others in understanding my perspective.
The government is totally wrong to promote special schools over inclusion and I hope at some point society will understand the damage special schools do.
We have returned in a era where some disabled people are feeling the need to chain themselves to things is a form of unlawful protest. The last time disabled people did this was the early 90s when disabled people has no right not to be discriminated against and it was about moving away from being objects of pity and becoming citizens. Now people are protesting to remain objects of pity.
The issue is society has moved on the since 9/11 the world is less tolerant to act of violence, however non-violent they are seem. When we have social media and people have an independent voice to see how they feel, like how I am now, can ‘direct action’ really be accepted? It is indeed borderline terrorism and maybe it should be treated as such, especially if disabled people want equality and inclusion. and the crimes against them taken so seriously.
I would like to argue that society, government and social care services still treat people with learning difficulties as a single group in a way people with other impairments are not. It still seems perfectly acceptable for people with learning difficulties to live, work and play together as charities continue them to campaign for ‘their issues’ as a group rather than issues.
I am far from against impairment specific groups, but impairment is one of many interests and issues and it should not be the one way someone is identified. I believe people with learning difficult are ‘forced’ to act as groups tied together because it is supposedly cheaper to provide a service to a group than to meet individual need. It is ofcourse assumes professionals must control every minute of their day and provide a specialised expensive service to deliver what could be provided in the mainstream.
People with learning difficulties are encouraged by charities to campaign to unrealistically attainable rights with responsibility so they will accept the current second class existence offered to them by Charities. The charities add insult to injury by providing so-called research informing people with learning difficulties how much further they need to go in a never ending fight before they will no longer need to support of charities to protect them from the bogeyman in all its guises, which is always reported to be a very very long time off, and I wonder why?!
From disabled person, charities and others, I hear a lot about of demands of what the government should do but they often miss one fact, which is how will it be paid for! The economy has changed forever and the ‘good times’ are never going to be the same, so we must adapt rather than complaint we must have the money to stick to old ways.
In this context, I feel I have a shared responsibility to hope make services more effective and accept cuts in how services are delivered. I have personally always been obsessed with being as efficient and effective as I can be and always making improvements. Since my bankruptcy I am also learnt to minimise by spending and be more happy.
What we think we need can change to fit the money we have and while these are very changing times, I am confidence with some creative thinking, we can get through them.
The Segregation of disabled people in a product on the industry revolution and ‘enlightened science’. Over 100 years ago it was perceived in terms of social Darwinism, the priority was to keep the Human Race strong and ensure its survival was to remove the weak and ‘sub-normals’ from society to protect people from contamination. Therefore a generation of state and charitable institutions were created to keep disabled people locked away. Hitler took the next logical step but that’s another story.
Since disabled people have gained a voice in the 1970s, they are made it clear they hated their segregation and they have fought against it ever since. The Remploy sheltered factories has been an iconic symbol of a failed post-war policy of segregation and the Government’s decision to close them should be hailed as a victory and a step forward in the inclusion and liberation of all disabled people.
It is therefore interested that so-called disabled people who have no idea of its insulting history and their supporters are campaigning to keep the factories open to protect the vulnerable, using the modern version of the same language that caused the segregation of disabled people as dehumanised objects of pity. In this why for real disabled people, these are potentially very dangerous times ahead as others try to rewrite our history.