Month: September 2015

Why dysability?

It is interesting that the day I write this article, I have read a number of other articles that also questions whether the term ‘disability’ is still fit for purpose, although they do not offer a solution in the way I am proposing.
The upshot of ‘austerity’ has been a greater focus on disability by the media, as a welfare issue. Disability is now defined as a label of poverty, and something to pity. Being disabled has become a label to excuse behavior and reduce responsibility. This has now made ‘being disabled’ a justification for not doing things, highly attractive for people who are often lazy and unwilling to take responsibility. The media has turned disability into the poster child of poverty.
This corruption of the disability label has meant issues of inclusion and meaningful contribution have now been frowned upon and even regarded as immoral. The term disability no longer relates to people’s impairments, but rather it is a social and political weapon to show the harm of ‘austerity measures’ by people who know very little about disability issues and the social model of disability.
It is now very difficult to discuss disability issues in the public domain without being dragged into justifying austerity, as welfare activists have hijacked the political space of disabled people from disabled people themselves. This is why I have decided to begin using the term dysability.
Where disability means an inability to do something due to social barriers relating to impairment, dysability means having a difficulty in ability to do something.
This is a subtle difference, and I appreciate many people will see it as a cheap political correctness gimmick, and this is fine. I have personally chosen to use it so I can better identify myself and discuss my issues without always being forced to overcome the left-wing corruption of my identity. I will always explain what dysability means, but I am not making this a campaign issue. I do not want individuals and organisations to feel they have to adopt the time unless they really want to, and they believe they understand its meaning.
Dysability is not the same as disability in terms of ideology and thinking. There are still disabled activists, which I am no longer part off, as I am a dysability activist. This is a slightly different issue, and only time will show that. I believe if people can see themselves as dysabled by society rather than disabled, having difficulties rather than inabilities, they can understand difficulties can always be overcome in one way or another.
This is probably the first of many articles I will write on the subject, and I am keen to see what impact it may make in the coming years. But for now, it is out there, I am using the term dysability, and I have good reasons for doing so. If the term works for you, this is an added bonus.  


– If you like what I say, have a look at my website at http://www.simonstevens.com or follow me on twitter, @simonstevens74

When did asking a disabled person to take responsibility for their actions become a crime?

It is generally assumed that the way to improve the inclusion of sick and disabled people is to focus on providing them access to rights. However, rights simply exist, they are passive and meaningless without responsibilities. Anti-discrimination ‘civil rights’ legislation, like the original ‘Disability Discrimination Act 1995’ is really about the right to take responsibility in terms of employment, transport and so on. It is easy to provide equal rights on a piece of paper, but it is much harder to create equal responsibilities, the true sign of inclusion.

At a time where the agenda should be shifting from rights to responsibilities, it has instead been halted and maybe reversed. As more people identify themselves as disabled people, there is an assumption that being associated with this label means it is acceptable to make excuses to avoid responsibilities. Society seems to be backlashing against this next step to the full and meaningful inclusion of disabled people as full contributing members of society.

By this, I mean that the media, politicians and activists have framed disabled people as the most vulnerable members of society who needs protecting at all costs. The misplaced prejudice reduces disabled people to the ranks of children, unable to take responsibility for their actions. We now reached a point where even asking disabled people to fill out a form results in public outcry because it is too stressful for them!

The mock outcry is partly designed to attack the government, as the stressful forms only ever relates to DWP, as opposed to anyone else. If we look dispassionately at the experience of the average hospital stay, people are subjected to far more violations of their human rights. They do so to get better, and so to receive welfare benefits, you need to fill out forms and have assessments. This is no different to getting a mortgage and millions of other every day stresses.

If you really believe an assessment is too stressful for some people, redesigning it will be meaningless as someone will always complain its not right for them. And when did it become the responsibility of the state to provide disabled people, or anyone else, a stress-free life? Any change in circumstances is and will always be stressful. Wrapping up disabled people in cotton wool will keep them vulnerable and fragile.

While the term is now hated by many over politically correct activists, ‘tough love’ is exactly what disabled people need to be enabled and empowered to be included into society. There must be consequences to my actions and I must have the right to make a complete mess of things. I always found it hypocritical many activists demand the government treats people with mental health issues with ‘kid-gloves’, yet they are happy to personally insult me with no empathy for my own mental health issues, and how that affects my management of emotions.

Too many people are willing to play the disability card to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. It is acceptable to explain the reasons why you may have difficulties performing specific tasks, but simply saying “I am disabled, I can’t …” should no longer be acceptable. If you do not want to work, just admit it as saying “I would love to work but…” annoys me greatly. We all have a responsibility to make a contribution to society, or take the consequences of not doing so.

The ability to take responsibility, or simply take, is going to be the key differences between the Conservative and Labour manifestos at the next election. Labour wants to take social responsibility away from disabled people, making us no different to children. The Tories are bravely fighting against the prejudices that exist to give disabled people the social responsibility they deserve.

– If you like what I say, have a look at my website at http://www.simonstevens.com or follow me on twitter, @simonstevens74

Should I have been put down like a wounded animal?

Over the weekend a friend and fellow activist opposing assisted dying, Liz Carr, emailed me with a link to another Huff post by former UKIP MEP, Godfrey Bloom. The article was denouncing the recent House of Commons vote against Rob Marris’ Assisted Dying Bill as the product of religious nuts and simpletons. His argument was that it is unlawful to leave a wounded animal suffering, so the same logic should apply to humans.

As I often do, I confronted Godfrey about his viewpoint on Twitter, as I saw it, asking whether he would consider me a wounded animal? His response was the denial of the blunt point he made and he concluded that I needed psychiatric treatment, a tweet I believe he has now deleted conveniently. This is when I looked him up on Wikipedia and understood I needed to have compassion for his condition, which I will leave you to work out.

His mental health insult is not untypical reaction on Twitter when people are challenged on a viewpoint they have but don’t really understand. My disappointment is that he was unwilling to follow through with the point he was making. If he truly wishes to equate wounded animals with sick and disabled people, then he is talking about changing how government and society responds to our existence, and I think it is a debate we should have in the public domain so we can expose the deep rooted bigotry that exists.

Biologically speaking, I am the runt of the litter, there is no getting away from that, and in some situations animals are drowned on this basis for economic reasons. The real reason wounded pets are put down is that there was not the technology to heal them, the owner could not afford the cost of available treatments, or the owner simply does not want to look after them in the long term. In farming, a wounded animal is an economic burden and so their killing is nothing more than a business decision. Killing any animal or human being will end their suffering in whatever way others construct it to be.

I am interested to know why Godfrey feels he has a voice in this debate about other people’s lives? He cites locked-in syndrome (ALS) as a perfect example for where assisted suicide would be needed, but I am unaware of any ALS organisation, or any disabled/patient organisation that has been calling for Assisted suicide to be legalised anywhere in the world. I am also unsure why he thinks the selfish desires of a handful of middle class individuals ‘wanting to die’ constitutes the majority of the public.

Emotional blackmail is certainly not the way to make laws. We elect our MPs to make decisions in the best interests of everyone, often with insights we are unaware off such as in terms of security. MPs can not afford to make wild judgments when they are considering the bigger picture. It is easy for Godfrey to say a family would never force an older person to feel like a burden, but the reality is abuse within families have always existed. In the 19th Century, adult children would have their parents committed to an asylum simply so they could steal their money and assets, and so assisted suicide could become the method of obtaining wealth in the 21st Century.

I wished Godfrey had the conviction to justify his deep rooted beliefs. I know there is a magic line between disabled people society is happy to accept, and those it regards as too vulnerable for mainstream society and probably ‘better off dead’. I also know for most people, I am in the second group but people are too wrapped up in political correctness to ever be honest about that. But in order to justify my place in society, I need people to be honest that it is under threat.

What does Jeremy Corbyn really mean for disabled people?

 

As the Monday after the weekend before, we are all waking up and pinching ourselves, did Labour really hit the self-destruct button? As every left wing anti-‘everything and anything’ activists, many fresh out of nappies mostly, now feel unchallengeable as their moral high ground on Twitterville has apparently hit the mainstream, the rest of us now need to get on with living under a Tory government for the long term.
And in terms of disabled people, the worse can now be expected. It is quite scary for me to see John McDonnell has been appointed as Shadow Chancellor. As a left wing MP, he has been very anti-austerity and therefore very anti-inclusion, as a major puppet of the left wing sick movement. The sick movement wants people with minor impairments to have the right not to work, and ask for benefits unchallenged as opposed to being assessed.
The price is the automatic exclusion of people with higher support needs, including myself, as a carer issue. Under new old Labour, I fear their hatred of free enterprise will see the nationalisation of assistance and support services, and the return to long stay hospitals. If informal care is regarded as a form of abuse under trade unionist values, we should see more disabled people being institutionalised to protect the rights of women. Personal budgets and other freedoms will be regarded as neoliberal slavery and probably be halted, ending independent living for most. It is also likely eugenics will remain something to be desired by Labour, leading to a dangerous mix.
I have tolerated the rise of the sick movement, and their attack on the inclusion of disabled people, because I believed their viewpoint would never fully be supported by mainstream politics, merely used to attack the government without really supporting it. Now, the sick movement owns the Shadow Disability agenda, and the rest of us have been thrown out of the room for being too positive.
Their bigotry towards disabled people, as people unfit for mainstream society, will be further exposed as their confidence grows. They believe that in disability issues, there is no need to debate the issues, just give more money to pay people to be excluded from reaching their potential. The more bluntly they attack the government committed to include disabled people into society, which they fundamentally oppose, the more their bigotry will start to be exposed to the public.
Labour may not win the next election, but it does not mean the left wing will not succeed to damage the lives of disabled people with their rhetoric. The irrational pity for disabled people and their hatred of disabled people even being assessed in determining their abilities, remains the only weapon Jeremy Corbyn has to continue to focus on his anti-austerity agenda. When the public sees that most disabled people are unaffected by the cuts in terms of what they can achieve, and that there is an unhealthy take culture amongst those who define themselves as sick, his power to abuse disabled people for his own agenda may disappear.
The battles between the left and disabled people who want a meaningful existence have just stepped up a notch, and our very lives will be in jeopardy if Jeremy became Prime Minister. It is now time to publicly expose his left wing movement’s bigotry towards disabled people, which has for too long been wrapped up nicely in the name of fairness and compassion.

– If you like what I say, have a look at my website at http://www.simonstevens.com or follow me on twitter, @simonstevens74

Ten Myths Told to Convince You Assisted Dying Should Be Legalised

As the House of Commons vote on the First Reading of Rob Marris’ Assisted Dying bill comes near, I feel it is time for another article on what is a very important topic for me. While the bill is aimed at those at the end of their lives, there is a long term consequence for those of us born impaired, who could have their lives threaten before they have even started in the name of eugenics.

I want to remind people of just ten of many myths that are being used by supporters of assisted suicide to convince the public and MPs that they have the moral high ground. These myths can be easily dispelled by facts and it is the truth that helps us expose the issue for what it is.

1. It is just about terminal illness, not disabled people

Many supporters are highly critical of disabled people like myself implying Assisted dying is about us, insisting it is just for people with terminal illnesses. In reality, the lines between impairment, sickness, illness and disability are quite blurred, and I fear the bill is just stage one of what supporters really want.

2. Terminal illness is easy to define and diagnose

It is not possible to accurately diagnose how long someone with a terminal illness has to live. Too often, people have been given 6 months to live, when they actually live years or decades. I was given a few days to live when I was born, 41 years ago!

3. The proposed bill would have helped Tony Nicklinson

Tony did not have a terminal illness but a progressive condition, and his desire to end his life would not be possible if the bill became law, suggesting future legislation would be proposed when it became publicly acceptable.

4. The proposed bill will stop the ‘need’ for Dignitas

Dignitas in Switzerland has far broader criteria on the people they will help to die, with little safeguards as a private service. Further legislation and public debate would be required to enable this level of compassionate murder to happen in the UK.

5. Assisted Suicide should be a choice

Suicide in the average population is legally and morally regarded as something which should be prevented, to the point someone can be sectioned and forcibly provided treatment if they try to commit suicide. Why does the debate change when we discuss people with physical impairments and health issues? The idea of a choice free from outside pressures is ridiculous.

6. Assisted Suicide is an act of compassion

In some countries, Assisted Suicide involves being provided 100 lethal tablets, which must be opened and swallowed without outside assistance, taking hours or days, similar to the actions of a drug mule. Not only is this method inaccessible to many candidates, but is this really a compassionate way to die?

7. People only oppose assisted suicide for religious reasons

I am an atheist and for me, this has nothing to do with religion. This is about the equality of treatment, respect and opportunity. If you want assisted dying, lets scrap services like the Samaritans, and ensure everyone who wants to die for any old reason is supported to do so.

8. Assisted Suicide will stop unnecessary suffering

There is a lot of suffering in the world due to poverty, abusive families, war, social background and so on. Why do we only consider killing people when their supposed suffering, as judged by others, is related to their health? Should the service be provided to people suffering debt or unemployment?

9. The general public want assisted suicide

I think what the general public really wants, including myself, is for people to have a pain-free death whenever possible. This involves providing good quality end of life care as a legal right, not assisted suicide, and the public is being misinformed on this.

10. Many Disabled People are better off dead

No one is going to admit this is what they think, but this is what is at the heart of the matter. Illness and Disability has been socially constructed as a form of abnormality to assist the norm to believe they are healthy and invincible to the vulnerabilities we all experience. Support for assisted suicide comes from people’s own fears of becoming abnormal.

Fundamentally, the bill is an emotional reaction to the deep rooted prejudice people have to those who are sick or impaired. Supporters do not want you to understand the facts as they feel they can simply pull your heart strings to get their own way.

from Simon Stevens http://ift.tt/1LjPrwi
via IFTTT

Has Labour Lost Its Natural Friendship With Disabled People?

On my wall I have the back of one of my business cards signed by Tony Blair (in Blue) and the late Tony Benn (in red). I got their autographs at a lobby for Roger Berry’s Disability Rights Private Members Bill in 1994, which failed but it was the start of a whole raft of legislation improving the civil Rights for disabled people.

The mid-1990s were an exciting time for a young disabled person as I was, and Labour was making a lot of great promises to improve the inclusion of disabled people, which they actually delivered during their 13 years in office. Even in the 2010 General Election, it was clear to see Labour was the natural friends of disabled people, but then things started to change.

Five years on and the Labour Party is a very different beast in every respect. After failing to win the last general election with a poor facsimile of Tony Blair, like a wounded animal, it now appears to be going into a long period of rage against the general public as it turns left for inspiration, ignoring the fact we all went right. I fear whether or not Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership race, the damage has already been done as Labour’s credibility is diminished.

And what does this mean for disabled people? Well it seems Labour has abandoned most of us. It narrowly sees disability as a welfare/employment issue for those who see themselves as sick and not disabled, except when they want to be disabled to get benefits. Those of us who require support and assistance are ‘helped’ under the label of ‘helping unpaid carers’, basically leaving us at the whims of our families, who have the real choice and control. And any kind of meaningful independent living and inclusion remains only accessible to those who shout the loudest, like myself.

The party’s message seems to pander to those who perceive themselves as unfit for work as a right, with negative and destructive language that should have been stamped out years ago as I am labelled as ‘the most vulnerable’. And in the background, we have Labour’s covert support for Assisted Dying, with both Shadow ministers dealing with disabled people showing their public support to allow us to ‘choose to die’.

In recent months I have encountered the left’s attitude to the meaningful inclusion of disabled people, which has to include employment in its widest meaning. I have been told that my values of inclusion are in fact neo-liberal slavery and as Kate Green MP put it bluntly ‘work for disabled people is a punishment’. So what do they expect me to do with my life? The problem is they don’t want me to do anything. This is the rhetoric of Corbynism and the greatest threat to many disabled people for a century.

Those on the ideologically utopia left of the party are pushing those of us looking forward towards the Tories. If we are abused as we were Tory by the left, we will end up believing them. Disabled people are only now welcome in the Labour party if they support their destructive exclusion rhetoric, where moral superiority overrides any open debate. Anyone in the Labour Party who believes everyone has a contribution to make to society without exception is now routinely burnt at the social media stake, since they will only tolerate people who pity disabled people, seeing social warehousing in the name of dignity and compassion as the only solution that can be offered.

Labour is no longer my natural friend, and it needs to work hard to deserve my friendship again. While many left wing ‘disabled’ activists (most of which were not active before 2010) will still argue Labour is the party for all disabled people, I believe the silent majority of disabled people will feel abandoned by them.

from Simon Stevens http://ift.tt/1fVcrZM
via IFTTT

Has Labour lost its natural friendship with disabled people?

On my wall I have the back of one of my business cards signed by Tony Blair (in Blue) and the late Tony Benn (in red). I got their autographs at a lobby for Roger Berry’s Disability Rights Private Members Bill in 1994, which failed but it was the start of a whole raft of legislation improving the civil Rights for disabled people.

The mid-1990s were an exciting time for a young disabled person as I was, and Labour was making a lot of great promises to improve the inclusion of disabled people, which they actually delivered during their 13 years in office. Even in the 2010 General Election, it was clear to see Labour was the natural friends of disabled people, but then things started to change.

Five years on and the Labour Party is a very different beast in every respect. After failing to win the last general election with a poor facsimile of Tony Blair, like a wounded animal, it now appears to be going into a long period of rage against the general public as it turns left for inspiration, ignoring the fact we all went right. I fear whether or not Jeremy Corbyn wins the leadership race, the damage has already been done as Labour’s credibility is diminished.

And what does this mean for disabled people? Well it seems Labour has abandoned most of us. It narrowly sees disability as a welfare/employment issue for those who see themselves as sick and not disabled, except when they want to be disabled to get benefits. Those of us who require support and assistance are ‘helped’ under the label of ‘helping unpaid carers’, basically leaving us at the whims of our families, who have the real choice and control. And any kind of meaningful independent living and inclusion remains only accessible to those who shout the loudest, like myself.

The party’s message seems to pander to those who perceive themselves as unfit for work as a right, with negative and destructive language that should have been stamped out years ago as I am labelled as ‘the most vulnerable’. And in the background, we have Labour’s covert support for Assisted Dying, with both Shadow ministers dealing with disabled people showing their public support to allow us to ‘choose to die’.

In recent months I have encountered the left’s attitude to the meaningful inclusion of disabled people, which has to include employment in its widest meaning. I have been told that my values of inclusion are in fact neo-liberal slavery and as Kate Green MP put it bluntly ‘work for disabled people is a punishment’. So what do they expect me to do with my life? The problem is they don’t want me to do anything. This is the rhetoric of Corbynism and the greatest threat to many disabled people for a century.

Those on the ideologically utopia left of the party are pushing those of us looking forward towards the Tories. If we are abused as we were Tory by the left, we will end up believing them. Disabled people are only now welcome in the Labour party if they support their destructive exclusion rhetoric, where moral superiority overrides any open debate. Anyone in the Labour Party who believes everyone has a contribution to make to society without exception is now routinely burnt at the social media stake, since they will only tolerate people who pity disabled people, seeing social warehousing in the name of dignity and compassion as the only solution that can be offered.

Labour is no longer my natural friend, and it needs to work hard to deserve my friendship again. While many left wing ‘disabled’ activists (most of which were not active before 2010) will still argue Labour is the party for all disabled people, I believe the silent majority of disabled people will feel abandoned by them.

–
If you like what I say, have a look at my website at http://www.simonstevens.com or follow me on twitter, @simonstevens74