Welfare benefits for people with impairments are once again in the media with the political correct left attacking the government for not implementing changes to PIP to ensure more people with lesser impairments can receive it. The government is, in my opinion, quite right to say that in a world of limited resources that the distribution should be towards people with high needs, termed ‘the really disabled’.
I have accepted for many years that everyone has one or more impairments, and in the spirit of the social model, which has now been long abandoned by most activists, not every impairment results in social disadvantage or ‘disability’. Benefits are one (passive) solution of many that can enable people with impairments to reclaim their social inclusion. People experiencing anxiety may require assistance to build their confidence and increase their skills and tools, which a passive amount of benefit may simply be unable to deliver.
But when Labour and its associated activists continue to label ever increasing numbers of people with biological differences (impairments) as defective who should be automatically thrown on the scrapheap, the question is how does the party intend to pay for this bigoted warehousing? And this week they have provided a clue, take it away from ‘the really disabled’, people with high support needs, including myself.
People with high support needs, people like myself, do not currently have any voice in the politics of disability, which is now dominated by people with lesser impairments. Taking tablets and having stress is the new ’sexy’ disability as films like ‘I, Daniel Blake’ triumphantly portrays. The really disabled have been swept under the carpet, the property of our ‘carers’ who can do whatever they want with us because ‘they save the government money’. We are seen as naturally beyond the help of employment support, undesired by activists and user-led organisations as much as anyone else. Our rights are ironically abused and ignored in the name of our rights!
We can see Labour’s true agenda when we understand it is Labour and not the Tories who support assisted suicide, a polite way of saying the murder of people with impairments should be legalised because the quality of life of ‘the really disabled’ makes them better off dead. The public is quietly pushed to support this cost-saving measure as ‘disabled’ activists like Peter Beresford invites more debate of whether people like myself should be killed.
So not only does Labour want me excluded from society based on the same bigotry that existed in 1930s Nazi Germany, as well as everywhere else, but in order to balance the books in its promises to people with lesser impairments, it has a vested interest to implement an eugenics programme for those people with impairments it regards as beyond help.
When leading human rights activists like Neil Crowther as stated to me the needs of people with high support needs are less important than the desires of people with lesser impairments, and organisations like Scope has abandoned us for being unmarketable years ago, the divisions between the two groups are growing. Political Correctness is not interested in the appropriate distribution of resources, they think anyone who has an impairment deserves benefits to make them disappear, which means everyone basically!