Hi
UK list members may be interested to consider this campaign issue...
-----Original Message-----
From: Alden Chadwick [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 05 July 2002 10:59
To: Mark Priestley
Subject: Please Help NOG
The Northern Officer Group is trying (yet again) to get the Disability
Rights Commission (UK) to recommend that the Government adopt a social
definition of disability.
<abridged>
I have copied below my email message to NOG members and a letter for the
DRC.
Regards
Alden
------------------------
> The Disability Rights Commission (DRC) has launched a public consultation
on
> its recommendations for changes to the Disability Discrimination Act -
it's
> first review of the legislation.
>
> However, the DRC judged that this was an appropriate time to consider
adopting
> a different definition of disability, because they believed that this
would
> risk slowing down the process of implementing the DDA.
>
> NOG members have, over the last ten or more years, argued for the DDA to
> reflect a social model of disability. Therefore, we should take this
> opportunity to ask the DRC to reconsider its decision.
>
> Given that the DRC's web-based questionnaire does not facilitate a proper
> discussion of the definition of disability, and given that we are all very
> busy, I've attached a short letter to Bert Massie which you might wish to
use.
>
> The letter is laid out so that you can cut and paste it to suit your own
> requirements (e.g. cut paragraphs that aren't relevant to you / your
local
> authority, paste your own organisation's / authority's social definition
etc,
> and paste the whole thing onto your letter-headed paper).
>
> If you do only one thing for NOG this year - write a letter to Bert! - or
> better still, get your Chief Executive / Leader to sign it. Remember,
> disability is the product of faulty social organisation, and not our
> impairments.
>
> The closing date for responses to the DRC's review is 16 August 2002.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Bert Massie
Disability Rights Commission
7th Floor, 222 Grays Inn Road
London
WC1X 8HL
Dear Bert
Definition of Disability
I / we suggest that the DRC’s first review of the Disability Discrimination
Act 1995 (DDA) must recommend that the Government consider re-writing the
Act’s definition of disability. Such re-writing must reflect a social
approach to disability. Given that the DRC’s web-based questionnaire doesn’t
facilitate a discussion of this issue, I / we felt it would be appropriate
to write to you direct.
I / we know that:
· The current DDA definition contradicts the duty to make reasonable
adjustments by focusing attention on the affects of impairment and not the
affects of disabling barriers.
· The ‘day-to-day activities’ identified in the Government’s ‘Guidance on
matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to the
definition of disability’ confuse the affects of impairment on physical, and
mental functions with the affects of disabling barriers on an individual’s
ability to participate in society.
· The DDA definition requires people to compare a disabled person’s
activities to so-called ‘normal’ activities: and this encourages alternative
activities (for example, using different communication formats, or methods
of getting around) to be seen as abnormal.
· The DDA definition slows down the process of implementing the DDA in our
organisation.
· The longer the current definition remains in place, the longer it will
take people to get used to thinking about disability (the consequence of
disabling barriers) as something over which they have some control.
Using a social definition of disability in the DDA is important because:
· Our disabled members / service users have asked us to use a social
approach / the social model of disability.
· We have adopted a social definition of disability as policy, and are
finding the application of two definitions in (for example, in monitoring
and incapability procedures) ineffective and inefficient.
· The new positive duty to promote equality for disabled people will require
a definition that helps people to understand the affects of disabling
barriers.
· Our managers need to be able to distinguish between the affects of
disabling barriers and employees’ needs for skill or competency development
that are not related to impairment or disabling barriers.
I / we suggest that the DRC consider using the following definition:
A disabled person is a person with an impairment who experiences disability.
Disability is the result of negative interactions that take place between a
person with an impairment and her or his social environment. Impairment is
thus part of a negative interaction, but it is not the cause of, nor does it
justify, disability.
Impairment: an injury, illness, or congenital condition that causes or is
likely to cause a substantial and long term affect on physiological or
psychological function.
Disability: the loss or limitation of opportunities to take part in society
on an equal level with others due to social and environmental barriers.
I / we do not believe that the introduction of a social definition of
disability will result in an increase in the numbers of people taking DDA
cases; quite the reverse. If a social definition is used, it will challenge
widely held beliefs in the inevitability of disabled peoples’ social
exclusion, and therefore, encourage people to make the organisational
changes required to enable disabled people to take responsibility for and
control over their lives.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Yours sincerely
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
