But I disagree with the non ammended social model because of the definition
of the word impairment and the implicit statement contained when one
examines carefully what it means, that there is an absolutely "correct level
of physiological or pyscological funtion" and that the "affect" upon it that
an impairment has is negative, which is in no wise any different from the
old model when it is deconstructed.
It ignores completely conditions that are neither pyscological or physical
in the traditional sence but neuro-developmental differences.
Still if people insist upon remaining in ignorance so be it, I cannot change
the world alone.
I think what we need is a social relativist model, that recognises even that
which we might define and call social is in itself a construction subject to
temporal and spacial mutability.
Why should anyone be discriminated against, look at the logic, if your so
called impairment is not longstanding or substantial you have had it mate,
never mind that the public perception of the supposed impairment is what
leads to the discrimination, as in the case of people like myself who cannot
come up to the normal expectations of social behavior because we are not
hard wired to do so.
Incidentally lack of access to public transport is a disability and an
impairment for practically anybody who needs to travel within a set time
frame, can you not see that.
Can we stop dividing and categorising. The most "accessible" bus in the
world is useless if it does not run when and where you want it to. All alike
are equally impaired if the distance they wish to travel is sufficient and
the transport lacking. That is my way of looking at it. If you wish to
travel with someone who needs it but yourself could avail yourself of the
transport available, then you are also impaired as it is your right to
travel with whom you please and not leave them behind. Get it yet ?????
Larry
-----Original Message-----
From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Mark Priestley
Sent: 05 July 2002 14:18
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [danmail] Fwd: a letter for the DRC
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
All emails are checked before they are sent on to the list. Please see the
original "Welcome to the DAN Mailing list message" for further information.
DAN mail list archives from 1 May 1999 are available at the Yahoo Group web
site here http://groups.yahoo.com/group/danmail/messages . Free our people.
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
________________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.
________________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.
|