Don't get your knickers in a twist, or don't get seasick in a storm in a
tea cup.
descriptive bits and pieces are the stock in trade of journos and other
writers and story tellers. They are used to distinguish, name
attributes, colour, enhance or bias a tale. If terms like tall, grey,
bold, bearded, etc are appropriate, why not a walking stick, spectacles
or a wheelchair. It articulates a fact of life, rather than a lie or a
distortion.
I think there is the danger in this world that super sensitivity starts
to seriously resemble intolerance on the way to becoming a big chip on
the shoulder.
Have a good time, rgds John
Ian Webb wrote:
>
> I agree with Michael here when he says that it is up to the individual to
> decide. Often we fall into the trap of being too politically correct and
> therefore do the people we are trying to help a disservice. I believe it is
> no longer good enough to talk about our students and staff with disabilities
> as “people”, with the implication that this gives a sufficient description
> of their characteristics. Including people with obvious disabilities makes
> this point very forcefully, and should also lead to educationalists
> considering less diverse cases as different and worth giving attention to.
> Making a reference to being wheelchair bound wakes the public up to the fact
> that wheelchairs do not detract from a persons ability to do the job.
>
> ----------------------
> Ian Webb - Development Officer - DISinHE Centre
> Tel: 01382 345598 Fax: 01382 345509
> [log in to unmask]
> http://www.disinhe.ac.uk
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: M.G.Peckitt <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> Date: 21 January 1999 10:33
> Subject: Charles Ruff - Wheelchair bound
>
> >I find it saddening when terminology like "wheelchair
> >bound" is used on Television or radio. Since the issue was
> >on American Politics and not Disability there is no need to
> >mention the fact that Charles Ruff was in a wheelchair.
> >
> >However, interviewees can sometime choose how they wish to
> >be introduced and in my view in it is not the place of
> >collectives or groups to enforce a libel on the individual.
> >If the lawyer in question has no objection then is it our
> >place to question his choice.
> >
> >By enforcing another label on someone are we any better
> >than those who deem us "wheelchair bound" or "Disabled".
> >To impose one set of ethics on to another could be
> >considered unethical in itself.
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >----------------------
> >M.G.Peckitt
> >[log in to unmask]
--
[InternetShortcut]
URL=http://proxy.networx.com.au/
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|