On 13 Jan 2017, at 18:26, Mike Llywelyn Cox <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Vin.

Excellent observations but I’m not sure about the UN convention recognising the social model - their title says it all …”people WITH disabilities..." 

Heddwch

Mike

Mike Llywelyn Cox

http://www.facebook.com/micoxy?ref=name
http://micoxpplog.blogspot.com
An Equal Lives member (www.equallives.org.uk)

A DPAC Norfolk member (http://www.facebook.com/DPACNorfolk?ref=ts&fref=ts)
A NSUN (http://www.nsun.org.uk) member.
A http://www.solnetwork.org.uk member.

All views and statements expressed here are entirely my own and, unless stated otherwise, not those of any other individual or organisation. 

On 13 Jan 2017, at 10:35, Vincent West <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Beth,

for me in the UK this raises two thoughts initially: firstly one of the campaign slogans from the early days “piss on pity” - forthright but to the point in that it is not ‘respect’ or other forms of patronising attitude that disabled people demand but a removal of barriers; secondly “nothing about us without us” - which goes to your observation that none of this work should have gone ahead without detailed discussions with the people or groups affected or referred to. As you imply, “all abilities” language uses the term ‘disability’ to mean impairment, whereas the UN Convention holds that disability is caused by society when unnecessary barriers to inclusion are created and maintained so that people with impairments are prevented from accessing all that life has to offer. 

So I would suggest that the posters themselves demonstrate that disabled people and others with protected characteristics [UK legal terminology] have already been excluded by the way the campaign has been organised and the ideal solution would be to start the process again and this time talk to [more importantly listen to] all sections of society so that they are actually behaving inclusively instead of just talking about it. 

While I feel that these sort of campaigns are incredibly patronising I can also see that this comes from ignorance and not malign intentions - but the same solution to that is to talk to disabled people - and make sure disabled people can use your premises - and employ disabled people etc. etc.

If these businesses genuinely do want to be inclusive - across gender, transgender, sexual orientation, religion and non-religion, age, ethnicity, race, married state, pregnancy and motherhood then at least you will be pushing an open door rather than fighting bigotry but I would urge that businesses’ actions will speak louder than words or posters.

Best of luck!

Vin

Vin West MBE

Chair Arfon Access Group

Glyn Dwr

Llandwrog Uchaf

Caernarfon

LL54 7RA

[log in to unmask]

On 13 Jan 2017, at 09:30, Beth Omansky <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hello all -

 

Two different poster styles about *welcoming diversity* are on display in business and restaurants where I live.  Both include disability, but not in appropriate ways.  One poster style welcomes all genders, all races, all religions and "all abilities".   The other one welcomes the same groups but does not "welcome" disabled people.  Instead, it reads, "we respect disabilities."  Apparently, the campaigns designers failed to consult disabled people beforehand.

 

Do you think we should advocate for inclusion on the posters, but with different language?  If so, what would you want them to say?  (Not "people first" language, please.)  Or, would it be better to request we not be included in such campaigns until their businesses are made ADA-accessible?   Or, not be included at all, period?

 

A nondisabled colleague and I will be addressing our local business association regarding the posters, and I would appreciate your input about what we might suggest to them as alternative language  as well as whether we wish to be included at all.

 

Finally, are these types of *diversity* campaigns popping up where you live?

Thank you and cheers,

 

Beth Omansky

 

 

*******************

You should never let your fears prevent you from doing what you know is right. 

                Aung San Suu Kyi

******************

Beth Omansky, Ph.D.

Portland, OR

USA

[log in to unmask]

 

________________End of message________________

This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).

Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]

Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.

________________End of message________________

This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies).

Enquiries about list administration should be sent to [log in to unmask]

Archives and tools are located at: www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html

You can VIEW, POST, JOIN and LEAVE the list by logging in to this web page.