I agree with this, I feel we need to let go of the desperate hold on
'normal' our society has. If people stopped being so anxious that they were
'not normal' and realised that no one is we could perhaps move forwards in
more constructive ways. Sarah.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Larry Arnold" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 08, 2002 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [danmail] Fwd: a letter for the DRC
> 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:
>
> 7 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.
> 7 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.
> 7 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.
> 7 The DDA definition slows down the process of implementing the DDA
> in our
> organisation.
> 7 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:
>
> 7 Our disabled members / service users have asked us to use a
social
> approach / the social model of disability.
> 7 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.
> 7 The new positive duty to promote equality for disabled people
will
> require
> a definition that helps people to understand the affects of disabling
> barriers.
> 7 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.
>
|
