Anita
I agree, probably they don't. But my point is. We have said
"nothing about us without us." So it's up to us to take our place in the
global discourse.
Where I live there is group that is trying to create a "new democracy".
(What ever that means.) They are excluding most minority groups, ethnic, non
French speaking, disabled, native etc., (I hate this new democracy!) In any
case, in one meeting 2 women from Latin America, stood up and started to
speak about minority issues. They were told that the new democracy would
deal with issue of minorities once other issues were achieved, including
'proportional representation'. One of the woman chose not sit down. Rather,
she forced the issue. For that meeting they had to listen to it. Nothing
changed, but the issue was raised. Maybe tomorrow,
Rather you should be concern if the place is accessible,in every terms.
Maria
A few months ago
----- Original Message -----
From: "anitravi" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 1:38 PM
Subject: hi
Hi
I think what I wanted to share was the feeling that impairment seems to be
missing the list. I do accept that in all the ways suggested by my
colleagues, disability is explicitly stated, but I wonder whether the ones
who made the list see it in this way.
regards
anita.
________________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.
|