Disabled women’s rights are human rights! Disability can be physical, mental, neurological; hidden or visible. This panel will look at activism through the prism of disability and feminism and seek to explore further the intersection and challenges of being between the two and the capacity of the two movements to work together for change.
Iâ€™m sick and tired of having to challenge inaccessible practices within the Labour Party (an in the rest of life too). Iâ€™ve got better things to do than be tied up bashing down the doors, so I and others can participate. The discrimination spans all access issues, so all disabled people are targets.
Again, and again, and again, we give guidance on how to make docs accessible. â€śWhat part of the words â€śPDFs are inaccessible for people using text to speech assistive technology, so give us a word doc insteadâ€ť, isnâ€™t clear? Itâ€™s hardly any different in impact from â€śwhat part of the words, I havenâ€™t got wings you know so how am I going to get into that riddled-with-steps venue you insist on having your meetings in?â€ť; or â€śWhat did you say?â€ť (when a sign language interpreter or an induction loop, isnâ€™t present.
Iâ€™ve just opened an email from the Labour Party re the womenâ€™s conference tomorrow. Granted, it arrived yesterday evening, but I was chairing a scrutiny evidence session at that time and chose to go to bed afterwards, rather than download my emails. I chose also to do my day job today rather than read my home emails. As a consequence of this, I am only now dealing with yesterdayâ€™s backlog. Oh and I have checked, thereâ€™s nothing in todayâ€™s bunch which provides the accessible document.
Arguing for inclusion within the Labour Party is definitely one of those part time unpaid jobs that I am forced to do if I want to participate in the party. I could use that time instead building a stronger party and working to deliver a Labour Government headed by Jeremy Corbin, in 2020. I donâ€™t care that because of the leadership election and the shadow appointments process, itâ€™s been hard to confirm speakers etc. How difficult is it to produce a word version of a conference agenda, which was initially created in word, anyway? I mean â€¦. !
Providing inaccessible documents is at the very least laziness, but it could hardly be argued that the Labour Party is ignorant, since they have been told. Yes, if poked,, they will deal with access requests, but we shouldnâ€™t have to keep reminding them. Itâ€™s not like disabled people have only just been invented; or that we havnâ€™t been campaigning for inclusion since the dawn of time. My question is, why are these mistakes still happening? I donâ€™t know how disabled people can effectively influence party policy, raise the issues of concern to disabled people out there, in the party, if we canâ€™t even get in the door, metaphorically or actually without kicking up a stink. So, not having enjoyed womenâ€™s conference last year in Manchester, I thought I wouldnâ€™t go to the womenâ€™s conference this year; then when Jeremy was elected, I thought I would, in anticipation that the leader is going to address the womenâ€™s conference. Now, thanks to not getting accessible info about the womenâ€™s conference, Iâ€™ve decided Iâ€™m not going. So there will be one less stroppy disabled woman there tomorrow â€¦. and I am sure that lack of clarity about access, belief that things wonâ€™t be accessible, feelings that disabled women are not important, are also reasons why less disabled women than perhaps who want to be there, will go to womenâ€™s conference tomorrow. And Iâ€™ve no doubt that other members of disability labour will have to spent time and energy battling away at conference, trying to fire-fight on access when we could be doing something much more important, like effecting policy, talking about why the austerity agenda, whether heavy or light is the greatest attack on disabled people in our living memory and why labour must not only defend disabled peopleâ€™s rights but actively promote a disability rights based agenda. Not that Iâ€™m repeating myself, but I and others have been saying the above since exclusion first politicised us, in my case for 40 years. When will non-disabled people get it that they can remove disabling barriers if they want to.
Read the rest at Kirsten’s blog
Some of us here in the UK are in despondence after what happened yesterday in Parliament.
And today we chanced on this reflective article by Sunny Taylor which is very appropriate in the context of disability politics – even if she is writing from an American perspective. Ultimately we resonate in our shared experiences of our rights in society and how we are percieved as disabled people.
“I want to make clear that I am not saying people should stop fighting for equal rights in our current system, but that we should simultaneously think beyond the system in place. Many disabled people want to work and can work, but are discriminated against by insurance companies and employers. It is very hard as a disabled individual to go to college (every school Iâ€™ve applied to have discriminated against me despite the ADA), and so the disabled have a hard time competing for better jobs. Another catch-22 is that because better jobs are often better paying they can sometimes threaten our SSI insurance, which for the severely disabled is often the only insurance that will cover essential needs; this encourages more people than you would think to stay out of the workplace. The paradoxes and difficulties and the economic and social challenges of being disabled and living on SSI astound me daily; still, I remain unconvinced that fighting for equality within the current system (that is, to some extent, the right to be part of the exploiter class as opposed to being part of the exploited) is the ultimate ideal worth fighting for.
Is the goal to be â€śmainstreamedâ€ť into our current society or to change society? As Michael Oliver says: â€śIt is bizarre for people to think that we as disabled people can live in Britain with full civil rights and all the services we need without fundamental changes. We are not actually talking about tinkering around at the edges of society to let people in. For disabled people to play a full part in British society, this society will have to change fundamentally.â€ť Fundamental social change looks like it is a long way off, Iâ€™ll admit, and in the meantime we are frequently told the only way to change the system is to participate in it. The more economic and social affluence one has, the more one can maneuver within the system. I am told the way individuals achieve this is through building a successful career, through working. All of this holds some important truth. The first step to equality is independent living and getting people out of nursing homes. Once out of nursing homes, impaired people also need an accessible environment so they can interact with others who live in their community and share their interests and overcome the problem of geographic and environmental isolation. These material changes (accessible buildings and transit, and independent living) are absolutely necessary for the liberation of the impaired population. Many disabled have in fact fought for a living wage (it was an early disability cause in Britain), a cause worthy of the support of advocates for the impaired and for humanity in general; yet this cause necessarily demands a reevaluation of the role and significance of work and implies a right not to work as well as a right to live.
In a capitalist consumer society where everyone wants the perfect face, perfect job, perfect family, and perfect body, disability will never be appreciated or even fully accepted. In a culture in which the appearance of self-sufficiency and autonomy is essential, the dependence of disabled people (because they do not live up to this myth), may always be reviled or at least patronized. Even progressive institutions and people have discriminated against me more times than I can count. Progressives, like most able-bodied people, are loathe to identify with crippled people and more often than not refuse to acknowledge two simple truths. The first is that they, if they live long enough, will join our ranks. Impaired advocates sometimes joke that people should actually consider themselves â€śtemporarily abled.â€ť We all age and most people end up infirm. It is astounding how little concern there is for the quality of life and the unfreedom of the elderly in this society; I can only surmise that it is the result of a collective coping mechanism of denial. The second fact is that the treatment of disabled people is merely a more pronounced form of the condition of other populations in the contemporary workplace. Many Americans lack affordable health insurance, secure employment, and are also denied the right not to work. The casualization of employment, inadequate wages, the return of many senior citizens to the workforce when they canâ€™t make ends meet after retirement, the lack of paid vacation, the encroachment of the work week on our weekends and evenings, and mounting debt for the poor and middle classes, all evidence a lack of freedom from work oriented activity and anxiety. Working masquerades as the ultimate freedom and the premiere signal of independence, and yet more commonly seems to represent just the opposite of those two ideals.”
Read the rest of her article at Monthly Reviewer
Her website is at http://www.sunaurataylor.org/