Submitted to Heckler 20.3.06
This is a little piece I wrote for the Heckler column (the everyman rant column in the Sydney Morning Herald). Because it doesn't conform to the feather-light style of the column, it won't be published. Viva l'internet.
All people are equal but some are less equal than others
Despite Human rights conventions and volumes of legislation, the intellectually disabled continue to be at the mercy of those who make decisions for them and their families. Those decisions may not, in fact, maximise the potential of the person with an intellectual disability. Every area of their physical and emotional life is affected by their compromised intellectual capacity. Rights activists and legislators cannot be satisfied that in treating those with intellectual disability as "normal" is sufficient concession to their disability when clearly, apart from being gallingly arrogant and patronising, it ill-serves and ignores the special circumstances of the intellectually disabled. For too long outcomes for the intellectually disabled have been viewed in a flattering rose-coloured light rather than the cold light of day. The path for the intellectually disabled is more precarious because their lack of capacity to rationalise, intellectualise and advocate their needs continues to exclude them from engaging in the decision-making process, to say nothing of their families who are treated appallingly.
The most telling of discriminations within disability itself is the matter of concessions. For the physically disabled with fully functioning intellect, not only are their rights to self-determination self-evident, but other similarly obvious concessions are made as a matter of course: wheelchairs, ramps, bumps on pages, companion animals, white canes, Auslan/sign for the deaf, special vision enhancers on computers etc.... the list is endless. Yet for the intellectually disabled, particularly in the mild to moderate range, few protections or concessions are made for their compromised intellectual function, they take their chances like everyone else.
I recently attended a tribunal hearing with parents and their 15 year old child with limited speech and functioning intellectually at the level of a 4-year old. The manner in which the tribunal members and the child's legal assistant addressed this young person was shocking and degrading. Absolutely no attempt was made in language or manner to accommodate this child’s compromised intellectual capacity. The child was treated like a "normal" 15-year old with fully functioning intellect.I can't imagine how the parents felt. Oh, I’m sure the letter of the law was complied with, which only makes it even more shameful and cements my view that the law is an ass bridled and led an asinine legislature. Or perhaps it is those who interpret and apply the law who are the asses. Sadly, I think it is the latter. Most alarming in the "normalisation" policy approach is the number of intellectually disabled people who are coming into contact with the criminal justice system (why are they going to gaol?). Of great concern too is the lack of viable options for the education of students with disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities, could there be a link here? At every turn students with disabilities are short-changed and their advancement and potential compromised by penny-pinching, cheapskate shitheads, sorry, I mean bureaucrats and politicians, while loving parents/carers are frustrated and powerless.
That services must maximise the potential of the person with a disability is the underpinning object of the NSW Disability Services Act.
I applaud everything that has been done for the physically disabled in maximising their potential. However, when it comes to those with intellectually disability, it is government (state and federal) which is in breach of its own legislation. This issue is now so serious it can no longer be left to the states. Our indigenous fellow citizens are provided for under a special article in our constitution, so too must our fellow citizens with disability, most especially those who cannot speak for or care for themselves.
All people are equal but some are less equal than others
Despite Human rights conventions and volumes of legislation, the intellectually disabled continue to be at the mercy of those who make decisions for them and their families. Those decisions may not, in fact, maximise the potential of the person with an intellectual disability. Every area of their physical and emotional life is affected by their compromised intellectual capacity. Rights activists and legislators cannot be satisfied that in treating those with intellectual disability as "normal" is sufficient concession to their disability when clearly, apart from being gallingly arrogant and patronising, it ill-serves and ignores the special circumstances of the intellectually disabled. For too long outcomes for the intellectually disabled have been viewed in a flattering rose-coloured light rather than the cold light of day. The path for the intellectually disabled is more precarious because their lack of capacity to rationalise, intellectualise and advocate their needs continues to exclude them from engaging in the decision-making process, to say nothing of their families who are treated appallingly.
The most telling of discriminations within disability itself is the matter of concessions. For the physically disabled with fully functioning intellect, not only are their rights to self-determination self-evident, but other similarly obvious concessions are made as a matter of course: wheelchairs, ramps, bumps on pages, companion animals, white canes, Auslan/sign for the deaf, special vision enhancers on computers etc.... the list is endless. Yet for the intellectually disabled, particularly in the mild to moderate range, few protections or concessions are made for their compromised intellectual function, they take their chances like everyone else.
I recently attended a tribunal hearing with parents and their 15 year old child with limited speech and functioning intellectually at the level of a 4-year old. The manner in which the tribunal members and the child's legal assistant addressed this young person was shocking and degrading. Absolutely no attempt was made in language or manner to accommodate this child’s compromised intellectual capacity. The child was treated like a "normal" 15-year old with fully functioning intellect.I can't imagine how the parents felt. Oh, I’m sure the letter of the law was complied with, which only makes it even more shameful and cements my view that the law is an ass bridled and led an asinine legislature. Or perhaps it is those who interpret and apply the law who are the asses. Sadly, I think it is the latter. Most alarming in the "normalisation" policy approach is the number of intellectually disabled people who are coming into contact with the criminal justice system (why are they going to gaol?). Of great concern too is the lack of viable options for the education of students with disabilities, particularly intellectual disabilities, could there be a link here? At every turn students with disabilities are short-changed and their advancement and potential compromised by penny-pinching, cheapskate shitheads, sorry, I mean bureaucrats and politicians, while loving parents/carers are frustrated and powerless.
That services must maximise the potential of the person with a disability is the underpinning object of the NSW Disability Services Act.
I applaud everything that has been done for the physically disabled in maximising their potential. However, when it comes to those with intellectually disability, it is government (state and federal) which is in breach of its own legislation. This issue is now so serious it can no longer be left to the states. Our indigenous fellow citizens are provided for under a special article in our constitution, so too must our fellow citizens with disability, most especially those who cannot speak for or care for themselves.
posted by Mary Lou at 6:57 PM
2 Comments:
Way to go, you hot little advocate, you. Rrowr.
My dear... you certainly have a way with words - may I quote you?
Nell
Post a Comment
<< Home