By A Supporter
At the beginning of the year I saw Gus Van Sant’s excellent film Milk. In it, Harvey Milk (played by Oscar-winning actor Sean Penn) mobilises the gay community of San Francisco to fight Proposition 6, an “initiative” that sought to ban gays and lesbians (and those who supported gay rights) from teaching in California’s state schools. Aided by passion, momentum, and the words of a charismatic leader, the campaign to kill Proposition 6 was a triumph.
Fast-forward to March 2009. Another charismatic leader, Barak Obama, is sat on Jay Leno’s couch chatting comfortably about the economy, when the conversation turns to the White House bowling alley, where the President, a ten pin bowling novice, has been practising. Jay Leno sarcastically congratulates the President on his latest (and relatively feeble) score of 129. The President jokingly replies: “It’s like – it was like the Special Olympics, or something.” The audience laugh.
What brings these two moments together is a comment made by a friend of mine. He said: “What I loved about Milk was that it painted a portrait of the last great civil rights movement.” I think what he meant was; before Milk, there had not been a Hollywood film about the gay rights movement in America. In any case, my friend went on to list Hollywood films which, he said, “painted portraits of the other great civil rights movements”.
President Obama’s disparaging remark on the Jay Leno Show made me ask the question: “What Hollywood films have there been about the disability rights movement?” I couldn’t think of one. Indeed, there is, as far as I’m aware, only one Hollywood film about the Special Olympics; The Ringer (starring Johnny Knoxville). The film, which received positive reviews, sees a former track and field star (played by Knoxville) go “undercover” (as a young man with learning difficulties) to the Special Olympics, to win a bet. This film, like Obama's remark, belittled not just those with a disability but also encouraged the notion that serious admiration, whether filmic or presidential, is reserved for those without a disability.
Unlike my friend, I don’t believe there is such a thing as a “last” civil rights movement because equality is always under threat and, accordingly, the fight for civil rights goes on. That said; my friend’s comment raised an interesting point: is the disability rights movement the only movement not to receive the Hollywood treatment? Furthermore, does the evident paucity of respect regarding disability rights in the mainstream media, which must include President Obama’s disparaging remark about the Special Olympics, reveal a type of “acceptable intolerance” that sees offensive and derogatory remarks about the disabled becoming more prevalent?
With these questions in mind, I would like to point readers of LabourList to a campaign that is current but, in some quarters, forgotten: to urge the Government to sign the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities without reservations by spring this year. When it comes to disability rights, there should be no reservations. Indeed, we cannot let the Government ratify the Convention until the reservations have been dropped. This could be yet another stride towards equality - the kind of equality the Labour Party, in my opinion, has always stood for.
The time to give disability rights our fullest attention and respect is now.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
1. The fact is that a free market economy will lead to discrimination against people with impairments, and benefit cuts affect them disproportionately . Government strategy has not helped here and the WR Bill will make this far worse
2. Are we talking about the medical model, the social model or the more nuanced view of disability promoted by Tom Shakespeare - because the implications for equality are very different?
However, the problem is that there is no consensus on this particular issue. There is a very strong case for reservations – particularly on education – article 24.
Paradoxically, it is the readiness of those who believe that the only inclusive forms of education are ‘mainstream’ to cite the convention that makes it essential that such a reservation is secured (as has been proposed by the Minister for Disabled People).
The article 24 as written would probably fail to recognise that in most of our special schools, inclusion is promoted, practised and celebrated – that young people and their families make valid choices.
The (then) Select Committee for Education and Skills produced an excellent reports a couple of years ago outlining the complexities of this area – it is to be hoped that future policy will seek to build on that report and recognise as it did, the need for a diverse range of provision that aspires to excellence.
It is that outcomes achieved that matter more than the setting that they are achieved in.
Something has to be done!
Actually, another thing that annoys me is in how making a positive case for something and being supportive is either taken for granted or used as an ecuse to shoot you down in flames. This unreasonable competitive attitude gets a bit tiring after a while.
Overcoming dualism is a big thing in Zen Buddhism but when people on either side grasp to their goals and allegiances this can turn into obsessive and uncooperative behaviour. Often, they become the forces of anti-change. Reality doesn't get irony.
* Posted again because I can't figure out if this site is broken or moderation is holding my posts up for some (illogical or unstated) reason.
Parties shall prohibit all discrimination on the basis of disability and
guarantee to persons with disabilities equal and effective legal protection against discrimination on all grounds.
If you can't discriminate on ability are we to do away with job interviews and randomly allocate jobs in future?
If the UK is rendered (even more) uncompetitive we'll all be reduced to arguing over dust and ashes - who want and equal share of that?
Plenty of right wing Conservative thinkers believe the state should intervene to ensure true comptition, on the grounds that the more open and true competition is, the more efficient the economy becomes. This fits with that, surely.
But people must be free to judge on whatever criteria they see fit.
If a company handicaps itself by having odd policies don't tie it up in red tape, just compete and put it out of business (with your superior business practices).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m3gMgK7h-BA&NR=1
Having had time to read bits of the convention properly, I have to say I now share some of your suspicion of it. Article 27 (g) and (h) - is exactly the sort of thing that annoys people, and gets policies like this a bad name. I really wonder if most disabled people would want "affirmative action"; I think most would just say a fair go.
A declaration that they have the same rights and opportunities - not less, not greater - would be useful, not least to an employer who finds that he or she has able-bodied employees objecting to having to work with someone disabled, which I believe it quite common.
Some state action in encouraging or nudging employers to think about the disabled would be worthwhile if it breaks the logjam and gets people off benefits. As soon as you introduce a hint of positive discrimination it gives people a reason to object to the whole thing. Ho hum.
Here's one for you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxRfsBwou5g&feature=related
Joke.