It has also affected the culture around too many disability leaders – a real reluctance to stand up to power
You’re right, Sacha-few too many individually focussed souls around but there’s another aspect to it too- there may have been a lot more standing up that was done, but it doesn’t get into the public attention space anywhere near enough- maybe it’s not as enticing to a journo as a nice juicy stereotype of inspiration, or a government department engulfs and vanishes it as part of the process.
It’s part of the public record that Quentin Angus wrote a bill about having a disability advocacy agency way back around 1981 (International Year of Disabled People) that after some full free and frank discussions got debated in Parliament (possibly due to the energies of JB Munro). But who today really knows Quentin stood up to power about it, because it was important for disabled people.
As I said, you’re right, but like FB relationship statuses, standing up can be “its complicated”.
As I read and think about this, I re-know how much of our disabled history is left unknown. This good summary represents one of many strands, most of which are unknown, let alone subject to any serious analysis. There isn't "A" disability history for NZ, but there's so often a desire to have a nice neat package. This may come from people who have no real contact, from people from the outside, or from disabled people themselves who haven't explored and are looking at where to begin. So take these perceptive pieces, these points from which you can dive deeper, and do that diving people.
June thank you for this-I can only guess how wretchedly awful and plain eviscerating the whole experience/s must have been. Like a number of others I find myself angry-almost shakingly so. I'm still uncomfortable at some incoherent level, (and I think it has much to do with my concerns about whether judges are necessarily better) about non-jury trials, but I do accept that there are far too many problems with the present jury system and the unacknowledged/built-in prejudices for comfort. May you get the peace of mind you deserve June.
I have a vivid memory of the performance from the NZ First man-like a possum in the glare of the headlights (yikes, these people have opinions, and are well informed). He shouldn't have been quite so surprised really given that there is a natural overlap.NZ First's base constituency is older people We all age, and as we age the incidence of impairment zooms up. Many older people get antsy and harrumph they are "not disabled", but they're clinging onto last millennium concepts and actually although they readily understand, and complain about discrimination and inequality which is the way most of us understand disability. So why, oh why is NZ First doing such an incredibly poor job with disability policy? Every single party needs for all of their candidates to show disability competence- it cannot be just left to their disability spokesperson. Kris Faafoi made a pretty decent fist of it. The woman from Mana showed a refreshing understanding of human rights and principles and how they could apply to disability issues The National man was not only poorly prepared, but also most injudicious with his responses. Shockingly poor really. He showed no understanding of disability issues, but even worse, seemed to think he did. So what did the meeting show us? I am inclined to say little change yet. But there are more disability issues meetings. We are all giving those who would be our elected representatives a good staunch interrogation. Campaigns like 20% are making inroads. And in the lead-up to next elections, we must all ceaselessly chivvy/encourage/lead them to paths of righteousness. Kudos to all of those already in there and doing it. We're the country's largest minority and this meeting showed us we deserve better from the political parties.
Oh yes. So right on
Simulation exercises tend to be beguiling to non-disabled people. This may be for worthy motivations, but they are of really limited use. There's American (and quite possibly from elsewhere) research that points out the negative impact of this "experience it for a wee while" type of simulation exercise. It is more likely to confirm impairment-as-deficit perceptions, perceptions that tend to accompany a lot of other negative disability stereotype. In short, tends to confirm those nasty suspicions. Victoria is right to point to a need to put respect into everyday action as the central issue.
Just seen your post-we are the experts, recognise our expertise-so yes yes yes yes.
We' disabled people have been saying this in relation to disability for so many years, with a sad lack of success. Far easier in both instances to listen to the "experts" on the sidelines because, well who knows really?
But listen to the Emmas . They know whereof they speak.
First honour to Katrina, and to all of the women who speak out/don't speak out/say something and are disbelieved/get to put themselves through the gruelling ordeal of a trial/undergo trial by media.
Thank you. We hear the echoes of the pain. We've all of us made different choices for very good reasons. What happens to you is always there, and it is often so difficult to manage.
We need to change the rape culture that we're soaking in (great phrase Emma). That's all of us, not just the men.
There's been an interesting swerve to the overall%. For the first two post census surveys, the overall percentage was 20%. Then for reasons not well understood even to Stats NZ (who almost stood on their heads trying to explain it, though nobody in the end could do so in a particularly satisfactory way), in the third survey it dropped to around 17%. Now it is back up around where we might be expected, given the aging cohort moving through and the incidence of impairment increasing with age.
I am always slightly bemused that so many people don't really quite understand the implications of the majority experience-the majority of us have more than one impairment! It has substantial implications for service provision, not to mention that disabled people can go through all sorts of contortions in trying to obtain appropriate services to meet all of the needs. And that's before health conditions are added too, to further complicate the picture.
As I recall it (and I doubt the wording of the questions about mobility impairment will have changed substantially, though as Sacha notes, some changes have been made in some places), there's a mix of agility and mobility in the questions.
Erk. Not only is this a flawed judgement, it's also a nasty one, those above have spelled it out. Come in number 53, the boat needs urgent review