By Olive Brown ?people with disability sector of COSS(Canterbury-2005)  -(Appreciate Olive sharing this -Seniorlink)

Does anyone else here have a disability? - Well, I?d like to suggest that EVERYONE, has a disability of some kind. Perhaps you have smelly feet, you may agonise that you are too fat, too thin or have very big ears and now, oh my God, you?re losing your hair ; perhaps you have a particularly bad temper or an extremely overdrawn bank account - ANYTHING that you know bothers you personally and prevents you from being that perfect individual you think you should be, anything that takes away your ABILITY to achieve the model that others act out with apparent confidence, any such trait or factor is your DISABILITY.

So, a disability then, is purely a PROBLEM and since we are by nature, problem-solving animals, this suggests a positive path rather than the negative ?dis?. Think of that ?dis? image - dismay, disappointment, distraught, etc.

This leads on naturally to jargon. I am not a politically correct fanatic unless there is good reason. In this case, I do prefer to be seen as a person with a disability rather than a disabled person because, since a disability is simply a problem, which would you rather be - a person with a problem or a problem person? I would emphasise that this is my personal preference, it is not set in concrete and not shared by all. Some would stay with the traditional ?disabled person? term because, they argue, any disability is imposed upon ?us? by society. For me, this is purely a textbook model argument for academics, the psychological inference is still too heavily weighted.

DISABILITY is just part of life, one may be born with certain problems, may acquire such through various diseases or encounter them overnight via an accident. Most people will find that some form of disability will affect them directly or indirectly at some period in their lives. The important point is that most people will find their biggest problem will be not the disability but the attitude of the community towards it or them - it can be AMAZING. (ANECDOTE - Court Theatre)

The main factor in this world of ?them and us? for many of ?us? appears to be DIFFERENCE so that as soon as anyone sees a wheelchair they freeze inside and the occupant becomes a member of a different species. This might also be the situation given a white stick, a face totally disfigured by severe burns and various other circumstances. Now here there is another more subtle factor; my difference is very visible; if I had total loss of hearing, had difficulty with my speech or suffered from manic depression then I would be treated as a ?normal? human being until the discovery was made. I believe that the whole situation is frequently harder for those with invisible disabilities.

So, I would suggest that it is the PERSON who should dominate the situation, not the disability. The simple request is for EQUALITY, not advantage. No sympathy, no patronisation, just genuine understanding, please. I AM THE SAME PERSON INSIDE AS I WAS THE DAY BEFORE I DISLOCATED MY SPINAL CORD.

 Given equal worth as human beings then anyone with a disability is seeking rights, not charity. This is expressed beautifully in an article from wayback in 1993 in the New Statesman and Society. Agnes Fletcher called it 'Fighting for the Right to be Different'. " 'Piss on Pity', blared the banners, 'Blinded and crippled by tragic disease', teased the T-shirts ------. It was the BLOCK TELETHON demo outside the London Weekend Television Centre ------."

"Later, things really hotted up", she wrote. Some demonstrators moved from behind the safety barriers to persuade the waiting Telethon audience not to enter the studios. A few people did leave the queue, to huge rounds of applause. After a march around the building , with hundreds of demonstrators chanting, 'Rights not Charity', a few people stormed in; two actually reaching the stage and a stunned Michael Aspel

The rationale for the demo was explained - 'Telethon represents the ultimate in public begging. It takes the charity concept into the homes of millions, selling the message that disabled people are objects of charity. It mis-leads the general public into thinking they are supporting disabled people and perpetuates the idea that the problems disabled people face are due to their medical conditions, rather than a result of the non-disabled world's attitudes and the denial of our civil rights."

Probably few can remember the New Zealand Telethon of 1981 - the year when people with disabilities were aiming to change attitudes. This event was promoted for weeks before the day, by juxtaposing many small children with disabilities against a dewy-eyed, able-bodied female with an image commonly associated with under-arm deodorant messages who sang of needing 'love'. Thus, this advertising succeeded in evoking the very, 'Ah, poor souls', attitude that most of those working with any genuine intent that year were striving to dispel

Some of those who have spent their lives under conditions of total powerlessness, might suggest to those expressing horror that, unless society is prepared to accord them their human rights in every sense, then they might choose to opt out of the 'deal' that society offers; some prospects of life, can be more daunting than any notions of death.

HUMAN RIGHTS ASPECTS

HUMAN RIGHTS are those conditions of life that allow us to develop fully, use our human qualities of intelligence and conscience, and satisfy our spiritual needs. They are based upon people?s increasing demand for a life in which the inherent dignity of each human being will receive respect and protection - an idea that reaches beyond the comforts annd conveniences that science and technology can provide.

RIGHTS can be treated as CHARITY as seen in the Telethon example where the person appears as a ?poor thing?, the RIGHT to maximum independence is obscured but the general public feel better.

Having RIGHTS assumes also, having RESPONSIBILITIES. - it is MY RESPONSIBILITY to ASK for HELP

LEGISLATION

Our legacy has come from 4 main areas the first being SCIENCE. Here a bell curve determines IQ levels but think of autism and the amazing skills in just one field that a person may have. Many terms gradually being abandoned are from the world of science such as lunatic, imbecile and mental defective. Even invalid is logically, not valid, presumably as a human being.

When we come to MEDICINE, almost every form of disability has been categorised under the Ministry of Health but I am not sick, I just can?t move. Surveys have been taken and disregarded with respect to those with loss of hearing and/or loss of sight. If you are deaf or blind the connotations of sickness make the disability a purely personal problem.

The strongest area for reinforcing stereotypes is the MEDIA particularly when publicity and charity combine.

Finally, LAW, which may have set some negatives in concrete but is hopefully now pointing in a positive direction.

1.1974 A.C.C.

Although from its inception, it created an anomaly that many of us have been fighting for 27 years now, it put disability into a new framework by making provision for the person to lead as full a life as possible again.

2.1975 DISABLED PERSONS COMMUNITY WELFARE ACT

A step forward that looked better than it really was.

3.1981 INTERNATIONAL YEAR of DISABLED PERSONS

A year of enlightenment but a year is soon forgotten. Achieved DPA.

4.1989 EDUCATION ACT

The RIGHT to education on equal terms.

5.1993 HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION ACT

Brought Disability under U.N. Charter Others 1977

6.1994 HEALTH & DISABILITY COMMISSIONER

Awareness of anomalies etc.

7.2001 N.Z. DISABILITY STRATEGY

Objectives seem to cover overall situation

 I?d like to finish with a few lines that I wrote nearly thirty years ago:

I pondered upon the word, ?rehabilitation?, and the mystique built up around it - the inference that a colossal brain- washing session is necessary before one can function as a ?normal? human being again. A trip to the dictionary confirmed my inner conviction that the word is a misnomer, too synonymous with ?manipulation?. That high authority, ?The Shorter Oxford Dictionary?, tells us that the meaning is, ?to restore or re-establish the character or good name of a person degraded or attainted, their privileges, rank and possessions; to restore to the previous condition?. Well, I did not feel that my character had undergone any drastic change, I was still my mediocre self. My ?privileges, rank and possessions? which had certainly shrunk to the minimal overnight, stood no chance of improvement within the narrow confines of the ?experts? ideas and as for ?restoring to a previous condition?, a broken neck is a broken neck - they do shoot horses, don?t they ?