Standing Up for Human Rights in the Disability Community

I have waxed poetic (or, hopefully, at least semi-poetically) on the subject of human rights several times over the years on this blog. And yet it will come as no surprise to those who really know me that my true passion in the area of human rights involves the disability community.

On my legal blawg, I have discussed at length a variety of issues, including education, transportation, recreation, employment, medical care or housing - all of which, bottom line, deal with the right to equality, the right to have the same access to the same services and (even more importantly, the same opportunities) as everyone else,

Yes, there will always be those that have it worse than you and I, than mine and yours. But just think of what it must be like to live with a disability in a third world country or a country where you are, irrespective of your disability, of the *wrong* gender or race. Then again, come to think of it, you could be an Aboriginal child with a disability living right here in Canada. Think of how much worse your life could would be.

But that really isn't the point, is it?

Of course not - the point is that no matter where we live, no matter who we are, we are all entitled to the same basic human rights. Not because the government of the day happens to agree or because we live in relative wealth, but because of one simple, inescapable fact - male or female, old or young, no matter our race or gender identity or sexual orientation or any other difference, no matter where we happen to live on this earth ...

We.

Are.

All.

Human.

And yet, simply *having* these rights is obviously not enough. Like any other "right", such rights would be meaningless without a mechanism of enforcement.

And as I turn my mind to the legal world, to "the law", I can only sincerely and humbly thank those who had the grit, determination and drive to realize the obvious and fight to have those rights enshrined as part of our law. And, in Canada's case, not just as part of the law. but as part of the highest law of the land, our Constitution.

But, sadly, two steps forward and one step back seems to be the way of life in so many ways. For even though sec. 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees that every individual is "equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability" and even though Canada is a signatory to both the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, we are still forced to stand up and fight for these rights over and over, right here in Canada.

So it is that I can only offer my eternal gratitude to those, both inside and outside the disability community, who have stood up to demand that these rights be, not just recognized, but given real meaning; to those who have stood up for the rights of our parents, our siblings, our children, our friends, ourselves.

But as I write this I realize that what concerns me, personally, most of all in this matter are those in the disability community who, for whatever reason, will not stand up and be counted, not stand up and be heard, not stand up and support others in their fight for equality. For it is only if we all stand together that any one of us can be truly successful. And so I leave you to ponder the famous words of Martin Niemöller:

First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.

When Words Fail Me ...

This video speaks for itself.

But the saddest scariest thing is this woman is not alone. She may be the only one brave enough to actually type and deliver such a letter, but I can guarantee you she's not the only one who thinks such thoughts.


 


Perhaps most of those who do would never suggest that a child, any child, should be euthanized or his "non-retarded body parts" donated to science. But they wouldn't hesitate to express their belief that such children should not be going to their neighbourhood schools, should not be participating in the same extracuricular activities as their "normal" children do; perhaps, even should not be taking up scarce dollars in our healthcare system.

We would like to believe that human beings are inherently good. That, most of the time, if we just give them the chance, they will do the "right thing".  Maybe we're right - maybe most are.

But something like this has to make a parent wonder how many more monsters are hiding in the darkness or behind the annonimity of their keyboards. And shudder at the thought.

H/T to Krista Lettues for the video

Cross-posted at A Primer on Special Needs and the Law

'Ask and You Shall Receive'

I've always suspected it. And now I have proof! All Some good things do come to those who wait.

Remember way back in the way back, some of those *fun* conversations we had at Lex"s? The ones about Canada's human rights system and how evil it was worked? About whether or not the so called "hate speech" provisions belonged in the federal Human Rights Act?

Well, they said they were going to do it. And, lo and behold, they actually did something right.

I must admit, I never thought I would find myself in agreement with these words.

“Way to go, Harper. I know we can’t get everything we want, but I stand a little taller today as a Canuck,” wrote “OneMan.”

Especially not with this Conservative government in power.

But be that as it may, I've repeatedly said that I don't think sec. 13 ever should have been added to the Human Rights Act. In my opinion, such matters are better dealt with in court - as either "hate speech" (inciting someone to violence) under the Criminal Code or, civilly, as a defamation claim for damages, if necessary.

Apparently, however, the Canadian Bar Association, who was in favour of the inclusion of s. 13 in the first place, disagrees. In a January 2010 report, it argued for the retention of the section, albeit without the penalty provisions that were attached. Their argument appearing to be that while the general "compensatory" damages provided for elsewhere in the Act are fine, the "punitive" sanctions attached to s. 13 are not.

Which, makes for an interesting argument/result, considering that, in general, the Act provides a much wider array of powers to a panel that has found discrimination in cases outside of sec. 13, both monetarily and otherwise, than it does for a violation of sec 13. But, hey, at least no one would be forced to pay a "penalty" (even if it is in a smaller amount than what can be ordered as damages for compensation for pain and suffering) as was allowed under sec. 54(3)(c). [Yeah, right, makes perfect sense to me, too.]

I am however in agreement with the CBA with it's concern that the debate surrounding sec. 13 was the start of a campaign to weaken Canada’s human rights laws.

Tell me, please, does any of this sound familiar?

Of greater concern to the CBA is the fact that the debate surrounding the expediency of section 13 has become the proxy for an open assault on the very existence of an administrative framework to protect human rights in this country. Critics have decried human rights proceedings as "kangaroo courts" which provide only "drive through justice" and advocated that human rights tribunals and commissions should no longer be permitted to operate. We reject attacks of this kind and reiterate forcefully our support for the continued importance of the work undertaken by these human rights bodies to foster human rights in Canada. Legal protections for human rights have existed in Canada since 1947 when Saskatchewan enacted the first bill of human rights in North America.

Uh huh. Could that have been taken out of some of those comment threads at Lex's or what?

Of course, now that the deed's been done, we have those who fear "free speech boost will rally neo-Nazi cyberhate". Personally, that doesn't concern me too much - although we will, no doubt, always have such idiot groups in our midst, considering that Canadian police forces reported a 42 per cent rise of in hate-based incidents in 2009, as compared to 2008, and a 35 per cent jump the year year before that, it doesn't seem to me that sec. 13 was having much of the desired effect anyway.

So, boys and girls, I am happy to report that it looks like the system can (and indeed has) work as advertised, at least in this case.

I knew it could. I knew it could. I knew it could ...

Legal Edumucation

It looks like the South Shore Regional School Board finally got themselves some.

This story has received so much play over the past week that I seriously considered not wasting my life time with it, but ... really, I couldn't resist.

Not when I've waxed poetic (or not) so many times before on exactly this sort of thing. (Ah, the good old days ... the fun we would have had with this at Lex's. But I digress.)

"Whazzup now?", you ask.

Let me see ... how to explain this?

Oh, I don't know. What say we just cut right to the stupidity?

The dispute arose after Grade 12 student William Swinimer was suspended from his school in Chester Basin for continuing to wear a shirt with the slogan, ``Life is wasted without Jesus.''

He says on his Facebook site that he did it to stand up for the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution.

Pynch-Worthylake says Swinimer and his pastor have agreed to take part in the debate that will look at how to ensure students' rights are not violated, while protecting other students from criticism.

She says it's not clear what the school will do if Swinimer wears the shirt when he returns to classes Monday.

Pynch-Worthylake said the school tried working out a solution with Swinimer before suspending him.

However, the 19-year-old says the school’s disciplinary action infringes on his right to freedom of religious expression.

“I do a lot of witnessing in school,” he said. “People talk to me and they ask me about my religion and I tell them.”

That has got him sent to the principal’s office in the past, Swinimer said.

“They say that it’s hate speech and that it hurts people’s feelings, but I don’t hate anybody.”
However, Pynch-Worthylake said the t-shirt's wording offends some people at the school because it tells them their beliefs are wrong.

“So let's recap, shall we?

A 19-year-old teen likes to take wear his favourite blankie T-shirt to school. Which just happens to read "Life is Wasted Without Jesus".  Apparently this T shirt makes at least some of the staff and students very, very unhappy. So unhappy that he is repeatedly asked not to wear said shirt. And when he doesn't heed these requests, he is given in-school suspensions. Repeated in-school suspensions.  Until this last 5-day out-of-school suspension given last week.

At which time he is warned, in no uncertain terms, that if he wears the T-shirt to school again, he will could be suspended for the rest of the year. The kid is in Grade 12. Hence, a suspension for the rest of the year means he would fail to graduate this year.

Want to hear the school board's reasoning in this regard?

If it said My Life is Wasted Without Jesus, that would be fine” because it expresses a personal belief, she said.

But the T-shirt he wore went further by telling non-Christians their lives are wasted, she said.

The school has asked Swinimer to replace it with a shirt that communicates his Christian faith without violating others’ beliefs, but he has refused, Pynch-Worthylake said.

Uh huh.

So it's okay to wear a shirt that says "My Life is Wasted Without Jesus"  but because the kid's shirt dares to state that "Life is Wasted Without Jesus", that might make someone else feel bad. And that's not just a problem.

Nope. It's A. Problem.

This whole thing is ridiculous in my mind but what really got me going on the subject was a news story last week stating that the Board intended to consult with a "human rights expert" on this issue.  I can only assume that they found someone with half a clue about human rights law, which is the reason they now say the kid can wear the T-shirt to school.

Really? Without a rest-of-the-year suspension?

Sure. With a little bit of back-tracking, of course.

“For us, it never really was about the one shirt,” Pynch-Worthylake said Friday.

Right. Gotchya.

Now, I realize that this kid might well have some other issues (around proselytizing witnessing to his peers). And I can fully understand how that might cause some problems at the school. But I think the Board was pretty clear in just about every news story - they wanted the shirt gone, it was wearing the shirt that got him suspended and would result in a further, harsher suspension.

So tell me, about that human rights edumucation. Just what will it take to get this simple concept through people's heads?

Listen carefully, class, I do not want to have to say this again.

And, yes, there will be an exam.

1. Although there is a right not to discriminated against (on certain enumerated grounds), there is no right not to offended.
2. And, as I've said before "... rude and insensitive remarks do not constitute discrimination. They are simply rude and insensitive remarks. Period. Full stop."

I know, I know. My snarkinesss is showing, Just a wee bit. My apologies but it's been a bit of a long life.

But seriously, people, should you doubt what we face .... yes, I do realize it's the "media", but please, I do expect somewhat better in Canada. The CTV Atlantic News ran a poll* the other day asking what people thought about this issue. 

The three choices looked something like this.

• It's okay. Everyone has the right to wear whatever they want to school. It's free speech.
• Religious messages are okay in school as long as they don't discriminate against another religion.
• No religious messages at all should be allowed at school.

Anybody see a problem with these choices?

The closest one that worked for me, personally, was No. 2. But that implied stated that a religious message could "discriminate" against another religion. And, frankly, I can't see how that could work. At any rate, it certainly didn't apply in this case.

Oh well, it's nice to see that at least some people in our Province are imbued with the least common sense of all. Which, by the way, would include a national atheists’ organization, the Atlantic Jewish Council, the Islamic Association of Nova Scotia and a provincial opposition leader.

Heh.

* For anyone truly worried about the state of "free speech" in Nova Scotia, you should be happy to know that close to 75% of the respondents to that CTV poll picked either No. 1 or 2, above. And the majority picked No. 1.

Heartbreaking

UPDATE: Today, Monday, January 23, 2012 is the first annual International Day of Mourning, born out of Dave's original blog post featuring this video. Spread the word, please.

 

The video speaks for itself when it comes to the issue of institutionalization.

The only comment I might make that many, many years ago (longer than this video might portray), the world was a very different place. Without even the often sadly-lacking services that we have now. For the parents that made that decision in those times, they don't need to be characterized this way.

Of course, that, in no way, justifies the money governments continue to pour into institutions (including the building of new ones) for the current generation. Because that ... Is. Just. Wrong.

H/T to Dave at Rolling Around in My Head via Ashely's mom at Pipecleaner Dreams

Out of the Loop

Which, it would appear, is what I've most decidedly been as of late.

Not that I don't have my reasons, of course [like working flat out within the window of a six-month funding opportunity to develop my new business, while, of course, still keeping the old business (to say nothing of life) afloat] but that does nothing to change the fact that I'm often feeling a week day late and a hundred dollar short when it comes to keeping up with current events lately.

Such as, for example, when I came across reference to President Obama's proposed plan to protect the unemployed against a hiring bias by prohibiting employers from discriminating against job applicants because they are ... well ... unemployed.

Say what? Is this for real? Apparently so.

Under the proposal, it would be “an unlawful employment practice” if a business with 15 or more employees refused to hire a person “because of the individual’s status as unemployed.”

Unsuccessful job applicants could sue and recover damages for violations, just as when an employer discriminates on the basis of a person’s race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

First of all, I had no clue that this was even an issue, even occurring at all. Although I suppose that's what tends to happen when you cocoon yourself in your own little world, no?

Still, putting aside the cracks about this simply being a make-work project for trial lawyers who don't have enough work, this makes me shake my head on oh so many levels.

First things first, I have to ask, just how stupid are employers? 

Why would any employer intentionally risk shooting itself in the foot by basing hiring decisions simply on the fact that a person is unemployed or has been unemployed for a certain amount of time? 

Skills are skills and you either have them or you don't.  Just because you haven't been working for a while, whether from being laid off due to a sluggish economy or voluntarily removing yourself from the workplace for some period for personal/family reasons (to care for a sick relative, for example) doesn't change the fact that you're either qualified for a particular position or you're not.

I can certainly see the argument that someone who is currently employed will most likely have more up-to-date skills than someone who has been out of the workplace for an extended period (for whatever reason). That's a valid consideration.  But the relevance of that would seem to me to depend on how long a particular person has been unemployed. Not simply the fact that they are unemployed.  So is this actually an issue? For real?

Moving beyond that disconnect, I come to the legitimacy validity sensibleness of President Obama's proposed legislation.  Sorry, but kind of another WTF moment...

I'm pretty confident in saying that most industrialized countries (including the US) already offer protection in some form from discriminatory employment practices that have a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin unless an employer can show that the particular practice is  what we in Canada like to refer to as a BFOR (bona fide occupational requirement).

But we tend to protect potential employees on the basis of what are generally considered "inalienable characteristics" , in other words, characteristics that an individual has no choice or control over, such as their gender, their race, whether or not they have a disability...

Are they now proposing to create a new “protected class” ... the unemployed? Really?

That seems out of whack enough on its own, without even considering the potential consequences of such a move.  I mean, let's face it, American society (in particular) is simply just not litigious enough, right?/sarcasm off.

Quite the message that - "if you’re unemployed and you go to apply for a job, and you’re not hired for that job, see a lawyer".

Well, like I said, always good news for the litigation bar, I suppose.

Then, this evening, checking out what was new at Lex's (something I seem to do far too rarely these days), I came across this - protesters have been occupying the financial district in New York in opposition of "corporate greed? For the past three weeks?

And they have their own website?

And, and, and ... they could be like the Tea Party of the Left?

Wow... I mean, who knew?! Well, obviously not me ...

Left. Right. Is there actually a Centre? 

My apologies to my American friends but, say what you will, you have to admit that they're always entertaining, if nothing else... 

Although I must say, this commentary on their Declaration of Grievances Demands does strike a chord with me. (The commentary, that is. More so than the Declaration.)

For what that's worth.  Which I imagine is not that much, seeing as how woefully uninformed I appear to be at the moment.

Forget keeping up with the Jones'. This girl is struggling to keep up with The World.

Still Hanuted by the Resdential School Scandal

This really saddens me.

Last month I shared the story of Jeremy Meawasige, the 16-year-old Native boy with severe and complex special needs who is at risk of being placed in institutional care, not because his family is saying they can no longer care for him but because the federal government refuses to provide the respite funding necessary for his mother, who is still recovering from a stroke, to care for him at home. 

This is something she has done without complaint all for all of Jeremy's life prior to her stroke (and from reading the news reports, it sounds like she had no help at all prior to her suffering a stroke) and is willing to continue to do, as her health allows her. 

It's extremely telling to me that Mom is not simply saying "I've had this stroke, now take care of my son for me here at home" (which, really, it's arguable she has every right to do).  No, now that she is able to get around somewhat with the help of a cane, she is asking for less support than that provided by her Band last year. The sense I get is that she is only looking for short-term assistance to tide her over for her recovery.  Not that, of course, she shouldn't be receiving a significant amount of help with Jeremy anyway, stroke or no stroke.

And yet now the plot thickens Jeremy's story turns even more tragic - not only is the solution seen as institutionalization but institutionalization outside of Nova Scotia.  Not just away from his mother and his home. Not just away from his culture. But in another Province, entirely. Not that we should be surprised, I suppose, given how dismally Nova Scotia has handled the issue of providing appropriate care for children with complex needs.

But, wait, this sad, sad story isn't over.

Now I read that there are more First Nations children in care at this moment than at the height of the residential school system. For any that don't know, the residential schools had a catastrophic impact on Natives and became Canada's national disgrace, for which Prime Minister Stephen Harper apologized in 2008.

Uncaring, Unprincipled, Unacceptable

That I wrote about this very issue two years ago is a very sad commentary:

That a funding kerfuffle, that the federal and provincial governments cannot agree on who, exactly, is responsible to provide the funding necessary for aboriginal children with special needs to stay at home, with their families, where they belong is sadly, perhaps, not surprising.

But that this bit of 'government infighting' as it is so colloquially called has resulted in families being told that they may be forced to give up their children because the First Nation can no longer pay for their care and federal and provincial governments can't agree on who should pay is beyond despicable.

And if it was unacceptable then, what is it now?

Two years ago, I questioned where the  Nova Scotia government stood when it comes to Jordan's Principle.  I guess now we have our answer.

Jeremy Meawasige loves music, sunny days at the beach and his mother.

But Jeremy has extensive physical and mental disabilities. And the failure to resolve a dispute between the Pictou Landing First Nation and the federal government over how his care is paid for may result in his institutionalization.

"It’ll be over my dead body," said Maurina Beadle of the possibility her 16-year-old son might be institutionalized.

Jeremy is diagnosed with autism, hydrocephalus, cerebral palsy and spinal curvature.

For 15 years, Beadle provided 24-hour care for her son. She spoon fed him pureed foods, carried him, prevented his self-destructive tendencies and changed his diapers.

That, in itself, by itself, is unacceptable in my mind. That a parent should single-handedly have to provide 24-hour care for their child for all those years anywhere in Canada is quite simply unacceptable. 

But as if that wasn't bad enough, last year Jeremy's mother had a stroke.  Fortunately, the Pictou Landing First Nation stepped up to the plate, providing three hours of home care every day.  Last year that cost the First Nation $82,000.

But now, even as the cost decreases due to his mother being out of a wheelchair and now able to walk with the assistance of a cane, she is being told that her son might have to be institutionalized because no level of government is willing to pick up the cost of a small amount of home care. Home care to which Jeremy would be more than entitled to were he to live off-reserve in this Province.

But A Single Drop of Rain

Where, oh where, would I be without my car?  Without my vroom, vroom, beep, beep?  Trapped at home, of course.  And living in (at least a semi) rural area, that would most definitely not be good. 

Tell me that I can't drive but we need milk, eggs and cheese and, later, after I take your head off, I will let you know in no uncertain terms that you can damm well get the groceries yourself. 

The kids need to be picked up? Do it yourself. 

Tell me I really should get out there and do something to help support the family and ... Yeah, you get the picture.

Of course, I couldn't even imagine hearing such foolishness in the first place.  Let alone listening to it. What are you? Nuts or something?  Get out of the way.  That's my car, bought and (some day it will be) paid for.

So which is it? Have I grown up in a culture of entitlement or are those countries where women aren't "allowed" to drive stuck in the dark ages?  Maybe even the pre-dark ages?  Yeah, I'm not even gonna dignify that one with an answer.

And yet, given all the atrocities of how women are treated in Saudi Arabia, apparently some would ask if this is the battle that should fought at the moment.

To which I reply ... Hell if I know. But who are we even think we have the right to judge that?

I mean I can't even begin to imagine what life must be like for women over there. True, the driving issue may not be the sexiest one of the lot but you and I aren't over there fighting any of those of other battles, are we?

I think we have to trust the women who live there, those that have the courage, the connections and the strength of their convictions to judge and decide what issue might be the tipping point for "the Kingdom". 

Yes, I know this very same thing was tried four years ago without results. Or at least not what you and I might consider results. It's easy enough to argue, perhaps quite legitimately, that the only "result" achieved by in 2007 was to scare women back into compliance. 

But that was a different time.  And we don't know what has and is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps, just perhaps, this time things will be different. 

After all, as a wise woman once said, the "rain starts with a single drop".

Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can
change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has.

~ Margaret Mead

Headwinds and Tailwinds *

I have become quite a fan of a new blog I discovered a few months back.  The name is Kilometres for Communication - you can find it on the sidebar.

What's it all about you ask?

This blog is about communication. It’s about a special kind of communication called AAC. (I personally struggle with this term; it stands for Augmentative and Alternative Communication, which is too much of a mouthful for me. AAC is simply an alternative way to communicate when someone has limited or no speech.) This blog is about disability, and navigation of disability in a society which orients itself towards people who are able-bodied. But this blog is also about ability, diversity, capability, possibility, hope. It is about our humanity, and about our connection–one person to another. It is about community and inclusion, and about how wrong it is for any of us to exclude and to make the decision that someone does not belong because he or she is different. So this blog is also about the importance of accessibility, because accessibility is a key to inclusion, belonging and community.

A family affair - the 17-year-old younger brother of "an artist, educator, social activist, writer, story teller, gardener, community facilitator [who] happens to travel in a wheelchair and communicate with AAC" proposes (family in tow) to cycle across Canada to ... well, how about if I let them tell you?

We would meet with people who speak in creative and diverse ways, and with the help of the media, introduce them to Canadians so that never again could they equate not being able to speak with not having anything to say. We would invite people to wheel, walk, run and cycle with us, and we would invite organizations, small groups of people and individuals to host events across Canada to raise public awareness and funds to empower voices and to make accessibility and inclusion a national priority for the more than 3 million Canadians with disabilities.

Although a lot of people have walked, ran, biked, etc. across Canada to raise money and awareness on issues like cancer and for other "good causes" and the man in motion is back at it (actually I'm not sure he ever really stopped), I've never heard of anybody doing quite this. I've never heard of anyone giving a voice to people who struggle to communicate in our world quite this way.

And, as if that weren't enough, Skye (the main writer of the blog) often amazes with such a beautiful voice for such a young man.

The blog sets out his cycling journey from West to East coast (he is currently in Manitoba) but he ends many of his posts by connecting the logistics of his travels to the point of his journey.  Such as he did on Day 4 - West Vancouver to Mission BC, traveling through the mountains in British Columbia.

We all need to be explored. It’s a tragedy that there are people on this planet whose speechlessly brilliant summit will never be discovered because the people around them don’t realize that the hike is worth it. Remember this: the hike is always worth it. Always assume ability, and listen with the patience, care, and effort that you would want anyone to listen to you. Often, the hike is the best part.

Even though I have friends whose young adult children are non-verbal, the world of AAC (augmentative and alternative communication) remains foreign to me.

And so it is that, as if through a lens, I follow Skye's blog and observe and learn and think more and more about what it must be like to have people assume you have nothing to say simply because you find it difficult to communicate or to have them walk away as you struggle to communicate because they don't realize that's what you're doing (or maybe they just don't care) - I mean, it's a busy, busy world we live in and I can only stand here and wait so long, you know.

Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.

But today's blog post was written by his mother, Gail, and titled "Headwinds, Tailwinds, Lessons Learned" (* hence the title of this post).  It was these two paragraphs that really caught my attention - and made me reflect on our own life with the Blue Jay.

It is now a number of days after I originally began writing this blog entry. I’m sitting in the RV by the side of the road in Moosomin, Saskatchewan, waiting for Skye to appear on this windy, rainy afternoon. By the time he arrives, he will have pedaled 48 kilometres since we last met. The promised tailwinds that are supposed to assist Skye on his journey have been elusive. Tomorrow, they are supposed to blow tomorrow, just as yesterday, they were supposed to blow today. It’s a mental challenge, waiting for these helpful tailwinds, yet getting back on the bike to pedal in the face of more headwinds.

In so many ways, this is the story and the feel of Kerr’s [Ed. Sky's brother] life—the hope and promise of helpful tailwinds; the disappointment when instead he is met with headwinds: the funding that doesn’t come through, the education that doesn’t happen, the waiting lists that never seem to get shorter, the well-trained assistants that need to move on in their lives. How does Kerr—and how do we with him—get back on the bike and keep pedaling?

Headwinds and tailwinds, indeed ... that would be a good way to describe our current experience with attempting to help our now 18-year-old daughter master that transition from childhood to adulthood, which can be hard enough for any adolescent but so much more challenging when you're ... well, challenged.

I must admit that I have felt somewhat like a bull in a china shop of late as I struggle mightily, furiously (and yet often it seems in vain) to help her access the services she currently so desperately needs.  Transition planning and more work on life skills at school.  And counselling or meds (but why would you choose medication when you have a pretty good hunch that counselling would do the trick, if only she could access it?) in managing her emotions, letting go of obsessive thoughts and learning better social skills.

But she's too high-functioning.  And yet not high-functioning enough.  She is too old.  Or she doesn't qualify because she's mentally challenged.  Or she doesn't meet some other criteria for service to this or that group because ... fill in the blank. I've pretty much heard it all as of late.

And yet, despite the headwinds I seem to battle, on a daily basis, at every turn, every once in a while I will find myself screaming talking to the right professional, a person who can and does seem willing to make that extra effort to find the Blue Jay the help she needs.

Talk, of course, is cheap.  And the proof is (and always will be) in the pudding.

But when I somehow stumble upon those rare individuals who actually seem to hold out hope (of doing baseline testing and setting appropriate work and life goals at school or the elusive referral to the psychiatrist that specializes in adolescents with various challenges or ... is it really too good to be true ...the possibility of a way to access funding for one-on-one counseling), it's like suddenly coming around a bend during a seeminly never-ending uphill climb and unexpectedly finding the headwind you've been battling might just be gone.  And perhaps, just perhaps, the wind might actually be at your back for a change.

I'm hoping Skye will soon find those elusive tailwinds.  And that people will pay attention to his cross-country journey and, more importantly, the reason he is doing what he is doing.

At the same time, I hope this isn't just some trick or sleight of hand and my own headwinds are finally diminishing.  Wish us all luck. We will need it.

Just Gotta Be Lovin' That 'Discrimation' ...

Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite.

C.S. Lewis

File this one under the category of pet peeves ...

We all have our collection of pet peeves, don't we? Things that drive us a little bit wacky (or wackier than usual).

So I've often wondered just how much a person's pet peeves say about the person themselves. What drives you nuts might cause me to simply shrug and walk away. And vice versa. So do the things that really get to us tell us anything about ourselves? And others?

The answer is, of course, that I don't really know. But I'm thinking maybe, for at least some of our pet peeves.

I could probably categorize my pet peeves, not that I have that many really, but most of them do tend to fall into fairly discrete categories. And one of my big ones has to do with people screwing up all manner of things legal.

Although this can show up in various ways (anyone ever pay close attention to the court scenes in television or movies?), the one that comes to mind today is people who throw around legal terms without a clue of what they really mean.

For example, people who equate rudeness with discrimination. Or assume that anything that offends them must constitute discrimination. Well, either that or a "hate crime", of course.

And so it was that I opened today's newspaper to find that Neil Rideout considers police enforcement of a section of the Motor Vehicle Act providing that the only motorized vehicles allowed on sidewalks are wheelchairs to be discriminatory. Against him. Because he was "pulled over" for driving a motorized cooler on the sidewalk.

That's right - I actually said "cooler". As in Coleman. The story itself is rather amusing, complete with a police officer asking if he could search the "vehicle".

But what isn't so amusing (at least to me) is Mr. Rideout's contention that he's being "discriminated" against because there is also no provision in the Motor Vehicle Act for electric scooters or motorized kids' toys. Which, I can only presume, he is implying are not being "pulled over" by police.

"Son, stop that Tonka right now and put your hands where I can see them".

But all humour aside, as I've said before, real instances of discrimination do to occur. As does racism. And real hate crimes (against people with disabilities, for example).

There are dangerous consequences to thinking and acting like Humpty Dumpty, I fear.

Because when we, as a society, find discrimination (and racism and hate crimes) lurking under every rock or in every bizarre comment someone makes, we are marginalizing the whole concept to the point of meaninglessness.

And then what word will we have to describe it when it really occurs?

So, yeah, maybe this one is a little bigger than a pet peeve for me ...

Why??

Deborah, Ashley's mom over at Pipecleaner Dreams, asked a most excellent question yesterday - Why?

Musing about group homes, day programs and school classrooms one of her daughters has and does know, she simply asks "Why?".

Why don’t people with disabilities deserve lightness, bright rooms, cheery kitchens and the occasional barbecue outside? Why can’t they assist in planting flowers and a vegetable garden at their group homes? Why can’t the draperies be opened more frequently and why can’t pleasant music be playing in the background rather than the constant din of the television?

How can we expect children with disabilities to be excited about going to school when the being there provides nothing visually stimulating? Do school districts think our students with disabilities will learn more if there is nothing but plain green walls to distract them? Why aren't there 'spirit' posters and announcements of school dances in the 'special education' hall? In fact, why is there even a 'special education' hall?

How can we expect our children with disabilities to learn and grow at their day support programs when they dread going there? Why can’t there be celebrations and joy in the places they spend the majority of their day - maybe ice cream sundaes and cupcakes with rainbow sprinkles? Why can't the staff smile more - do they really hate their jobs as much as their faces seem to say? Why must their lives be filled with darkness and gloom? Again, a little paint would go a long way to improving everyone’s moods.

Answers?

Anyone care to take a crack at it? Anyone at all?

After all, if it were typical children housed or educated in such conditions, parents would be screaming bloody murder, would they not? The community would quickly respond and whoever was operating the institution would likely be shamed into compliance. And, if not, their "customers" would soon be gone elsewhere.

And yet that's not the case here. Why not?

I have a few ideas - ideas formed from years of battles, negotiations and compromises with teachers, doctors and bureaucrats. Yes, a few ideas - and they're all quite sad if true.

My first thought is that, in large part, these situations continue because many people "think" that those who are challenged don't notice their surroundings that much anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Actually, I doubt that many people even get that far in their thinking. Most people likely don't think about it at all. But for those that have no choice but to confront it (those that are perhaps forced into actually facing these conditions day in and day out as employees), I would not be surprised if, for many, that that is their thought process. Or, at least, what passes for a thought process.

Forget the research that shows how important the characteristics of the physical environment are to a child's learning. That only applies to children. Real children. Real people. Like you and me.

Do we really need research to tell us what we already know, to "prove" that which is really only common sense - that a mentally challenged person is first a person; that the physical environment is just as important for him or her as it is for you and I?

I also think that some people condone the present situation as a way to save "scarce" resources - why spend time and money on such things when it doesn't matter much anyway (see above)? And when there are so many other places that need repairing and updating - places where typical children are educated, for example.

The most guilty of all would be those who question why time and money should be spent in such places when they regard (whether consciously or unconsciously) the individuals who live, work or go to school there as "less than".

As in noticing less than others.

Needing less than others.

Deserving less than others.

And although the case might be made that this is not a condition confined to the disabled, that individuals in poorer communities or the aged, for example, often experience similar physical environments, I have to ask how that justifies any of it.

Is it really okay to treat any segment of the population (be it on the basis of ability, age, income or race) as less than, as being as entitled to less than what the community would accept for it's own children or other family members?

Is there ever any justification for any one of us, personally, to consider it acceptable for any segment of the population to be treated with any less care, compassion and consideration than that we would expect demand for our own family members?

How do you justify the unjustifiable?

Anybody?

Over The Edge

I've watched with some degree of bemusement as racism seems to grow into a bigger and bigger issue on almost daily basis in the US. Or, perhaps I should not say so much a bigger and bigger issue as much as more and more the 'call of the day'. The only explanation for everything that happens.

After all, anyone who didn't vote for President Obama must have been a racist, right?

And we are know that the "tea baggers" are nothing but a bunch of racists ... even though the latest polls paint a slightly different picture, revealing that although they were slightly more likely to be employed, male and definitely more conservative, in several other respects, "their age, educational background, employment status, and race -- Tea Partiers are quite representative of the public at large."

But what do I know? I just find it strange is all.

Not that Canada is that much better.

As just one example, we have the complaints made on behalf of Cheryfa MacAulay Jamal to the Halifax Regional Police and the Nova Scotia Human Rights Commission about a 2008 cartoon in the Chronicle Herald. The police complaint was apparently made under under Section 318 of the Criminal Code, as "hate propaganda", more commonly known as a "hate crime".

Of course, whether you're default position is racism or some other form of discrimination, the result is really the same. Real racism and real discrimination do occur. But when we find it lurking under every rock or in every bizarre (uncaring, stupid, pick your word) comment someone makes, we are marginalizing the whole concept to the point of meaningless. And that is dangerous.

So why bring this up now?

Yesterday, I thought this story in the Chronicle Herald was a bit odd - two parents were more than a little upset about a comment made by Karen Hilchey, a substitute teacher, to their 12-year-old daughter. The teacher, who was filling in for a music class allegedly pointed at their daughter, who had been adopted from China, and said, "We are all white Christians here, except for you."

The child's mother not only wanted an apology from the school board, but had also contacted the RCMP and the provincial Education Department "seeking an investigation and a guarantee that the teacher will not be in the classroom again".

That was all of the story we had yesterday, no context to even try to explain the comment. Which, admittedly, struck me as more than a little strange and unusual for a teacher to make. What call would a music teacher have to even note such a thing? Yet alone point out the child in front of the whole class?

A stellar example of good teaching practice? Not so much.
Were the parents justified in seeking an explanation? Sure.

But racism?

The headline read "Racist Remark Sparks Outrage". The mother referred to never having experienced any racism before. And the police received a complaint and had visited the school as part of their investigation.

Today, we see the teacher scrambling madly to clarify the "misunderstanding" and give the comment some context. You can read her side of the story for yourself and draw your own conclusions.

I would think that an apology to the child and an explanation to the parents are no doubt in order. Perhaps even some sensitivity training in assisting the teacher with implementing her good intentions in the classroom. Or perhaps not.

But here is what I don't get.

Tait [the mother] said she’s still bewildered about the classroom address. She is pursuing the matter with the RCMP to see if the incident with her daughter can be considered an alleged hate crime.

A hate crime?

Lord, give me strength.

"Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years." [sec. 318, Criminal Code]

Right.

Because a comment that everyone in a room "are all white Christians", with the exception of one student, while it may be more than a little stupid and insensitive for a teacher to make, doesn't quite qualify as "advocating or promoting genocide", does it?

Does it?

I mean you can all but visualize the teacher handing out swords to the other students so they could rid the classroom of this little invader, can't you? [That was sarcasm, by the way. For anyone out there who couldn't tell. Of which I'm thinking there are probably a few.]

So tell me, have we all lost our minds?

Or have I simply went down the rabbit hole? Again?

Update: As pointed out in comments, other potentially relevant Criminal Code sections include s. 319 (1) and (2) ["public incitement of hatred" and "wilful promotion of hatred"].

Although, in my opinion, the singling of a person out as being of a different religion or race, without more, does not qualify as either inciting or promoting hatred, I note that two of the available defences to a charge of willful promotion of hatred are (a) "if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true"; or (b) "if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada". Both of which, I submit, might well apply here assuming the teacher's version of events is true.

But my real point is that so many different things have now been alleged as racist or hate crimes in the media that many some people don't even know what these words mean any more. And that, to me, is scary.

IRONY is TOO small a Word

For this.

Because they've got to be joking, right?

Without fanfare, the United Nations this week elected Iran to its Commission on the Status of Women, handing a four-year seat on the influential human rights body to a theocratic state in which stoning is enshrined in law and lashings are required for women judged "immodest."

Just days after Iran abandoned a high-profile bid for a seat on the U.N. Human Rights Council, it began a covert campaign to claim a seat on the Commission on the Status of Women, which is "dedicated exclusively to gender equality and advancement of women," according to its website.

After all, these guys are just shining examples of enlightenment when it comes to issues of gender equality and the advancement of women, right? They're like, what ... leaders in the field?

Many women who do not dress modestly ... lead young men astray, corrupt their chastity and spread adultery in society, which (consequently) increases earthquakes," said the respected cleric, Hojatoleslam Kazem Sedighi.

Earthquakes? You've gotta be kidding.

I be thinking that the only 'earthquakes' that might be caused by women "who do not dress modestly" would most likely be found under the clerics' robes. Not in the earth's crust.

Perhaps it's so rare that they just can't tell the difference?

Then again, what do I know? After all, I'm just another piece of male property, right?

Zero Tolerance = Zero Sense

Zero tolerance has been variously defined as:

1. A "get tough" policy of making no exceptions in regards to a particular (usually criminal or undesirable) matter, born as a response to a general sense of uneven application of rules and punishments. To react to a proscribed activity or substance with absolute prejudice... Without regard to mitigating circumstances or conditions.



2. Authoritarian rule system whereby breaking of the rules is taken very seriously and punishment is overly severe to get the message through.



3. A common phrase referring all lack of being able to tolerate something. Often a policy referring to various rules to increase strictness and banish all regard for anything against the zero tolerance policy.



4. A policy, usually by American schools that any reference to a gun, violence, or drugs will get you expelled automatically with no trial.

You can read more on the history of the concept here.

Since the 1980s the phrase zero tolerance has signified a philosophy toward illegal conduct that favors strict imposition of penalties regardless of the individual circumstances of each case. ... Critics of zero tolerance believe that inflexible discipline policies produce harmful results. Moreover, school administrators have failed to use common sense in applying zero tolerance, leading to the expulsion of children for bringing to school such items as an aspirin or a plastic knife.

I have a friend who rightfully likes to note that common sense is the least most common sense of all. And that last statement about school administrators failing to use common sense in applying zero tolerance could probably win an award for the understatement of the year.

A six-year-old was suspended ordered to spend 45 days at his school district's "alternative school for troublemakers" after he brought a combination folding fork, knife and spoon to eat his lunch at his Delaware school last month.

The knife is banned as a dangerous instrument under the Christina School District’s zero-tolerance policy, which officials said required them to expel Zachary or send him to the equivalent of reform school regardless of his age or what he planned to do with the utensil.

But don't worry he's in good company - a fifth-grader in the same school district was expelled last year for bringing a birthday cake and a serrated knife to cut it with. In that case, perhaps, common sense prevailed; the expulsion was overturned.

The Board isn't too worried though. They seem to think they have it under control. They're prepared to consider a narrow change that wold affect only kindergartners and first-graders and allow for [wait for it] three to five day suspensions rather than mandating harsher punishments.

That's right, boys and girls, apparently the solution to 5 or 6 year old bringing his camping utensils to class is a 3 to 5 day suspension. As opposed to being expelled. Because that's compassion. That's common sense.

And these are the people we entrust with the care, teaching and discipline of our children? What does that make us - as crazy as them?

But sadly for all of us, there's more to this than just the obvious insanity. In theory, Nova Scotia has recognized [See pages 2 & 3 of the link] it's disparate impact (or some might say, stupidity) and it's harmful effects and thus, does not have a zero tolerance policy.

Notice I said "in theory". In reality, students are being suspended or otherwise punished for behaviour for which is a result of their disability. Behaviour over which they have little, if any, control.

Anybody remember this story? About the Digby teacher who permitted encouraged his students to hit a child with Down's Syndrome. As a way to "teach" him not to hit his classmates. And I am aware of more than a few other instances in this fine Province where students with special needs have been punished (in some cases up to the point of multiple suspensions) for behaviour which is caused by or related to their disability.

I am all for challenged children learning self-discipline. But that can be a long slow process. For which many times teaching appropriate behaviour as opposed to punishment is much better suited.

But consider this: Would you suspend a child with verbal Tourette Syndrome for shouting out inappropriate comments in a classroom? Would you punish a blind child for walking into a wall?

Don't be ridiculous. Such a thing would never happen, you say? Go back and reread the fate of the six-year-old above. Are you so sure?

And although a child with Tourette or who is blind are more obvious examples, is there really any difference between those scenarios and suspending an autistic child (for example) for her behaviour? As opposed to developing an appropriate program and behavioural interventions for the child?

And don't let anyone say it can't be done. For proof otherwise, we need only look to the US.

On the positive side, the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is viewed by many in the United States as a sound legal framework for accommodating students with disabilities within the school system, including in the application of discipline. The purpose of the Act is to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services to meet their unique needs.

The provisions on discipline in the Act flow from this principle. First, a child with a disability who is removed from school must still have access to educational services. Second, a child with a disability cannot be removed from a regular school placement indefinitely. And third, a child whose behaviour was a manifestation of disability must be accommodated.

Golly gee, what a good idea. Think there's any chance it might just catch on here?

In The Year of Our Lord 2009

Dubai: The UAE law grants people with special needs the right to employment, education, marriage, nd decent living on equal terms with their normal peers, His Highness Shaikh Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Vice-President and Prime Minister of the UAE and Ruler of Dubai, said.

"People with special needs can involve in creative works in various fields," Shaikh Mohammad said as he welcomed a group of people with special needs from all overthe UAE who were invited to visit him on Saturday, in the presence of Shaikh Hamdan Bin Mohammad Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, Dubai Crown Prince.

The Vice-President said people with special needs should not stay at home and become a burden to others, because the UAE laws give them all rights to live like others.

So I suppose I should be happy with this, like it's a good thing. Right?

The fact that it took until 2009, well, better late than never. Right?

I was particularly interested in that last line though, that "people with special needs should not stay at home and become a burden to others, because the UAE laws give them all rights to live like others". Yeah, that's important I suppose. A good enough reason on its own to pass the law, really. So that they won't have to be a burden to others anymore.

If my sarcasm cuts a bit thick (or if, in case you missed it, that was, by the way, sarcasm), it's because I find it hard to know how to respond to stumbling across a story like this. Hey, for a society that can't find it in itself to give women equal rights, it is indeed quite a step forward to grant them to individuals with "special needs".

Whatever that terms means.

Shaikh Mohammad instructed the Ministry of Social Affairs to accelerate the enforcement of relevant legislations, devise an early intervention programme to deliver full care to the physically challenged people and oblige all federal and local entities to provide all necessary services in government buildings and utilities to cater for the requirements and needs of this special category.

Shaikh Mohammad described this category, which plays a vital role in the social fabric, as ‘people with special challenges’, because they challenge hearing and speech impairment and physical disability by work and contribution to the service of their community and nation. Each one of them can do so by being creative in his or her field and according to their own capability, he said.

I'm not sure if this special category includes all those that we in the Western world would lump together in the catch all category of "special needs". In that I can't really tell from reading the article whether equal rights have been granted to the mentally challenged, as well as the physically challenged.

But who know? Maybe in another 1000 years or so?

At any rate, it's always nice to know they are fans of the "Semi-Olympics".

'All Aboard The Bus' - Some Troubling Thoughts

I put off blogging about this particular issue because, quite frankly, it troubles me. I had hoped that discussing the matter with others in the disability community and taking some time to mull it over myself might help to settle my thoughts, but to no avail.

It started when I stumbled across this story last week - I was completely unaware that Metro Transit had a history of offering blind and visually impaired passengers free passes on the Halifax buses.

Apparently they were about to pull the plug on the practice after receiving "informal complaints from disabled folks who said it wasn’t fair that one group was getting complimentary passes, but not others". Combine the complaints with the fact that some $420,000 in possible revenue was at stake and some feared the die was cast. End of the day, however, Halifax Council, for whatever reason, caved and the free bus passes for the visually impaired continues.

Here's my problem. I really am not sure on which side of this issue I sit, either legally or personally.

Legally, sec. 15(1) of the Charter prohibits discrimination on the basis of "physical or mental disability". So if free bus passes are given out to the blind but not, for example, to the mentally challenged, aren't those with intellectual disabilities being discriminated against?

And legally, is this really any different than allowing a blind person's support person to travel for free without having a similar policy for individuals with other disabilities?

Actually, despite how it may appear at first blush, I would answer probably not.

If a disabled person is unable to access a mode of public transportation (be it bus, aircraft or taxi) without the assistance of a support person, then to make that person pay two fares to access a system that the rest of the public can access by paying only one fare may well be discriminatory.

And if a public transit provider was to have in place a policy whereby they allowed individuals with one type of disability (ie. blindness) to have a support person travel for free but did not allow those with different disabilities (who also validly needed the services of a support person to access the mode of transit) to do so, I would say they were only helping to pound the nails into their own coffin.

But allowing one group of the disabled to travel for free (for whatever noble reasons),while it might be bad public relations in that it could conceivably really irritate and annoy others who are forced to pay full fare, doesn't strike me as being in the same ball pack, from a legal point of view. In my mind, it much more fits the definition of "discrimination", as has been fleshed out by the Supreme Court of Canada, to not offer free passes for anyone who needs a support person than it does to offer free passes only to the blind.

From a personal point of view, I am not much happier.

READ MORE

Cross-posted at A Primer on Special Needs and the Law

Unacceptable

The word barely covers it.

Obscene. Disgusting. Pathetic. At least they come somewhat closer.

That a funding skerfuffle, that the federal and provincial governments cannot agree on who, exactly, is responsible to provide the funding necessary for aboriginal children with special needs to stay at home, with their families, where they belong is sadly, perhaps, not surprising.

But that this bit of 'government infighting' as it is so colloquially called has resulted in families being told that they may be forced to give up their children because the First Nation can no longer pay for their care and federal and provincial governments can't agree on who should pay is beyond despicable.

For mother Crystal Hart, it means she may have to say good-bye to her daughter, Priscilla.

"I want her to get the services that she can get," she said while wiping tears from her eyes.

Priscilla Hart has Ritscher-Schinzel Syndrome. She can't speak or eat and needs to be fed through a tube. She requires constant care from a respite worker who looks after Priscilla when her parents go to work.

The Norway House Cree Nation has been paying for those services, which are required by 37 children on the reserve.

However, the band said the money has run out and the services will end May 31.

And this four years after another sick child, Jordan River Anderson, spent the entire five years of his young life in a Winnipeg hospital because when doctors were ready to release him to a medical foster home at age two, provincial and federal government officials argued over who should pay for it. They couldn't even decide who would cover the cost of a special shower head he needed, for heaven's sake. Jordan never left that hospital and eventually died in February, 2005.

But don't worry, they learned their lesson from that. Or so they would have us believe.

In December, Members of Parliament vowed never to let such a thing happen again and unanimously voted in favour of a private members motion providing that children should come first when it comes to funding disputes and "should receive the same level of service … as children with similar needs living in similar geographic locations". Because the politicians apparently needed just a little help to figure that one out."

Aptly called 'Jordan's Principle', it apparently still isn't working so well.

Despite a letter penned by Minister of Health Tony Clement in 2007 professing that "Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is working closely with Health Canada as well as provincial and First Nations partners to ensure that jurisdictional issues do not impact a child's quality of care" and despite the Premier of Manitoba declaring that his province would be the first to implement Jordan's Principle, les enfants terrible rage on.

In an interview with CTV News, Manitoba Health Minister Keri Irvin Ross said the provincial government is not required to pay for the children's care. "These issues are a federal responsibility," she said. "We need to make sure the federal government is held accountable for it, but we are committed to supporting this community and these children."

But not with any funding. Irvin Ross said the provincial government is offering its support by working with the Norway House Cree Nation in its negotiations with Ottawa. Irvin Ross said the fact that the provincial government is at the negotiating table is "new ground", and is a signal of its support for Jordan's Principle. She said the federal government has yet to respond to numerous letters requesting its involvement in finding a solution.

Perhaps it's time for some new election issues.

For example, where does the Nova Scotia government stand when it comes to Jordan's Principle? More mere lip service or is anyone really willing to put their money where their mouth is?

And as for Ottawa?
They should be ashamed of themselves. Utterly. Ashamed.

'You Can Call Them Your Friends or An Inspiration'

As much as the word "retard" does personally bother me (and believe me, it does), I must admit that I do rather think that this campain to "Ban The R Word" is a bit misguided.

But that being said, it's rather hard impossible to argue with the sentiments expressed in this video.



H/T to Pipecleaner Dreams

Point and Counterpoint

The blogosphere is abuzz with President Obama's comment, comparing his bowling ability to a Special Olympics level, on Jay Leno last night.

More noise than light, I rather think. As in everybody loves to use whatever ammo they can find for their own political purposes.

But I heard the comment on the show and at the time I actually thought I misheard. Quite frankly, I didn't think someone in his position could actually make such a 'stupid' mistake. And, in all honesty, being a black man I would have credited with a little more awareness around issues of discrimination and how hurtful the casual, unthinking use of language can be.

But he has 'fessed up and apologized. And even been challenged to a face off by a Special Olympian bowler.

And yet that's not what I really want to talk about.

Except to offer a counterpoint to this, Sarah Palin's video on the subject of the Special Olympics.




I don't care what your politics are (and no, I ain't no Republican, trust me), Palin could well and truly teach President Obama a thing or three on this topic. Perhaps she could offer him a course, gratis like, as a service to the rest of the country.

And lest we forget, best line ever:

What's the difference between a hockey mom and a Special Olympics hockey mom? Nothing.

You pegged that one, my dear. You pegged that one.

H/T to Take Five