Letters - November 2007

Hate crime protection even worse in Scotland

In her article on hate crimes (Disability Now September, page 1), Katharine Quarmby set out a chilling series of murders of disabled people in England where the element of a disability hate crime seems to have been ignored by the investigators or prosecutors.

Here in Scotland, the situation in terms of legal protections, if anything, is worse. Despite recommendations from the Scottish hate crime working group in 2004, the Scottish government has still not introduced either a disability or homophobic aggravation to enable sheriffs to pass more punitive sentences if the crime was motivated by prejudice. The newly elected SNP government has signalled its willingness to do so, but there is no mention of it in their new legislative programme.

When cases of disabilityrelated harassment do come to court, they are often deemed to be “bullying” due to the victim’s “vulnerability”.

The DRC has published a study which shows disabled or lesbian-gaybisexual- transgender victims of hate crimes were not a priority in community safety plans (CSPs).

The DRC, Stonewall and the Equality Network will continue to press for the passing of the aggravation in Scotland. However, this may be a pyrrhic victory if local authorities and police forces continue to downgrade homophobic or disability-related hate crime or fail to integrate their duties to prevent harassment into their mainstream planning.

Hopefully, it will not take the murder of a Scottish Kevin Davies or Jody Dobrowski to give this issue the priority it deserves.

Chris Oswald, head of policy and communications, DRC Scotland

Article brought back memories

It was interesting to read your feature (Disability Now October, News focus) on how Spastics News evolved into Disability Now, as I worked for the earlier publication from 1966 until 1978 as an editorial assistant and journalist.

The title Scope was adopted by the Spastics Society after I left but by the mid-1970s there was already some discussion about a possible name change, because “spastic” was increasingly being used as a term of abuse. I suppose the founding fathers weren’t to know that it would become a playground insult.

In fact, the title Spastics Society was in itself a partial misnomer from the start, for a charity dealing with all aspects of cerebral palsy, because spasticity is only one type of CP. Another form is athetosis, which I have, and now I’m in my 70s it’s competing with arthritis and osteoporosis!

Anne Mills, Amersham

Criticism of the DRC was unfounded

I was surprised by Andy Rickell's comments (Disability Now October, Key notes). He claimed that the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) was not close to "the movement" and was not litigious enough.

The DRC was a statutory agency established by Parliament. It could never be part of the disability movement and nor should it have been. The movement is important but the DRC had a different role. The DRC, like the new Equality and Human Rights Commission, could only succeed if it was independent. However, the DRC was always guided by the views of disabled people. Andy was a member of a group that met the DRC's chief executive regularly. Disabled people said the education and transport sections of the Disability Discrimination Act should be strengthened, the definition of disabled people should be changed and the disability equality duty should be introduced. All were delivered.

In its life, the DRC took more than 400 legal cases. In the latter years, the DRC started on average one legal case a week, many clarifying and extending the law. Add to that part five agreements and formal investigations. Andy’s criticism does not withstand analysis. Let us hope the new commission does as well.

Bert Massie, former chairman, Disability Rights Commission

Green paper is a step backwards

A single equality act is something I would, in principle, support. I say “in principle” because any such bill would need to have a framework which would treat all sections of society with dignity and respect; offer the means to tackle the root causes of inequality; and ensure disadvantage is no longer institutionalised. Sadly, there are key proposals within the green paper which will do none of these things.

What is the point of having the Improving the life chances of disabled people report, published in January 2005, based on the social model of disability, when the green paper offers a re-working of the medical model-inspired definition of disability?

Within the disabled community there has been only muted dissent. This is worrying. Having played a role in the original Rights Now campaign, I would fully endorse Andy Rickell’s call for a new coalition to defend disabled people’s civil and human rights.

Robert Williams-Findlay, by email

Why spend millions on segregated work?

Why has Peter Hain stepped in now, when for once disabled people were being given the opportunity to decide their own future (Disability Now Online, Hain calls temporary halt on Remploy closures)?

The noise from user-led groups, disabled people's organisations and individuals seemed to be to stop segregated workshops and support disabled people into employment like everyone else.

How can we campaign for inclusive education and stopping poverty among disabled people, while allowing millions to be spent supporting a few people doing segregated work?

I find it strange how the GMB campaigned for industrial action, then they all went quiet and failed to announce the ballot results.

Maybe disabled GMB members have spoken and the union was surprised at what they said…

Hugh, Manchester, by email

Finding common ground with parents

I would like to offer a way to address the dangers of misunderstandings between parents of disabled children and the disabled people’s movement, as highlighted in Gail Hanrahan’s letter (Disability Now September, letters).

Parents and the disabled people’s movement have a common cause in challenging the disablism that affects how society tries to mould parents and disabled people’s attitudes to disability, in ways which can alienate them from one another, and disempower us all. It’s time for all those committed to disabled people’s rights – parents and disabled activists – to get round the table to talk.

I think we will then discover a common agenda, and many more allies to support one another than we thought. I would be happy to facilitate such “round table” meetings, to find such a common agenda.

Andy Rickell, executive director, Scope

Is moving to Canada the only way out?

I have arthritis of the spine and have been on incapacity benefit for seven years. For the first three years I went along with everything the doctors gave me to help with the pain – some of the drugs they prescribed had horrible side-effects and none of their drugs helped the 24/7 pain! I also have tried to no avail to get the cannabis-based drug Sativex or get on a trial, but no doctor or specialist will help me.

I believe that not allowing Sativex to be given to people who would benefit is a breach of their human rights. Or should all pain sufferers move to Canada, where they can get Sativex prescribed?

Norman Bennett, by email