Category: Disability

  • On Monday 30 October, chronically ill and disabled people protested outside the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) over the department’s planned changes to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The demo served as a stark reminder of how chronically ill and disabled people have had to fight the DWP for years – and, clearly, how they’re still going to have to.

    The DWP’s latest changes to the WCA

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP is planning to change the WCA. Specifically, the following factors – currently considered in the assessment – are being removed:

    • People’s mobility.
    • Bladder or bowel incontinence.
    • The inability to cope in social situations.
    • People’s ability to leave their homes.
    • Work being a risk to claimants or others – a clause which means that an individual is “treated as having limited capability for work and work related activity”.

    That is, the DWP thinks anyone who would currently be exempt due to those descriptors should instead have to work from home. Reading between the lines, the DWP is trying to reduce the benefits bill by forcing more chronically ill and disabled people into work. As the charity Disability Rights told Disability News Service (DNS):

    The government’s proposed changes to the work capability assessment are less to do with helping disabled people into work than a cynical attempt to impose conditionality and to reduce benefit payments.

    In reality, these changes could be terrible for the people affected. They could mean that more people would lose the health-related elements of benefits like Universal Credit. In turn, this means the DWP could subject them to sanctions.

    So, chronically ill and disabled people have begun fighting back – firstly, by going directly to the DWP’s head office.

    DPAC: fighting back against the DWP

    On Monday 30 October, Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) organised a protest outside the DWP’s Caxton House offices in Central London:

    Members of DPAC protesting outside the DWP's head office

    Some people’s placards summed up the issues well:

    a placard that reads 'death, worry, persecution, oppose tightening of the WCA' to represent the DWP

    Other groups were out supporting DPAC in person – including branches of Unite the Union’s community wing, and campaign group WinVisible:

    Campaign group WinVisible holding a banner at the DPAC DWP protest which reads 'winvisible women with visible and invisible disabilities'

    Prominent DPAC and disability rights activist Paula Peters lead the protest. She has been one of the most visible faces in the ongoing fight against successive governments and the DWP. Online, campaign group the Chronic Collaboration also got involved:

    However, one of the most pertinent statements came from John McArdle, a campaigner with Scottish disability rights group Black Triangle. He told the protest that campaign groups like his and DPAC had been taking direct action for “13 years, and things are still getting worse”.

    Protesters then blocked the entrance into the road the DWP offices are located on:

    members of dpac and other groups blocking a road as part of their WCA protest

    DPAC used the chant “no more deaths from benefit cuts” – a slogan the group has used for years:

    Cops, surprisingly, did nothing –  but one driver was aggressive towards DPAC members:

    Overall, DPAC’s WCA protest marked a return to the activism the group has become well-known for, after the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic stopped a lot of the group’s activity. However, the demo was also a moment for reflection, too.

    A lost decade

    Campaigners formed both DPAC and Black Triangle in the wake of the 2010 election of the coalition government. This came at a time where the Tories and Lib Dems were pushing harsh reforms to the social security system. Both groups were a response to this – and both have been campaigning ever since. During this time, some members of DPAC have passed away – like co-founder Debbie Jolly:

    DPAC co-founder Debbie Jolly

    The Canary has been covering DPAC’s actions since 2016, when the group and its supporters blocked Westminster Bridge in a high-profile piece of direct action. As we wrote at the time:

    For disabled people, this is one of the most worrying times in decades. With support being cut, relentless attacks from the government, and hate crime rapidly rising, it’s little wonder that they feel they need to act. And in the 21st century, the fact that they still have to fight for their rights in such a public way should be a concern to us all.

    Seven years later, the DWP’s persecution of chronically ill and disabled people has barely changed – as McArdle alluded to at the WCA demo. This is despite countless protests, political pressure, and even the UN getting involved. The international body found in a 2016 investigation that successive governments and the DWP had committed “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights.

    Nothing changes, and disabled people have no choice but to fight

    The demo felt like an eerie moment of déjà vu: hearing the same chants and seeing disabled people blocking roads felt like we’d been here before. DPAC, of course, very much has been here before. The fact that the group is once again having to protest over threats to disabled people – which is ultimately what the issue with the DWP’s WCA changes is – is a damning indictment of the department.

    Moreover, though, it’s a damning indictment of society – there was little support for DPAC’s protest outside of the chronically ill and disabled communities.

    In 2016, opposing the DWP cutting disabled people’s benefits was ‘all the rage’ among some sections of the political and media class, and non-disabled activists. Many people jumped on the bandwagon, lending their supposed solidarity. However, that support has clearly waned, and non-disabled activists, politicians, and journalists have moved on to the next issue they think will further their own aims or careers.

    For chronically ill and disabled people, there is no moving on. This is their lives – and it was frustrating to see so little solidarity from non-disabled people. However, DPAC and other groups will continue to fight the DWP regardless of whether non-disabled people stand with them or not – not because they want to, but because they have no choice. 

    Featured image and additional images via the Canary and DPAC

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is facing a backlash over its plans to change the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The uproar over its changes – which will force many chronically ill and disabled people to work from home – is such that people will be protesting outside the department’s main office on Monday 30 October. The campaign group behind the protest has branded the DWP and its plans “despicable”.

    The DWP’s latest changes to the WCA

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP is planning to change the WCA. Specifically, it thinks that the following factors – currently considered in the assessment – are no longer barriers to work:

    • Factoring in people’s mobility.
    • Bladder or bowel incontinence.
    • The inability to cope in social situations.
    • People’s ability to leave their homes.
    • Work being a risk to claimants or others – a clause which means that an individual is “treated as having limited capability for work and work related activity “

    That is, the DWP thinks anyone who would currently be exempt due to those descriptors should instead have to work from home. Reading between the lines, the DWP is trying to reduce the benefits bill by forcing more chronically ill and disabled people into work. As the charity Disability Rights told Disability News Service (DNS):

    The government’s proposed changes to the work capability assessment are less to do with helping disabled people into work than a cynical attempt to impose conditionality and to reduce benefit payments.

    In reality, these changes could be terrible for people affected. They could mean that more people would lose the health-related elements of benefits like Universal Credit. In turn, this could mean the DWP could subject them to sanctions.

    However, chronically ill and disabled people are not taking the DWP’s actions lying down.

    DPAC: fighting back

    Campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) has organised a protest outside the DWP’s Caxton House office in Westminster. On 30 October at 12pm, the group and its allies will gather. This is the last day for the DWP’s public consultation on proposed WCA changes. You can read about the consultation, and find out how to submit evidence to it, here.

    DPAC will be letting the DWP know how dangerous its plans are. The group said in a statement:

    These proposals threaten to remove essential income from Deaf and disabled people and to subject many more of us to distressing and punitive work search activities and benefit sanctions.

    Their argument is that Deaf and disabled people can work from home now. They want to remove assessment points for social anxiety, communication difficulties, mobility issues and bladder/bowel incontinence.

    We know that working from home does not overcome these barriers.

    Research has shown that disabled people benefit less from home working than non-disabled people, because we are less likely to be in the kind of jobs that can be done from home.

    Of course, the DWP’s plans for the WCA are part of a wider but equally toxic plan to further target chronically ill and disabled people reliant on social security.

    ‘Despicable’ plans from the DWP

    As the Canary has been documenting, the current Conservative government appears hell-bent on further persecuting chronically ill and disabled people. It is currently:

    • Planning on scrapping the WCA altogether. This will mean Personal Independence Payment (PIP) health assessments will be used for all benefits. The change could see the DWP strip over 600,000 chronically ill and disabled people of some benefits.
    • Looking at not increasing benefits next April in line with inflation – even though previous increases have not kept pace with rising prices.
    • Planning on getting chronically ill and disabled people’s GPs to refer them to “employment support” if they fit certain criteria.

    Overall, DPAC said of the planned changes to, and potential scrapping of, the WCA:

    These plans will be a disaster for anyone who faces barriers to paid work. They will unquestionably lead to a considerable increase in avoidable harm and more benefit deaths. And we cannot trust Labour not to keep any changes to tighten the WCA if elected.

    Please support the protest however you can and let people know about the consultation and the government’s despicable plans.

    So, anyone affected by the WCA, plus anyone who cares about how the DWP treats chronically ill and disabled people, should get themselves to Caxton House at 12pm on 30 October. DPAC will be making some noise – and the more people there to support it, the better. Those who cannot physically attend can get involved online using #NoMoreBenefitDeaths. The DWP cannot be allowed to get away with this.

    Featured image via the Canary and Wikimedia

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) is running a consultation on changes to the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). Its plans have already provoked uproar among chronically ill and disabled people. So, the more people that tell the DWP what they think of its planned WCA changes the better – but there’s only a matter of days left to submit your views to the consultation.

    DWP: controversial changes to the WCA

    As the Canary previously reported, the DWP is planning to change the WCA. Specifically, it’s planning on taking out or changing the following features:

    • Factoring in people’s mobility.
    • Bladder or bowel incontinence.
    • The inability to cope in social situations.
    • People’s ability to leave their homes.
    • Work being a risk to claimants or others – a clause which means that an individual is “treated as having limited capability for work and work related activity “

    That is, the DWP thinks anyone who would currently be exempt due to those descriptors should instead have to work from home. The department has been quite clear on its reasoning, too. It says it wants to remove these aspects:

    so that assessments reflect greater flexibility and availability of reasonable adjustments in work, particularly home working.

    Reading between the lines, the DWP is trying to reduce the benefits bill by forcing more chronically ill and disabled people into work. As the charity Disability Rights told Disability News Service (DNS):

    The government’s proposed changes to the work capability assessment are less to do with helping disabled people into work than a cynical attempt to impose conditionality and to reduce benefit payments.

    In reality, these changes could be terrible for people affected. They could mean that more people would lose the health-related elements of benefits like Universal Credit. In turn, this could mean the DWP could subject them to sanctions.

    The DWP is currently running a consultation on the changes. However, time is running out for people to take part in it.

    The consultation is closing

    The DWP tweeted on Monday 23 October that:

    The full details of the consultation can be found here.

    People have criticised the DWP for its planned changes. For example, welfare rights adviser Ayaz Manji said on X that:

    I don’t think it’s possible to design a more dangerous reform to the benefits system.

    The clients I work with who meet this criteria are people who are facing real harm. Often with a history of suicidal thoughts and attempts, and complex mental health problems. This would target a benefit cut towards people who the DWP knows are in extremely precarious situations…

    The consequences of this are entirely predictable. Really hope that everyone invested in us having a safe and fit-for-purpose social security system can mobilise around this.

    We must stop these ‘horrendously dangerous’ plans

    Ellen Clifford, from campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), told DNS that the DWP is:

    effectively getting rid of out-of-work benefits for disabled people and denying the realities and prevalence of disability to do it, at the same time ramping up sanctions which are proven to discriminate against disabled job-seekers.

    It is horrendously dangerous.

    So, as many people as possible should complete the DWP’s consultation before the 30 October deadline. These regressive, punitive, and dangerous changes must be stopped in their tracks.

    Moreover, people need to apply pressure to Labour to make sure it doesn’t bring these sweeping and horrific reforms to the WCA if it’s elected. Currently, its stance on social security is weak, at best – so there’s no guarantee the party would be any better than the Tories are.

    You can write to your MP here to tell them to urge them not to implement the DWP’s changes.

    Featured image via the DWP – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • A Tory-run Norfolk council has forced a disabled woman living with multiple sclerosis (MS) into a care home against her will. Now, her daughter is campaigning for her to be released and let home. However, they need your help with a ‘Twitter storm’ to try and make the council listen. 

    Living with MS, but forced into a care home

    Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) is supporting Linda, whose mum Christine lives with MS. Tory-run Norfolk County Council and its adult social care services forced Christine into a care home – against her will. So, Linda, and her daughter Amelia (pictured) is campaigning to get her mum home. There’s a X (formerly Twitter) storm on Friday 20 October from 7:30-9pm.

    DPAC put a statement from Christine on its website. The Canary is reprinting it in full below:

    My Mum, Christine Lee, was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis 25 years ago and has been a full time wheelchair user for several years. She was forced into residential care by Norfolk County Council (NCC) over a year ago following a stay in hospital due to a medication issue. Her care needs had not changed.

    Before this she had been living happily in her flat for which she had (and still has) an assured tenancy. Her flat has been fully adapted for her needs (hoists, wet room etc.) and she has lived there for over a decade. Care is provided by on site care provider Norse Care who are owned by NCC. They provide care 24/7and it is claimed they meet low, medium and high care needs.

    She was told she would only be in the residential home for a maximum of 28 days for assessment. NCC put her in a care home owned by Norse which was miles from her friends, sister and town she had lived all her life. She was completely isolated and not taken out once, her independence completely destroyed.

    The reality is that because my Mum needs more than 13 hours care per week NCC have forced her into residential and have refused care in her home. Mum needs basic personal care only and has full capacity.

    In August Mum was evicted from the Norse care home because I spoke out. She is now in another care home despite telling many NCC staff constantly over the last year that she wants to go home.

    The last year has been horrific. Getting any information has taken months and the dishonesty has been staggering.

    Mum has not been listened to in any way.

    ‘Bullied and distressed’

    Linda continued:

    Other issues are:

    1. Waited 11 months for NCC OT [occupational therapy] assessment. OT refused to visit Mum’s flat to review equipment.
    2. SW ignored Mum’s requests and signed authority to act form for advocacy to be present at all meetings. She visited Mum when on her own and was dishonest and manipulative.
    3. Mum not involved with Care Plan.
    4. Mum had no idea what the SW was taking to panel and when. We were told after the event that she had taken options of staying at the residential in which Mum was isolated or returning home with an over inflated care package which was not as per her assessment (the cost would have been £3500 per week!). Residential was chosen.
    5. The new care home is cheaper than the one they owned but they now want top ups. This was not mentioned before Mum moved. NCC claim they didn’t know costs before the moving date. I have emails from the care home sent to NCC that they did. Mum could face another eviction.
    6. NCC have spent 5 months avoiding and refusing a subject access request.
    7. They have agreed an independent SW, but he is an ex-employee of NCC and is again ignoring Mum’s requests for advocacy.
    8. NCC management have refused to meet with Mum and family.

    There have been many more incidents when we have felt totally bullied and distressed. They are relentless.

    Mum just wants to go home and feels she shouldn’t be in a residential home just because she has a disability. She misses her independence, home, friends and sister.

    Support the Twitter storm

    Linda concluded:

    The issue is being covered by the BBC on Friday 20th October. Doing all of this is definitely outside my comfort zone, but I know it supports Mum and all those who have been treated so unfairly.

    Please can I ask for your support with a Twitter storm to @NorfolkCC and @NorfolkTories between 7.30-9pm on Friday 20th October.

    Hashtag tweets of:

    #Care4Christine

    #ShameonNCC

    #FreeChristineLee

    If you can get involved, please do. You can read more on Christine’s story here.

    Featured image via Christine Lee’s family

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In recent weeks, the Labour Party has been revealing some of its plans for the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) – or rather, its revealed what little plans it actually has. This particularly applies to chronically ill and disabled people, as Labour is already showing that they’re low on its list of priorities. This isn’t a surprise though, as the party has put right-winger Liz Kendall in charge of the DWP brief.

    Labour and the UNCRPD: not happening

    First, Labour will not be implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) into domestic law. The UK has ratified the UNCRPD – meaning it agrees with its covenants and has said it will adhere to them. However, as the Canary has documented, successive governments haven’t been sticking to the UNCRPD at all.

    In 2016, the committee in charge of the UNCRPD found that Conservative-led administrations had committed “grave” and “systematic” violations of chronically ill and disabled people’s human rights. The chair of the committee went as far as to say governments had created a “human catastrophe“. Currently, the UN committee responsible for the CRPD is investigating the UK again.

    So, you might think it would be a priority for Labour to put the entire UNCRPD into domestic legislation. However, the party’s shadow minister for disabled people – Vicky Foxcroft – has said it won’t be.

    Labour’s policy document on this states:

    We will honour our commitments to the United Nations’ Convention for the Rights of Disabled People and ensure its principles are reflected across government to create policies which remove barriers to equality and focus on disabled people’s representation at all levels of government.

    That’s not the same as making it law – which Foxcroft has admitted. She told Disability News Service (DNS) that ““the wording in [the document] is the wording at the moment”. Foxcroft added:

    We’ve still got time until the next [election].

    I think it’s one of those where in government you have to hold us to account in terms of whether we are actually committed to it.

    This attitude shows that Labour has little concern for chronically ill and disabled people’s rights in terms of the UNCRPD. However, the UNCRPD isn’t the only area where the party has let down chronically ill and disabled people down.

    Vacuous word soup – and not a lot else

    As DNS also reported, the DWP is planning to change the Work Capability Assessment (WCA). Specifically, the DWP is planning on taking out the following features:

    • Factoring in people’s mobility.
    • Bladder or bowel incontinence.
    • The inability to cope in social situations.
    • People’s ability to leave their homes.

    That is – the DWP thinks anyone who those descriptors apply to should have to work from home. Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) have already condemned the plans as “dangerous”.

    So, Labour has said it will not be carrying out these changes if they’re elected. However, that’s about as good as it gets. As DNS also reported, new shadow work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall’s:

    speech to the annual conference contained almost no social security policy detail, with vague pledges to “transform employment support so it’s tailored to individual and local needs”, make “sweeping changes to jobcentres”, “reform universal credit” and “champion equality for disabled people”.

    Foxcroft defended the lack of policy detail in her new boss’s speech, saying she “didn’t have very long to speak”.

    Kendall’s vacuous word-soup of buzz phrases isn’t surprising. Historically, she’s made it clear she is on the right when it comes to social security. As the Big Issue reported, when Kendall ran for the Labour leadership in 2015:

    She was the only candidate to back acting leader Harriet Harman’s decision not to oppose welfare cuts made by the Conservative government.

    She said she would not oppose the bill “unless we show how we can pay for the alternative” and supported a benefit cap set by the government. This was seven years ago, but it remains an insight into Kendall’s politics and has roused worry among some campaigners.

    Throughout 2022, Kendall was absent for a number of votes on welfare benefits – but in previous years she has voted for increasing benefits and against cuts alongside her Labour colleagues.

    Kendall’s predecessor, Jonathan Ashworth, was no better – tabling policies which, as the Canary previously wrote, were:

    peddling the right-wing idea that there are chronically ill, sick and disabled people who should be working but aren’t – ‘benefit scroungers’, but without explicitly saying it.

    However, even if Labour’s policies for chronically ill and disabled people weren’t lacking – it may not make a difference, anyway.

    Can Labour really change the DWP, anyway?

    Much of the DWP’s decision making is extra-governmental. That is, civil servants, not politicians, drive and implement policy.

    For example, the department’s current reforms to the WCA – scrapping it, and using Personal Independence Payment assessments for everything – are not a current government policy. The DWP originally announced it when Amber Rudd was work and pensions secretary in 2019. There have been three different governments, and three work and pensions secretaries, since then. Yet, the DWP is still implementing the policy.

    It’s a similar story with Universal Credit. It’s a system the Tories originally created when they weren’t even in government. However, the DWP has pushed it ever since, regardless of who has been in power. Part of the problem has been work and pensions secretaries’ unwillingness to force reform at the DWP, challenge bad policy making – or introduce good ones in the first place.

    So, Labour’s stance on chronically ill and disabled people, while vague at best, may not matter that much anyway. Without significant reform to the DWP as an institution, little is likely to change.

    Featured image via Good Morning Britain – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • Some media outlets are reporting that the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has said it is reviewing whether or not to give claimants more cost of living payments. It comes as the next batch of money is due to drop into some people’s banks from 31 October. However, the reports should not be taken at face value – as the government is in the midst of a clampdown on benefit claimants.

    When is the next cost of living payment?

    The DWP has been paying some claimants cost of living payments. Overall, it’s giving people £900, split into three payments. It paid the first one in April. People will start getting the second payment of £300 from 31 October. Then, a third payment of £300 will be made in spring 2024. However, the DWP is not giving them to everyone.

    Many Universal Credit claimants will get the money. However, if you only claim one of the following benefits, you will not get the cost of living payment:

    In April, as the Canary previously calculated, this meant around 1.6 million people on benefits were not entitled to the first cost of living payment. This included many chronically ill and disabled people.

    Now, some media is reporting that the DWP is considering more cost of living payments.

    Media reports another round of DWP support might be coming

    Birmingham Live reported on Monday 9 October:

    DWP looking at more cost of living payments as November announcement expected

    The Government review will decide whether extra support is needed as householders face a winter of rising costs

    It also said:

    More cost of living payments could be announced to help hard-pressed households if a Government review decides there is a desperate need for additional support. The Department for Work and Pensions says it is assessing its current package of measures to see whether further cash sums should be rolled out.

    netmums ran a similar story on Thursday 12 October. It noted that:

    Guy Opperman, Minister for Employment at the DWP, said we should expect an announcement on any future cost of living payments in the Autumn Statement which is being held on 22 November, 2023.

    Mr Opperman said: ‘Obviously there is an Autumn Statement in November which would be the clear time for decisions to be telegraphed, if not decisions made.’

    However, both these stories should be approached with caution.

    A large pinch of salt needed

    Birmingham Live and netmums are basing the potential for more cost of living payments on a Westminster Hall parliamentary debate from 4 September. This is where MPs discuss an issue away from the House of Commons. During this debate, minister for disabled people Tom Pursglove said:

    There is ongoing work to review the cost of living payments that the Government have made available in the current climate. I anticipate that the results will come forward over the autumn and inform future decisions that we make. We continue to have conversations with the Treasury about the support that we provide.

    This in no way means the government will roll out further cost of living payments. In fact, the DWP is already considering cutting people’s benefits in real terms in 2024. Plus, as Disability News Service (DNS) reported, the Conservative Party conference was a platform for ministers to:

    ramp up rhetoric that blames disabled people on out-of-work benefits for the country’s economic problems

    Given the current government has a clear agenda of targeting benefit claimants, the idea that it will given them another round of cost of living payments is fanciful at best. So, take any news reports of this with a larger-than-average pinch of salt, as it’s unlikely any new support for people already impoverished will be arriving soon.

    Feature image via SteveAllenPhoto999 – Envato Elements, UK government – Wikimedia, and UK government – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The family of a woman from Sussex living with severe myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) has said the NHS still hasn’t responded to their pleas for help, weeks after they contacted it. Karen Gordon is bedbound at home with what the family says is “life-threatening dehydration and malnutrition”. Yet despite this, as well as a petition and media attention, the NHS is failing to act to save her.

    Karen Gordon: living with ME since she was 10

    Karen has lived with severe ME for nearly 20 years. It is a chronic systemic neuroimmune disease not dissimilar to Long Covid. You can read more about ME and its symptoms here. Around 25% of people living with the disease are classed as ‘severe’ or ‘very severe’. These people are generally, if not permanently, bedbound; they’re often unable to eat solid food, and sometimes barely able to communicate.

    This is what Karen’s life is like. As a petition her family set up for her notes:

    Karen is totally bed bound and cannot eat or drink.

    The ME causes many symptoms including generalised pain, abdominal pain, headache, nausea and vomiting, fatigue, and hypersensitivity to sensory stimuli including, light and noise. She has to keep her eyes covered…

    Karen has had ME since she was 10 years old. She has been tube fed for 19 years mostly at home. In the last two years her ME health has become worse, causing more severe nausea and vomiting and severe abdominal pain leading to more feeding and nutritional difficulties.

    Medical professionals generally think there is no known cure for ME. Around 6% of patients have recovered from the disease – but otherwise, doctors often leave people without adequate support or care – actively making their condition worse. This is what Karen is currently experiencing. However, the NHS has repeatedly failed her.

    The NHS: worsening Karen’s situation

    As the Canary previously reported, Karen has repeatedly had to go into hospital because she cannot eat or drink. However, the Conquest Hospital in St Leonard’s-on-Sea has been making this increasingly impossible for Karen. Due to her ME causing extreme hypersensitivity to noise, she needs a side room when she’s an in-patient. The hospital stopped providing this – but did agree that she could be tube-fed at home.

    However, the Conquest Hospital said it could not do this. Bosses told Karen she would have to travel 100 miles to the St Mark’s hospital in London which could arrange it. Again, her ME would make the journey impossible, so Karen said she couldn’t do that either.

    So, the hospital refused to help Karen and discharged her. Her family then started a petition, begging people to support Karen and them. On 14 September, her family noted that:

    Two tests in the last month have shown that Karen is dehydrated. But she has not even been given a few days of I/V fluid at home to help her during this time by the Urgent Community Response / Virtual Ward teams.

    They believe she is:

    suffering from life threatening dehydration and malnutrition. She has lost a lot of weight. She is getting thinner and thinner. Karen is scared that she is going to die from dehydration and malnutrition. Karen does not want to die.

    Karen needs the East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust to provide I/V feeding (TPN) and I/V fluid at home without delay.

    In response to a Canary article on Karen’s plight, East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust which runs the Conquest Hospital said on 20 September it will:

    continue to work to provide care that will deliver the best outcome for our patient.

    However, we now know this hasn’t been the case.

    Not an isolated case for people with ME

    Karen’s family updated her petition on 9 October. They said:

    It has been two weeks since we contacted Joe Chadwick-Bell, CEO of East Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust, about Karen’s life-threatening malnutrition and dehydration and about the hospitals not meeting the needs that Karen has because of her very severe M.E. We still have not had a response to our concerns and our request for urgent action.

    Karen is continuing to struggle and is still getting thinner and thinner.

    To sum up, the Conquest Hospital is doing nothing. This is despite the petition getting nearly 9,000 signatures and media coverage of Karen’s dire situation.

    This lack of action and care from the NHS is not an isolated case in terms of ME. The Canary has documented several women who it has treated in a similar way. Moreover, at least anecdotally, people living with ME will tell you that neglect and failure is par for the course when dealing with the NHS.

    Karen’s situation in Sussex is extremely concerning – and she needs immediate support to get the NHS to listen. Long term, however, a sea change is needed so the health service never leaves people with ME in these kinds of situations again. When that change will happen, and where it will come from, remains to be seen.

    Featured image via Karen Gordon’s family

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • For 58 years, Medicare and Medicaid have provided life-saving and life-sustaining care for millions of Americans, but they are rapidly being weakened by politicians who insist on inviting corporations to oversee their implementation. Health insurance companies are creeping into Medicare and Medicaid via so-called “managed care.” Often proposed as a cost-saving measure, managed care is when…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust has issued an apology – of sorts – to charity the ME Association. It’s over an offensive job advert that angered people living with the chronic neuroimmune disease myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME). However, Oxford NHS’s ‘apology’ is barely that – and has actually done little more than re-gaslight a whole group of chronically ill disabled people.

    Oxford NHS: one advert igniting a whole community

    The Canary has been documenting the controversy over Oxford NHS’s job advert. It’s hiring a clinical psychologist. The role will be working in the ME service, and the renal and transplant medicine service. However, Oxford NHS said in the advert (since altered) that the role would involved working with patients who have:

    difficulties in understanding (such as cognitive deficits, or unconscious denial of psychological conflicts), or overcoming communication difficulties with patient who are hostile, antagonistic, highly anxious or psychotic.

    It would also involve dealing with:

    verbal abuse and risk of physical aggression (for example from people with behavioural problems or enduring mental illness).

    Of course, it goes without saying that people with ME aren’t ‘hostile’, ‘antagonistic’, ‘verbally abusive’, or ‘physically aggressive’ – generally because they live with an energy-limiting chronic illness that barely lets them do things like wash up or go out for a coffee, let alone kick off at psychologists.

    Enter the ME Association

    In short, as I previously wrote, Oxford NHS’s overall thinking implied:

    that ME patients are ill because, at least in part, their illness is psychosomatic (“unconscious denial of psychological conflicts”) – and this needs to be clinically psychologised out of them.

    So, the ME Association got involved. The charity wrote to Oxford NHS asking it to change the advert to “remove the offensive language”. Consultant clinical neuropsychologist at Oxford Dr Simon Prangnell replied to the ME Association. He said that the wording that caused offense was not about people with ME. It was there in case the post holder had to respond to “emergency situations not necessarily within their usual service”.

    This still wasn’t good enough for the ME Association – and rightly so. It then wrote to the boss of the NHS trust. Now, Oxford NHS has replied – saying ‘sorry’, noting that it has changed the advert and “revised the wording”. And the new wording must be good, because the ME Association said that it will be writing back to “thank them for taking this action”. Surely, Oxford NHS must have got it right this time? Yes?

    No, of course it bloody well didn’t.

    Rewording, but still saying, the same shit

    The Oxford NHS ad for a clinical psychologist still states, in relation to ME patients, that the post holder will have to deal with people who are:

    highly emotionally charged (such as eliciting/discussing experiences of trauma or childhood abuse), and which may require managing difficulties in understanding (such as cognitive deficits, or unconscious denial of psychological conflicts)

    And that the person will need to be:

    Skilled at communicating with patients who may at times present as hostile or who are highly anxious or psychotic.

    All Oxford NHS has done is put the part about patients being ‘verbally abusive’ or ‘physically aggressive’ in the context of:

    exceptional circumstance (for example, when working with a person experiencing a mental health crisis or responding to an urgent / emergency situation)

    So, people living with ME still:

    • Have unconscious denial of psychological conflicts – implying that ‘the illness is all in people’s heads’.
    • Are “hostile”, “highly anxious”, and/or “psychotic” – implying that ‘the illness…’ etc etc.

    Moreover, they’ve had some “childhood trauma” which is also causing their ME or making it worse. Although they may not remember it (probably because it never bloody happened), it is definitely somewhere at the root of their post-viral illness and the multitude of symptoms this causes. ‘The illness is all in people’s heads AND it’s their parent’s fault’.

    ME: round in circles we go

    How the ME Association thought the appropriate response to this re-gaslighting of the people it’s supposed to represent was to grovel and say ‘thanks’ to Oxford NHS is anyone’s guess – because even the letter from the trust to it was deviously worded and obtuse.

    Oxford NHS said that:

    The Trust did not intend to imply that all people [with ME] experience severe mental health conditions such as psychosis, or that all individuals would present with challenging behaviour.

    In other words, people with ME aren’t ALL psychotic – just some of them are! They don’t ALL have challenging behaviour – just some of them do! Unless I’m missing something, this is the implication of Oxford NHS’s words: the words that the ME Association accepted as a sufficient apology.

    All of this is unsurprising, given – as I previously wrote – Oxford NHS is a hotbed of crank psychiatrists desperately applying their fraudulent, pseudo-scientific ideas to a physical illness.

    So, round in circles we go. After decades of abuse and neglect, an NHS trust repeatedly gaslights patients (while ignoring a wealth of actual science), and a charity (who said patients pay money to, to advocate for them) rolls over and takes it. Not good enough, in any way, shape, or form – given that just this week I reported on another ME patient dying while the NHS neglects her – but not surprising, either.

    Once again it’s marginalised, chronically ill disabled people who have to tolerate this shit – on top of tolerating an illness which leaves many of them more functionally impaired than even cancer or heart disease does. They should not accept this continued abuse from Oxford NHS – and nor should they accept the ME Association’s simpering response, either.

    Featured image via Alex E. Proimos – Wikimedia, resized to 770×403 under licence CC BY 2.0. the NHS – screengrab, and the ME Association – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

  • Justina Worrell, 47, works part time as a kitchen helper in an Ohio nursing home. She has cerebral palsy, an intellectual disability, and a cardiac condition that required she get an artificial heart valve at age 20. A year ago, she was earning $862 a month and receiving about $1,065 in monthly Social Security disability benefits when a letter arrived from the federal government.

    Source

  • On 13 September, the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee held an evidence session for its inquiry into preparations for winter. The committee grilled representatives of Ofgem (Office of Gas and Electricity Markets) on actions the energy regulator was taking to ensure households would not face unaffordable energy bills this winter.

    Originally, the committee was also due to question the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero’s (DESNZ) new lead minister, Claire Coutinho. However, Coutinho pulled out of the meeting.

    This had committee chair and SNP MP Angus Brendan MacNeil wondering why the minister had ditched the session. During the meeting, MacNeil said that:

    She was meant to be here today, but for various reasons—perhaps a lack of confidence or not being on top of her brief or whatever—she is not. I am not sure, but we are very disappointed

    Less volatile market, but energy bills still sky-high

    It’s perhaps not surprising the energy minister ditched the session in light of the stark warnings from the government’s arms-length energy regulator. Chief executive of Ofgem Jonathan Brearley appeared before the committee and sketched out the dire situation for households this winter. Brearley opened with what he described as the “positive news” – namely that:

    the market is more stable; it is less volatile, and prices are lower than they were this time last year.

    By comparison, he also said that:

    This time last year, we were anticipating and seeing prices at around £4,200 a year without Government support.

    June saw a 25.2% drop in gas prices. The Office for National Statistics largely attributed this to Ofgem lowering the energy price cap that month. Ofgem has set the energy price cap at £1,923 for the period between October and December. This is down on the £2,074 between July and September.

    As fuel poverty non-profit National Energy Action (NEA) noted, however:

    This is still around £700 more than in October 2021, when the energy crisis began when 4.5 million UK households were in fuel poverty.

    Energy bills to rise without action

    Moreover, Brearley’s assessment quickly took a negative turn. Crucially, he warned that some households could actually face higher bills than last year. This is because the government has reduced financial support. Brearley stated that:

    That support is not available, so for many people, their bills will be very similar this year and possibly worse for some than they were last year.

    Specifically, the government has scrapped the £400 winter discount on energy bills. In addition, it scaled back its Energy Price Guarantee (EPG) support scheme.

    Invariably, energy price hikes will hit the poorest households hardest. The End Fuel Poverty Coalition has estimated for example that:

    Fewer than 5m of the UK’s 28m households could be classed as being in the “energy elite” and unaffected by the current energy bills crisis. Around 8m have to borrow money to pay their energy bills and over 1m have disconnected for periods this year.

    Moreover, rising energy bills have significant financial impact on chronically ill people, causing increasing debt risk. Fuel poverty also literally kills terminally ill patients faster.

    Plan to abandon the poorest households

    On the news Coutinho would not be attending, committee chair MacNeil also remarked how:

    it is disappointing that the Government can find nobody from the ESNZ department to answer our questions and demonstrate that they do have a plan to help the many facing up to an incredibly harsh time this winter.

    As the government withdrew its support for the EPG in April, it announced a new targeted cost of living payment to fill the gap. However, the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) found that 1.7 million people in fuel poverty could miss out on the support.

    Of course, as the Canary’s Steve Topple has pointed out before, the Tories do have a plan. Simply put, they plan not to help households out of fuel poverty. Topple argued that energy prices are the “latest weapon” in the Tories’ class war, in that:

    the rich and powerful are knowingly doing things that will suppress the poorest people and keep them in their poverty-stricken place.

    Evading scrutiny

    Moreover, a previous inquiry session laid out clearly the devastating impact the Tories’ class war has had on marginalised communities. On 6 September, the committee met with non-profit groups. A number of organisations provided evidence of where the government had fallen short last winter.

    Notably, National Energy Action (NEA) estimated that the government had failed to reach over a million vulnerable households with vital financial aid. It said that this meant the government didn’t give out £440m allocated towards energy support. Meanwhile, the End Poverty Coalition calculated that cold, damp homes killed nearly 5,000 more people in winter 2022/23 than the average.

    The committee also questioned Ofgem on the failures of the government’s warm homes discount scheme. Committee chair Angus Brendan MacNeil grilled Ofgem about a damning BBC revelation on the plans. The broadcaster found that it had failed to deliver support to over 700,000 people out of the 900,000 eligible.

    At this point, MacNeil cast some shade at Coutinho, noting that:

    We would ask the Secretary of State to answer that herself if she were here.

    Giving up the pretense entirely

    Given these failures of her department, is it any wonder the new energy minister evaded scrutiny? Regardless, the situation spoke volumes of the government’s concern for the most vulnerable this winter.

    In February, regarding the plans to cut the EPG, the Canary’s Alex/Rose Cocker wrote that the govenment seems to be:

    giving up the pretense that it cares about people being able to afford necessities such as cooking and staying warm.

    Coutinho’s absence from the inquiry session brought this point home starker than ever. If the minister for Energy Security and Net Zero can’t even show up to an inquiry to discuss plans for energy bills, she sure as hell isn’t going to turn up for the poorest households when winter starts to bite.

    Feature image via Lisafern/Wikimedia, cropped and resized to 1910 by 1000, image in the public domain.

    By Hannah Sharland

  • The majority of people think unpaid carers need more money than they currently get. That’s the verdict of a new piece of research, which also reveals that every week people perform over 67m hours worth of support in unpaid caring roles.

    Unpaid carers: supporting people in their millions

    Overall, the last census said there were 5.7 million unpaid carers in the UK. However, charity Carers UK believes the figure is likely nearer 11.5 million. The government gives unpaid carers just £76.75 a week – and they’re only entitled to this if they do 35 hours a week or more.

    So, TakingCare has released a report called Unpaid and Under Pressure. It looks at the state of unpaid caring in the UK – specifically relating to adult children and their older parents.

    The report found that overall:

    • Women, typically daughters, aged 55-59 are most likely to care for elderly parents.
    • 1 in 3 adults would give up work to care for elderly parents.
    • The amount of Carers Allowance benefits claimed in 2022 was £3.2 million.
    • 67,300,000 hours of care are performed every week in the UK by unpaid carers.
    • Social care costs and having ‘no one else’ are the biggest reasons women make this decision.

    TakingCare’s research also threw up some interesting perspectives. As it says on its website, it found that:

    just 1 in 10 adults surveyed have discussed care plans with their parents and only 4% have discussed what they would want to happen in the future with their partners.

    More than 50% of people aged 50+ have not discussed future care plans with their elderly relatives…

    Plus:

    Over two-thirds of over 70s have not discussed care plans with their adult children.

    ‘Left lying in the garden’

    Jacqueline Hooton is a healthy ageing influencer. She lives in Bognor Regis, and has over 250K followers on her Instagram account @hergardengym. Hooton works full time and has two older children living at home, as well as a son at university. Like many women, she has now taken on the responsibility of supporting her elderly parents alongside her family responsibilities and work commitments.

    Hooton’s recent experience highlights the situation for many older people and their children. She said in a press release:

    Despite telling me not to worry, I was understandably anxious when I received this message from my mother recently. My father is eighty-five years old, and my mother is eighty. They have lived in their seaside cottage for over fifty years, and it’s where I grew up. I live a five-minute walk away from my parents, so when I received the message from my mother telling me she’d had a fall, I was able to visit her straight away. I was concerned when I saw her as her face was bloodied and bruised, and she had sustained several other cuts and bruises to her limbs. Luckily, she didn’t break anything though.

    My parents are more fortunate than many older adults who live alone. On the day my mother fell she knew my father would eventually find her. However, she fell over in the garden at the back of the house, my father was in the front of the house at the time and didn’t hear her calling for help. This experience made me, and them, realise that despite my parents relatively good health, and having one another, they are still potentially vulnerable. If my father had been out swimming or playing golf when my mother fell, she could have been left lying in the garden for some considerable time.

    This kind of situation is, as Hooton pointed out, a relatively fortunate one.

    The rich/poor, man/woman divide

    Data from the Office for National Statistics (ONS) shows that there is a stark rich and poor divide in England and Wales when it comes to unpaid carers:

    There was a higher percentage of people providing unpaid care in the most deprived areas in England and Wales (10.1% and 11.5% respectively) compared with the least deprived areas, which had the lowest percentage of people providing unpaid care in both England and Wales (8.1% and 9.7%, respectively).

    Little wonder, then, that TalkingCare found one of the top reasons people become unpaid carers is because people can’t afford care homes:

    Unpaid carer survey one

    So, it would seem prudent for the government to at least provide unpaid carers with a decent level of support. Of course, this is not the case with Carer’s Allowance being pitifully low. TalkingCare found that the public agree unpaid carers need more money. Its research highlighted that, in the context of how much people thought they would need a week to be an unpaid carer:

    • 80% said it would be over £100 a week.
    • 50% said over £200.

    unpaid carers survey three

    Perhaps unsurprisingly, it seems that patriarchal attitudes still exist around unpaid caring, too. TalkingCare’s survey found that:

    Two-thirds of those surveyed believed that daughters should be the ones to care for their elderly parents rather than sons

    Data backs this up, with the Local Government Association reporting that in 2021:

    900,000 full-time unpaid carers nationally – most of them women – rely on Carer’s Allowance

    The ONS also noted this, finding that in England 10.3% of women are unpaid carers versus 7.6% of men.

    Rethinking caring

    As Hooton pointed out, the precariousness of the situation for older people and their unpaid carers is very real:

    Whilst I only live a short distance away, and could get to my parents quickly if required, this relies on one of my parents being able to contact me.

    If someone has a fall and can’t get to a phone, they may not be able to summon help, and in some cases, people may fall and sustain a significant injury or lose consciousness.

    Plus, around 120,000 children in England and Wales aged 5-17 are unpaid carers. Moreover, the Carers Trust found that 31% of unpaid carers had seen their own health and wellbeing suffer as a result of their role. As the Trades Union Congress (TUC) recently found, there are currently 152,000 vacancies in social care. This means one in 10 jobs aren’t filled. It also found 61% of social care workers earned less than the real Living Wage.

    So, with little support from government, a crisis in social care, and more and more people needing support, the state continues to put unpaid carers under undue pressure. Radical change is needed to resolve this situation.

    Featured image via Search etc agency

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  •  

    Janine Jackson interviewed New Disabled South’s Kehsi Iman Wilson about the Americans with Disabilities Act for the August 25, 2023, episode of CounterSpin. This is a lightly edited transcript.

          CounterSpin230825Wilson.mp3

     

    WaPo: Florida kept disabled kids in institutions. A judge is sending them home.

    Washington Post (8/19/23)

    Janine Jackson: July 26 marked the 33rd anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act. The 1990 law intended “to provide clear, strong, consistent, enforceable standards addressing discrimination” against individuals with disabilities.

    The occasion connected with some serious, multi-layered stories, including news of a critical ruling that the state of Florida has been violating the rights of children with complex medical needs by keeping them institutionalized when they could be living in community.

    A sizable admixture of stories, though, were reports on buildings or spaces coming into compliance with the ADA—as though complying with a 33-year-old law was a feel-good story, and despite a relative absence of feel-bad stories about decades of noncompliance.

    But more, what is lost when the public conversation around disability justice revolves around the ins and outs of abiding by law, rather than a bigger, deeper vision of a world we can all live in?

    Kehsi Iman Wilson is co-founder and chief operating officer of New Disabled South. She joins us now by phone from Tampa, Florida. Welcome to CounterSpin, Kehsi Iman Wilson.

    Kehsi Iman Wilson: Thanks so much for having me, Janine.

    JJ: In his official proclamation around the ADA’s anniversary, Joe Biden said the sort of thing politicians say:

    It is hard for younger generations to imagine a world without the ADA, but before it existed, if you were disabled, stores could turn you away and employers could refuse to hire you. Transit was largely inaccessible.

    Now, he goes on to note ways that disabled people are still discriminated against, but that lead, that opening, reflects the way many media, certainly, talk about the ADA, that it was sort of night-to-day, and now we just need to incrementally build on it.

    ITT: The ADA is the Floor, Not the Ceiling—We Need More

    In These Times (7/28/23)

    But it doesn’t require undermining the work that went into the ADA to suggest, as you do in a recent piece for In These Times, that that is maybe just not the most useful way of thinking about that act.

    KIW: It’s the same to me, it‘s as ridiculous as the frame we hear, like, “Oh, because we had a Black president in Barack Obama, somehow we’re in a post-racial society,” or “racism is over.”

    In no social movement is a victory, whether minor or major, an indicator that there need be no additional social movement—or political movement, for that matter.

    And when we’re talking about disability—disability rights, disability access, certainly disability justice—so much of the real, lived experience of disabled people contradicts a lot of President Biden’s opening statements.

    For example, when you talk about “couldn’t imagine a world where there was inaccessible public transit”—there’s still inaccessible public transit for the majority of disabled people. And unless you can afford, you’re in the privileged few who can afford, paratransit services where they’re accessible, where you live, things even as basic as access to sidewalks is still a major issue.

    We’re dealing with so many infrastructure issues in this country, and as we know, any issue doubly or triply impacts disabled people.

    JJ: Well, what did the ADA do?

    KIW: I’ll attempt my best brief answer of that, but as the title of my piece for In These Times stated, the ADA is the floor, not the ceiling. Similar to the Civil Rights Act, similar to the Voting Rights Act, it got the issue on the map, whereas before—one thing that’s a little bit more accurate in President Biden’s remarks—yes, it was not codified in law, anti-discrimination.

    But as most regular citizens, I think, and certainly those of us who are directly impacted by any of the laws I just named, or any law for that matter, law has to be enforced, right? Law is only as good as the enforcement of the law, as the awareness of the law.

    Truthout: Lawsuit Uncovers Chicago’s Failure to Provide Disability Protections in Housing

    Truthout (2/20/23)

    We’re still fighting battles across this country as it relates to the physical accessibility of buildings and spaces. So to answer the question briefly, again, it’s a starting point. It’s a good step, a huge step—not to discredit any of the work that went into getting this law passed—but it’s a starting point.

    And the hope and dream was never that that be the end of the road, but that we would continue working as a country on materially improving the lives of disabled people day to day. And, unfortunately, a lot of that work is just not happening.

    JJ: In terms of one of the many things that exist to be changed, that the law has not changed, I was shocked to learn that something as—I mean, I guess I wasn’t surprised—but that polling places, which are often in schools or older buildings, but the idea that the inaccessibility of places to vote was not a major issue, that that was sort of an afterthought for media.

    And it’s kind of like, “Yeah, sure, you have the right to vote. You just can’t exercise it.” That seems to be one of the many undercovered or underexplored aspects here.

    KIW: Oh my gosh, we could talk for hours about this. And my partner and co-founder Dom, he is really an expert when it comes to navigating the political realities and inaccessibility of voting.

    But because of what you’ve named, this is a key part of our work at New Disabled South and New Disabled South Rising. Our (c)(4) arm is working to change media narratives around disabled people: Disabled people want to vote, have a right to vote and should be allowed to vote.

    NYT: New Voting Laws Add Difficulties for People With Disabilities

    New York Times (11/8/22)

    We’ve seen, and we continue to see, a spate of laws being passed across counties, across states, making it more difficult to access the ballot box. And we know things like—for example, getting rid of drop boxes, ballot boxes. I could spew off some statistics, but I’ll save that for another time. But when you do that, you are not only disenfranchising, effectively, large portions of people of color, of people who live in rural areas, but disabled people. And that’s not talked about.

    And so for this reason, one of the key bodies of work that we are focusing on is passing  disabled voter bills of rights in five states over the next five years. We want things like a guaranteed minimum number of accessible voting machines at every polling place. We want things like the right to turn in a completed absentee ballot at any polling location, or to be able to mail it in without having to purchase a stamp.

    These things sound very basic in conversation, like the one you and I are having, but when you have laws that have been passed to criminalize some of these things, literally making it a felony, it effectively continues to disenfranchise disabled people.

    And we’re not even yet talking about the very real barriers of transportation, being able to read materials and make sure they’re in a plain language and in a way that we can understand. So things like the right to assistance with voting, and more.

    JJ: And it always is shocking to me that, even to the extent that journalists might say, “Oh yes, these polling places are inaccessible,” I don’t see the corollary piece where they say: “What happens when we don’t have the voices of disabled people in the vote? What does it mean to disenfranchise an entire community?” Which, as you are saying, is an intersectional community.

    So it’s almost like it’s just a story about access, about curb cuts, and not about the political and social and economic and all of the impacts that come from cutting off the franchise.

    KIW: Absolutely. And that’s why we can’t stop at conversations like law, or the ADA. We have to expand the conversation to address the intersecting realities and the intersecting barriers that disabled people are facing across this country.

    Going into this next election year, we are poised to do some very powerful work. And first among that is letting people know, and this goes for progressive media outlets, progressive organizations, and of course folks on the other side alike, that disabled people are a voting bloc. We are engaged in politics and the issues that directly affect us.

    And part of our work at New Disabled South is making sure that our community is educated about the policies, the laws, all of the things that are impacting us in our lived experiences day-to-day, and sharing information, power and resources so that we can continue to organize ourselves in increasingly effective ways, so that our voices can be heard and we can start to see real change.

    JJ: I’m going to bring you back to media coverage in just a second, but I just wanted to say, the group is New Disabled South. The South is home to not just decades’ worth, but much present-day critical, deep, important organizing. And I wonder if you could speak for a moment about the particular meaning of the regionality of what you’re doing.

    Center for Budget and Policy Priorities

    States that haven’t expanded Medicaid (Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/3/23)

    KIW: We know that many of this country’s disabled people are concentrated in the South, but we also know that the reality, when we talk about policies, laws, culture that is harmful to disabled people, a lot of that is concentrated in the South. A majority of states that have yet to expand Medicaid coverage, for example, are in the South.

    And so the South has this unfortunate stigma, stereotype and reality of being a place that’s less progressive, less quick to move.

    But I want to be clear, this is not because of the people in the South, right, that we are any less committed to progressive change. On the contrary, we know, with the South being the cradle of the civil rights movement, the birthplace of civil rights, and so much of the change we’ve seen in this country originating in the South, we have to do a better job of changing the narrative, and also the accountability piece.

    And that is why we’re doing our work. We decided we’re all from the South, of the South, and this is a home for us. Dom and I both have concentrated our political work, organizing work, advocacy work on Southern communities.

    Kehsi Iman Wilson

    Kehsi Iman Wilson: “If you’re talking about social justice issues, progressive issues, political issues, you need to be centering disability justice.”

    And we know that there’s immense power here. And part of what we’re working to do is eliminate the barriers to mobilizing people who are equally as passionate about these issues, so that, again, as I said, we can start to see real change.

    And we’re not willing to wait another 10 years for it. We want that change in our lifetime. We need that change now. People are literally perishing every day in the face of these laws and policies.

    As you mentioned at the introduction, kids are languishing in nursing homes, in institutions. These are real live issues that are happening across the South every single day, and we are here to help mobilize our community, policymakers, change makers, especially those in progressive space, to know if you’re talking about social justice issues, progressive issues, political issues, you need to be centering disability justice as part of that conversation.

    JJ: And we know that, first of all, it’s not just a matter, in terms of journalists, of media doing more stories that are centered on disabled people; it’s about finding the disabled people who are already in every story that you’re doing, right?

    KIW: Love that.

    JJ: You’re talking about police violence, you’re talking about voting, you’re talking about housing. All of that is a disability rights story. So thoughts about media coverage?

    KIW: Yeah, I think you’ve said some great things, it’s a real call to action. One of our funders is New Media Ventures, and early on, we spoke about centering a focus to change media narratives.

    So much of what is covered, when it comes to disabled people, the frame is one of fear or pity, which is also why we focus on disability justice and not simply disability rights, or even advocacy, which often centers a medical model, and what we call inspiration porn.

    CAP: Understanding the Policing of Black, Disabled Bodies

    American Progress (2/10/21)

    Disabled people are whole people, and we need to see the media focusing on stories that address that reality. And like you said, and I’ve never heard it said that way before, so I’m going to steal it, but it’s a matter of finding the disabled people who are already in the stories.

    Nearly half of people killed by police in the United States have a disability. When you talk about the reform of the criminal/industrial complex, the prison/industrial complex, how often are we centering the lived experiences of the reality of the disabled people in those stories? Very rarely.

    Which is why when I name statistics like that, or the fact that 55% of Black disabled men have been arrested at least once by the time they’re 28, people ooh and aw, like, “Wow, I had no idea.”

    And I could go on, of course, right? And so it’s a matter of, again, shining a light on the fact that disabled people are people, and we exist as part of every community that is at discussion in any story that needs to be covered.

    JJ: Absolutely. Well, I also wanted to say, as we both know so many stories, for example, are about the difficulties of complying with the ADA, and then there’s the whole other layer of stories about the greedy lawyers who are fighting for compliance just to shake down small business owners.

    And we do see stories about the harms of inaccessibility, but what I want to say is, I feel like we virtually never hear about the beauty of universal access, the positive vision of what a world could look like.

    It’s all like a fight between disabled people who want access and businesses, “Oh my god, it costs a lot to provide access.”

    Where’s the vision? Where’s the vision of a world that could include all of us, if that’s not too big a question for you?

    Mother Jones: Walmart Is Trying to Block Workers’ Disability Benefits

    Mother Jones (11/4/13)

    KIW: Oh, gosh, that’s a big question. But yeah, what you speak to is a lack of imagination that plagues the effectiveness of many of our movements. We create these false dichotomies, these binaries, these either/ors, and we don’t come to the table with the view of collective liberation, quite frankly, of what is possible.

    And the reality’s that if it’s good for disabled people, it’s good for everybody. Not commodifying human bodies and extracting labor and disabling people in warehouse conditions—to avoid naming any particular companies that are some of the largest employers in America—that is beneficial for everybody.

    And it speaks, also, to the type of work that you all do at FAIR.org; we know that we need reform, for lack of a better word, in terms of the media, because so much of what is covered is the negative, is the fight, is the drama, instead of shining a light on the progress, and, like you said, how is this beneficial for everybody?

    And that is how we create buy-in. So getting the media and progressive media outlets, folks who have the power to tell the story, to shift the narrative, to focus more on the ways in which accessibility is beneficial for all of us, not just disabled people, not coming from a framework of pity or inspiration, or even from a moral or ethical, you know, the hearts-and-minds approach.

    It’s common-sense good policy, and it’s the foundation of democracy. And I think we need to be talking more about those things.

    JJ: We’ve been speaking with Kehsi Iman Wilson, co-founder and COO of New Disabled South, online at NewDisabledSouth.org. Her piece, “The ADA Is the Floor, Not the Ceiling—We Need More” can also be found at InTheseTimes.com. Thank you so much, Kehsi Iman Wilson, for joining us this week on CounterSpin.

    KIW: Thank you, Janine. It’s been an honor.

    The post ‘Disabled People Are Whole People; We Need to See Media Address That Reality’ appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on FAIR.

  • The Tory government failed to attend a meeting of the United Nations (UN) regarding its treatment of chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people. So, those affected have been asking #WheresTom in response to the absence of the minister responsible for their rights. However, unlike their ministers, campaign groups did attend the UNCRPD (UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities) meeting in Geneva. They laid out damning evidence showing that somehow, things have gotten worse in the UK for chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people since a previous UN report accused successive Tory governments of human rights abuses.

    The UNCRPD and the UK government

    As the Canary has documented, the UNCRPD is a human rights branch of the UN. It oversees the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The UK has signed up to this conventions. However, in 2016 the UNCRPD assessed how the country was sticking to the rules. It found that successive UK governments had committed “grave” and “systematic” violations of disabled people’s human rights.

    Every so often, the UNCRPD monitors countries to see if they are acting in line with the CRPD’s articles or not. The last time the committee looked at the UK was in 2016 – and the report was damning. Then, in August 2017, the UNCRPD followed up on its report; this included its chair accusing the government of creating a “human catastrophe” for disabled people. Yet in 2018 the government effectively whitewashed the UNCRPD report.

    Now, the committee is investigating the UK again – but it’s already met with controversy.

    Minister for disabled people Tom Pursglove is the person ultimately responsible for chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people’s rights at the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP). However, as the Canary previously reported, his government refused to attend the UNCRPD meeting on Monday 28 August. It was supposed to be giving evidence to the committee on what progress it has made since the last inquiry. This forms part of the UNCRPD’s new investigation.

    #WheresTom?

    The government has instead said that it will give its evidence in March 2024. So, as campaign group Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC) tweeted:

    On 28 August the UNCRPD meeting went ahead without the UK government. However, disabled people’s organisations (DPOs), charities, and campaign groups did attend. The evidence they gave was damning.

    The Canary previously reported on the more-than-28,000-word report a coalition of DPOs submitted to the UNCRPD. Evidence within it included that:

    • “In 2018 there were 365,000 DDP living in unsuitable properties”.
    • By January 2020, the DWP had removed 102,000 Motability customers’ Personal Independence Payment (PIP) awards that “entitled them to vehicles”.
    • 62% of “working-age people referred to food banks in early 2020 were Disabled”.

    People from the group presented further evidence directly to the committee on 28 August:

    You can watch the full meeting here.

    Damning evidence from chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people

    The evidence DPOs and others gave to the UNCRPD was damning. Paul Ntulila told the UNCRPD:

    7.2 million households with a disabled person are living in poverty. This accounts for just over 10% of the UK’s population, but half of all UK poverty. Deaf and disabled people are almost three-times as likely to be in material deprivation than the rest of the population. Benefits in the UK are comparatively low by international standards, with one of the lowest rates relative to the average earnings.

    He also added that analysis of the impact of tax and welfare changes between 2010 and 2021 showed that deaf and disabled people were “among the biggest losers”. The level of disability within a household was directly linked to higher annual cash loss.

    Ntulila went on to say that:

    The four-year benefit freeze from 2016 to 2020 affected 27 million people – sweeping another 400,000 into poverty. It is not true that this did not affect disabled people… Benefits have not been restored to their real-terms value.

    The Canary has documented much of what Ntulila spoke of. Overall, it’s of little wonder the Tories pulled out of the meeting – as everything mentioned was one damning indictment of their successive tenures after another.

    The Tories: willfully failing disabled people

    Of course, the government is in denial over the issues DPOs have raised. It told the Mirror:

    The Government is fully committed to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the advancement of rights for disabled people in this country.

    We have followed all of the Committee’s required procedures and we will present the UK’s progress at a hearing in March 2024.

    Ask many chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people and they would likely disagree with the government’s claims of ‘commitment’ to the UNCRPD.

    Kamran Mallick is the CEO of DPO Disability Rights UK. He issued a damning summation of the situation in the country for chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people:

    The UK government is fully aware of the mountain of evidence showing the poor life chances and outcomes for its 14 million disabled citizens, but consistently fails to act. It fails to take seriously its commitments to the UNCRPD and to you. It fails to take seriously its duty to improve the life chances of every disabled citizen in the UK. It refuses to support deaf and disabled people’s organisations and engage with us in structured, meaningful ways.

    The absence of the Tories at the UNCRPD meeting is hardly surprising. It is their willful neglect, disregard, and lack of care that led to the failures in the 2016 UNCRPD report. Their entrenched contempt for chronically ill, deaf, and disabled people now looks set to lead to an even worse report this time.

    Featured image via 5 News – YouTube and Wikimedia 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  •  

          CounterSpin230825.mp3

     

    This week on CounterSpin: “We’ve come a long way but there’s a long way to go” is a familiar, facile framing that robs urgency from fights for justice. It’s the frame that tends to dominate annual journalistic acknowledgement of the Americans with Disabilities Act, passed 33 years ago in late July.

    Like Black history month, the ADA anniversary is a peg—an opportunity for journalists to offer information and insight on issues they might not have felt there was space for throughout the year. As depressing as that is, media coverage of the date often doesn’t even rise to the occasion. You wouldn’t guess from elite media’s afterthought approach that some 1 in 4 people in this country have some type of disability, or that it’s one group that any of us could join at any moment.

    Likewise, you might not understand that the ADA didn’t call for curb cuts at every corner, but for an end to “persistent discrimination in such critical areas as: employment, housing, public accommodations, education, transportation, communication, recreation, institutionalization, health services, voting and access to public services.” Nothing less than the maximal integration of disabled people into community and political life—you know, like people.

    And if that’s the story, it’s clear that it demands all kinds of attention, every day—not a once a year pat on the back about “how far we’ve come.”

    We talk about some of all of that with Kehsi Iman Wilson, co-founder and chief operating officer of New Disabled South.

          CounterSpin230825Wilson.mp3

     

    Plus Janine Jackson takes a quick look back at recent press coverage of the Maui fires and the climate crisis.

          CounterSpin230825Banter.mp3

     

    The post Kehsi Iman Wilson on Americans with Disability Act appeared first on FAIR.

    This post was originally published on CounterSpin.

  • More than 200 blind and low-vision people have signed an open letter requesting that the National Federation of the Blind (NFB) relocate their recently announced 2024 national convention from Orlando, Florida, citing concerns for the safety of LGBTQ+ attendees. The federation, founded in 1940, is the oldest and largest organization by and for blind people in the United States.

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • An Oxford NHS trust has caused further outrage with its response to complaints about a job advert for a clinical psychologist in a myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) clinic. This is because after the trust used offensive language in the advert, it’s simply dismissed concerns – clearly without thought for the patients and its affect on them.

    Oxford NHS: hiring a psychologist for ‘psychotic’ ME patients

    As the Canary previously reported, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust is hiring a clinical psychologist. The role will be working in the ME service, and the renal and transplant medicine service. However, the advert for the job has caused controversy.

    Oxford NHS said in the advert that the role would involved working with patients who have:

    difficulties in understanding (such as cognitive deficits, or unconscious denial of psychological conflicts), or overcoming communication difficulties with patient who are hostile, antagonistic, highly anxious or psychotic.

    It would also involve dealing with things:

    including verbal abuse and risk of physical aggression (for example from people with behavioural problems or enduring mental illness).

    On X (formerly Twitter) people living with ME were furious:

    People’s anger at Oxford NHS stems from the fact that many medical professionals psychologised ME for years – and often still do. However, as the Canary has documented, ME is not psychological – it is a chronic, systemic neuroimmune disease. So, people living with ME were rightly upset.

    ‘Inaccurate, offensive’ towards people with ME

    Charity the ME Association got its medical adviser Dr Charles Shepherd to write to Oxford NHS. He said:

    The way in which people with ME/CFS are described is inaccurate, offensive and unnecessary and I am sure that people with kidney disease who are awaiting a transplant would also find these descriptions offensive.

    Shepherd asked the trust to remove the language. So, what did it do? It essentially dismissed his concerns.

    In response to the ME Association, consultant clinical neuropsychologist at Oxford Dr Simon Prangnell said:

    We are very sorry if the wording included within the job description has caused offence. The job description is based on a nationally agreed template from NHS Employers as part of the Agenda for Change Framework.

    The items you have highlighted are not specific to people with CFS / ME but instead are part of a general skill set that clinical psychologists are expected to have should these issues arise. In some situations psychologists are required to respond to urgent / emergency situations not necessarily within their usual service.

    We will bear your comments in mind when advertising future roles, however, and consider better ways of framing these requirements.

    Unnecessary ‘discriminatory wording’

    As the Canary previously wrote, there was a possibility that Oxford NHS’s wording in the advert:

    was an oversight – that someone copied and pasted a standard job description.

    However, Dr Shepherd did not consider this a reasonable excuse. You can read his full response here. Shepherd wrote:

    Having looked at some other job adverts for psychologists it is clear that there is no compulsion to use this form of discriminatory wording from the template.

    So I do not believe that it is necessary to use this sort of language in a job description relating to your ME/CFS referral service.

    Shepherd also noted that:

    I have worked with people who have ME/CFS for over 40 years – some of whom are upset and distressed by the lack of care and support they have been given by health professionals. During this time I have never had to deal with anyone suffering a psychotic episode or who was been physically aggressive. In fact, most people with ME/CFS are far too unwell to be physically aggressive.

    He has escalated the complaint to professor Meghana Pandit, chief executive of the trust.

    Little has changed

    As the Canary previously wrote, one of the main proponents of the psychological model of ME is head of the department this job advert is for. So, for many people living with ME, it can claim all it wants that it was a “template” job description. This may well not wash with them.

    Moreover, even if this was the case, it shows the lack of understanding, insight, and appreciation Oxford NHS has for this group of patients. No one with any understanding of ME – and how decades of systemic gaslighting, prejudice, and negligence has affected people living with it – would even consider using the language Oxford NHS did.

    The job advert shows that despite the efforts of patient groups, other medical bodies, and campaigners, little has changed in the NHS for people living with ME.

    Featured image via Sander van der Wel – Wikimedia, resized to 1910×1000 under licence CC BY-SA 2.0, and the NHS – screengrab

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The United Nations (UN) is once again investigating the UK government over its treatment of chronically ill and disabled people. As part of that process, it asked to meet with members of the current Tory administration. The UN wanted them to give evidence on what they’ve done since it last investigated the UK. At that time, the UN accused the Tories of “grave” and “systematic” human rights violations. Shockingly though, the Tories have said they are not going to attend the UN meeting this time around.

    The UNCRPD

    The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) is a human rights branch of the UN. It oversees the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Many countries, the UK included, have signed up to it. Some, like the US and Russia, have not.

    The convention has a series of ‘articles’ that the UNCRPD says countries should abide by in order to protect chronically ill and disabled people’s human rights. These include:

    • Accessibility.
    • The right to life.
    • Living independently and being included in the community.
    • An adequate standard of living and social protection

    Every so often, the UNCRPD monitors countries to see if they are sticking to these articles or not. The last time the committee looked at the UK was in 2016. And the report was damning.

    ‘Grave’ and ‘systematic’ rights violations

    In August 2017, the UNCRPD followed up on its report; this included its chair accusing the government of creating a “human catastrophe” for disabled people. You can read the Canary‘s full analysis here.

    As the Canary reported at the time:

    Overall, the UN concluded that “systematic violations” of disabled people’s human rights in the UK had occurred. It stated that:

    • The government knew that welfare reforms would “disproportionately and adversely affect the rights of disabled people”, yet it did nothing. It also ignored evidence indicating this.
    • Measures introduced by the government were discriminatory.
    • The government had violated disabled people’s basic rights, including independent and community living and rights to life, social protection and employment.
    • Over half a million people may have had their human rights abused by the government.

    In 2018, the government effectively whitewashed the report. Now, the UNCRPD is preparing to investigate the UK again. As part of this process, Disabled People’s Organisations (DPOs) have come together to collate evidence. What they’ve found is damning. You can read the Canary‘s full analysis of the report here, but as one of its conclusions summed up:

    There has been continued regression since the last public examination of the UK under the CRDP

    With that in mind, the UNCRPD summoned the Tory government to Geneva for Monday 28 August. However, ministers have backed out of the meeting.

    ‘Scared of the bad publicity’

    As Disability News Service (DNS) reported:

    The government has told the UN committee that monitors implementation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that it does not want to be examined in public on its progress

    DNS noted that the Tory government has said it:

    will not give its evidence until next March.

    The UN asked the DPOs who prepared their reported to attend in Geneva, too. This is still happening. However, they will then have to attend in March 2024 as well. Disabled activist Ellen Clifford told DNS:

    It is not surprising that the government has chosen not to participate in the special inquiry follow-up this year given that their treatment of Deaf and disabled people is publicly indefensible.

    They are consciously breaching and ignoring substantive obligations under the convention and there is clear evidence of further retrogression.

    She also told DNS that the Tories were:

    scared of the bad publicity at a time when they are in a weakened position with continuing industrial disputes and unhappiness due to the cost-of-living crisis and had hoped to avoid further critical scrutiny and bad press through attempting to postpone the session.

    Where next for chronically ill and disabled people?

    It is likely that the UNCRPD’s latest investigation will result in an even worse assessment of the situation in the UK for chronically ill and disabled people than its 2016 one. For example, as the Canary previously wrote:

    The report will come against the backdrop of the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic… Disabled people suffered disproportionately… making up 58% of all deaths between 24 January 2020 and 28 February 2021. Furthermore, countless people experienced cuts to their care and support…

    As always with the UNCRPD, though, there’s little it can do in reality. The CRPD as a set of rules is not legally binding under UK law. It is up to the government whether or not it incorporates part or all of it into domestic legislation. So, the UNCRPD can give its most damning report since the last one – and in reality little will change.

    This is, of course, exactly what happened in the wake of the 2016 report. So, it will be down to chronically ill and disabled people and campaign groups to continue to hold the Tories’ feet to the fire.

    Featured image via Inclusion Europe – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • In the ongoing session [1] of the Rajya Sabha, the seat of the former Indian Prime Minister, Dr. Manmohan Singh was shifted from first to last row, due to health issues inhibiting his ability to walk to the first row. This has led to a debate regarding the accessibility of public buildings for persons with disabilities. It leaves behind a pertinent question, when the parliament of the country is not accessible for persons with disabilities, how accessible are other buildings and offices of public importance?

    Out of all other institutions, the need to revamp the educational institutions, be it public or private is more than ever before, especially when we recently observed the 30 years of Unni Krishnan vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh [2], wherein the Right to Education was included within the ambit of Right to Life under Article 21 [3] of the Constitution of India. This right to education was later explicitly inserted under Article 21A [4] of the Constitution by way of the Constitution (Eighty-sixth Amendment) Act, [6] 2002. Reading Article 21 with Article 15 [5] of the Constitution construes that inaccessibility to educational institutions of the persons with disabilities amounts to violation of their fundamental rights.

    Under section 16 [7] of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘2016 act’), government funded or government affiliated educational institutions are mandated to provide inclusive education to children with disabilities. This includes both the public and private educational institutions. However, the UDISE+ [8] data reflects that for the year 2019-20, only 0.98 percent of the children with disabilities out of the total population were enrolled at the primary level schools. Not only this, the figures for the year 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 show that, excluding the trends of senior secondary level schools for the year 2016-17, the enrolment rates have been gradually decreasing across all levels each year. This clearly indicates that the legislation, in spite of being well-intentioned, has failed to uplift the level of integration of children with disabilities.

    Primarily, the failure of the legislative provisions in place to effectuate the benefits of these welfare legislations can be attributed to two reasons. Firstly, no concrete and earnest efforts have been taken to streamline the implementation of existing legislative provisions for persons with special needs and secondly, there is a lack of institutional support from the state. In Rajive Raturi v. Union of India [9], the Supreme court argues about the shift in the approach of dealing with persons with disabilities. The court opines that the objective should not be to view them as “abnormal, deserving of pity and care, and not as individuals who are entitled to enjoy the same opportunities to live a full and satisfying life as other members of society”. Rather, the state should endeavor to uphold their dignity and to cease their exclusion from mainstream society. This can be achieved through ensuring higher rates of enrolment of children with special needs in public and private schools and universities. The aim is to broaden the discourse from mere attainment of literacy to securing higher education and employment opportunities.

    Section 16 (ii) [10] of the 2016 act mentions that the campus, building and other facilities of the educational institutions should be accessible to children with disabilities. Now, most of the educational buildings evade the mandatory application of this provision as there is no mechanism to enforce them upon the institutions. Thus, in order to effectuate the mandates of the 2016 act, there is a need for an amendment to the act to include a provision for the establishment of a ‘Regulatory Authority.’ In such a case, every public funded institution or institution officially recognised by the government, whether school or university, would have to get a ‘green signal’ from the regulatory authority. In the case of private institutions, the union and the state governments can come up with concerted schemes to allocate funds for revamping and realigning low-budget institutions according to the needs of making it accessible for persons with disabilities. In the initial period, this scheme could incentivise and provide support to the schools and colleges to comply with the guidelines of the regulatory authority.

    The regulatory mechanism could contain provisions mandating procurement of special reading materials for students with visual impairment. Every university hostel must have specific rooms catering to the needs of students with disabilities. On February 14, 2023, the apex court in Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors vs. Union of India [11] sought details from the state governments of different states regarding the total number of children with special needs in the state, total special teachers enrolled and total vacancies in the state. The court also ordered to give details pertaining to the ad hoc appointment of teachers and to provide a stipulated time frame to fill up these vacancies.

    Another aspect is the institutional support from the state’s end. One instance of this could be the Nyaya Bandhu scheme, which has been initiated under the Ministry of Law and Justice of the Government of India, wherein the ministry has collaborated with 69 law schools across India in order to expedite the dispensation of legal services amongst the target groups. Under the scheme, the legal aid clinics of the law schools also receive funds on a regular basis from the ministry. Similarly, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment could also collaborate with educational institutions across the country for the empowerment of students with special needs within the educational institution and beyond it. Under this scheme, a welfare committee catering to the needs and interests of the students with special needs can be established in universities and colleges.

    The 2016 act is progressive in terms of recognising the roadblocks for persons with special needs to have the ability to live a dignified and meaningful life. However, the act has achieved only a stunted outcome in terms of making the educational institutions accessible for persons with special needs. India’s present disability rights law is riddled with issues of inconsistency and non-compliance. It thus, needs to be shielded with regulatory and institutional mechanisms for its effective implementation, lest it will turn into merely a toothless tiger.

    Bibliography

    1. Disability activists flag Manmohan’s shift to Rajya Sabha last row for wheelchair. Indian Express, (March 30, 2023, 10:30 PM), https://indianexpress.com/article/india/disability-activists-flag-manmohans-shift-to-rajya-sabha-last-row-for-wheelchair-8433016/.
    2. Unni Krishnan vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh, 1993 AIR 217.
    3. The Constitution of India,1950, Article 21.
    4. The Constitution of India,1950, Article 21A.
    5. The Constitution of India,1950, Article 15.
    6. The Constitution of India, 1950, amended vide The Constitution (Eighty-Sixth Amendment) Act, 2002.
    7. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 16.
    8. Disability-Inclusive Education Practices in India. UNICEF, (2021), https://www.unicef.org/rosa/media/16996/file/Country%20Profile%20-%20India.pdf.
    9. Rajive Raturi v. Union of India, (2018) 2 SCC 413.
    10. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, Section 16(ii).
    11. Rajneesh Kumar Pandey & Ors vs. Union of India, CWP No. 132/2016.

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Keir Starmer’s Labour Party has reportedly now watered down its pledges around workers’ rights, in a move that’s angered many. This latest news begs the question: just who does Labour represent now? The answer is clear. Starmer’s party represents the rich and powerful.

    Starmer’s Labour: the party of workers, apparently

    The Financial Times (FT) reported on Labour’s pledges around workers rights. It noted that it had seen “text” relating to a meeting on the issue of the party’s “national policy forum in Nottingham last month”. The FT noted that:

    Labour has diluted its 2021 pledge to create a single status of “worker” for all but the genuinely self-employed, regardless of sector, wage or contract type. The policy was aimed at guaranteeing “basic rights and protections” for all workers, including those in the gig economy.

    Instead of introducing the policy immediately, Labour has agreed it would consult on the proposal in government, considering how “a simpler framework” that differentiates between workers and the genuinely self-employed “could properly capture the breadth of employment relationships in the UK” and ensure workers can still “benefit from flexible working where they choose to do so”.

    Then, the FT said that:

    Labour also clarified that its previously announced plans to introduce “basic individual rights from day one for all workers”, including sick pay, parental leave and protection against unfair dismissal, will “not prevent . . . probationary periods with fair and transparent rules and processes.”

    People on Twitter were unimpressed:

    Meanwhile, deputy leader Angela Rayner got “on the front foot” by sharing Labour’s green paper on workers’ rights:

    However, the document doesn’t refute the FT‘s claims. For example, the green paper still includes the single status of worker pledge – but this doesn’t mean Labour won’t consult on it first, as the FT claims.

    It’s a similar story with employers giving workers rights like sick pay from day one. The FT claims that Labour will put this in place, but still allow bosses to put workers on trial periods where they can be sacked. The document doesn’t refute this, either – it just doesn’t mention it.

    So, just who is left for Labour to represent?

    Labour: pro-business and pro-rich people, anti-everyone else

    Previously, the party announced that if it was in government:

    So, that’s everyone who needs the NHS, benefit claimants, refugees, and the planet all thrown under the bus.

    You’d be forgiven for asking ‘What’s the point in Labour?’. Former Green Party leader Natalie Bennett did:

    Well, as the Canary previously wrote:

    Starmer wants us to know that come the next election, we won’t find anything in his manifesto that a Tory would object to. In other words, it will be a Tory Manifesto in everything but name. That is unless Starmer does the one thing Tony Blair never had the balls to do and rebrands Labour the ‘New Conservative Party’

    The Tories’ cataclysmic failure proves Labour needs to be more like the Tories

    So, all that’s left of Labour is a pro-business, pro-rich people husk of a party. From workers, to non-working people, via the NHS, climate, and planet – Labour’s shift to the centre right has thrown them all under the bus. We don’t know about you, but many of us won’t be holding our nose and voting for Starmer’s party at the next election. We’ll either be spoiling our ballots, or voting Green.

    Featured image via Sky News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The National Union of Rail, Maritime, and Transport Workers (RMT) will be taking the fight to stop ticket office closures right to PM Rishi Sunak’s front door at Downing Street. So, save the date, as it’s going to be an important protest – not least for chronically ill, disabled, and older people.

    Ticket office closures: capitalist chaos

    As the Canary has been documenting, the Tories and train operators have been in cahoots to close ticket offices across the country. However, people have hit back furiously – including chronically ill and disabled people. This is because, as we previously wrote:

    23% of disabled people are internet non-users. Ticket vending machines are often inaccessible. Plus, wheelchair users can only get their 50% discount on tickets from an office.

    Train operators are counter-claiming that they’ll redeploy ticket office staff on stations. However, research by the Association of British Commuters (ABC) has shown this not to be true.

    Then, there was the issue of the government and train operators’ consultation. Previously, it was set to last only 21 days, and was due to close on Wednesday 26 July. However, two disabled people started one legal challenge, and five Mayors started another. The end result was the government and train operators caving in and extending the consultation. People now have until 1 September to submit their objections. The list of train operators’ consultations is here.

    Meanwhile, the RMT has been taking the fight up and down the country. There was one national day of action on 9 August, and another will follow on Wednesday 16 August:

    However, this isn’t all the trade union is doing.

    RMT: taking the fight to Downing Street

    RMT has organised a rally for 31 August. It will start at the Department for Transport, and is set to end at Downing Street:

    It’s not the first time this year that the RMT has gone to Sunak’s front door to protest. It also organised a demo in January over the Tories’ anti-trade union laws:

    The RMT’s protest at Downing Street may well reflect public opinion. A poll by the Mirror found that only 21% of people actually support ticket office closures. As of 3 August, the consultation had recieved 315,000 responses. The union’s general secretary Mick Lynch said:

    That so many people have responded to the consultations shows that there is mass public opposition to the Government and Train Companies’ proposals.

    These damaging plans are not just about ticket office closures; they are a smokescreen for a widespread dehumanising of our railways.

    Interestingly, it’s not just trade unions and campaigners coming out against the plans. The West Midlands Combined Authority voiced its objections:

    Little wonder, really – as the Canary previously reported, under the plans:

    West Midlands Trains would have a total of 137 unstaffed stations (94% of its network), and East Midlands Railway would have 90 (87% of its network).

    Ticket office closures are ‘government vandalism’

    Lynch summed up by saying:

    Our railway stations are at the heart of communities around the country and if these closures go ahead the Tories will pay a heavy political price at the next election with boarded up ticket offices and de-staffed stations being a permanent reminder of the government’s vandalism of our railways.

    We are urging the public to continue spreading the word about these cuts and to have their say in the consultations before September 1.

    Indeed, the Tories’ “vandalism” of the railways has been ongoing since before their privatisation of them in the early 1990s, leading to a perpetual state of chaos. Now, ticket office closures are the thin end of a very corporate capitalist wedge – and the RMT and its supporters intend to make that crystal clear to Sunak on 31 August.

    Featured image via the RMT and Rishi Sunak – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • The Tories are already coming up with proposals for more cuts to benefits. It comes as the government says inflation is going to go up again in August – blaming public sector pay rises. So, the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) has responded accordingly. It’s already looking for where it can save money. Clue: it’s chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people – not pensioners – and it’s likely fall under Universal Credit.

    DWP: more cuts on the horizon

    On Sunday 13 August, the Times reported that the Tories are eyeing up slashing benefits again. To cut an overly wordy article short, it said that:

    • The government thinks inflation (the rate at which prices are rising) is going to go up this month, after falling in July. It’s blaming public sector pay rises.
    • This has panicked the Treasury (the government department responsible for money) – because increases in the state pension are linked to the rate of inflation.
    • Overall, the DWP is likely to breach its benefits spending cap former chancellor George Osborne brought in by around £4bn.
    • If this happens, work and pensions secretary Mel Stride has to go in front of parliament and say what he’ll do to get spending down.

    The idea that public sector pay rises are causing inflation to go up is nonsense. Regardless of that, the Treasury and DWP are already in cahoots as to what they’ll do about this. Given it’s the Tories (whose core voter base is pensioners), it’s unlikely they’d touch the state pension. Therefore, some people think health and disability benefits, and Universal Credit, are in their sights.

    Universal Credit and PIP in the firing line

    ITV News‘s deputy political editor Anushka Asthana thinks that benefits like the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) will be the first to face the chop. She noted that:

    sources in the disability sector tell me they are worried that benefits – and there are concerns that PIP in particular – could be the next target for the government because of the big rise in claimants.

    Another big spend is the work capability assessment, which will be abolished in the future but not yet. Tightening eligibility for out of work and disability benefits would save money.

    Every April, the government increases benefits, usually in line with the inflation rate the previous September. With means-tested benefits like Universal Credit, it doesn’t legally have to do this. However, with non-means tested ones like PIP it does. So, the Tories couldn’t just cut the rate of PIP without changing the law.

    It seems more likely that:

    1. They’ll cut other benefits like Universal Credit.
    2. Do as James Taylor, Scope’s director of strategy, suggested and make the processes for PIP, as well as the Work Capability Assessment (WCA), harder.

    As one person said on Twitter:

    Disabled people are always the easiest and socially acceptable targets. Out of sight, out of mind.

    Cuts on top of cuts

    Of course, two important points in the debate around further DWP cuts are that:

    1. It already doesn’t pay people enough to properly live on – particularly under Universal Credit.
    2. It has repeatedly either frozen or cut benefits in real terms for years.

    As the Canary has documented, successive governments have hammered people on benefits. As we previously wrote, April 2023’s DWP benefits increase wasn’t really an increase at all. It merely took Universal Credit, for example, back to the value it was in April 2022:

    That is… your money will only be worth what it was a year ago. This is because everything is now more expensive.

    Moreover, all this came on top of years of benefits freezes, as well as over 1.5 million people not getting the DWP cost of living payments. Plus, health and disability benefits are already a minefield for claimants to navigate – with the rate of successful tribunal appeals over DWP wrong decisions consistently high.

    Benefits cuts: the Tories’ easy option

    However, the Tories planning benefit cuts next year isn’t a new thing. In July, the Canary reported that the DWP was already considering it – just for different reasons. At the time, it was because earnings were going up more slowly than inflation. So, the Tories were planning on increasing benefits like Universal Credit in line with wages. This at the time would’ve saved the government money.

    Now, that situation has reversed. What it shows is that, regardless of the economic and fiscal reasons for the government claiming it needs to save money, the axe always falls in the same place: on chronically ill, disabled, and non-working people’s pockets.

    Featured image via the DWP – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • As the scandal around ticket office closures rumbles on, the National Union of Rail, Transport, and Maritime Workers (RMT) has staged a day of action to highlight just why the Tories’ and train operators’ plans are such a bad idea.

    Ticket office closures: Tories and train operators in cahoots

    As the Canary has been documenting, the Tories and train operators have been in cahoots to close most ticket offices across the country. However, people have hit back furiously – including chronically ill and disabled people. This is because, as we previously wrote:

    23% of disabled people are internet non-users. Ticket vending machines are often inaccessible. Plus, wheelchair users can only get their 50% discount on tickets from an office.

    Train operators are counter-claiming that they’ll redeploy ticket office staff on stations. However, research by the Association of British Commuters (ABC) has shown this not to be true. Plus, the government and train operators tried to get away with only performing a 21-day public consultation on the issue – which, after more public outrage and threats of legal action, they had to back down over.

    Amid all this, RMT has also been central to the fight back. General secretary Mick Lynch said the union would:

    bring into effect the full industrial force of the union to stop any plans to close ticket offices

    So, the RMT has been actively campaigning around the issue – to the point where train operators have threatened its members with disciplinary action over their activism. Not that the RMT and workers are shook – instead, they held a day of action over the issue on Wednesday 9 August.

    The RMT: fighting back across the country

    The union said in a press release that it:

    has called two days of action this month for tomorrow and August 16 after the government extended the flawed consultation process to September

    The RMT and other groups coordinated actions around the country. Lynch was at Penzance station in Cornwall, where dozens of people came out to participate:

    Campaigners gave out postcards which people could write their comments about ticket office closures on. Then, they could send them into passenger group Transport Focus, which would submit them to the official consultation. Disability rights campaigner Paula Peters did this in Bromely, South London:

    People also highlighted the problems with only having ticket machines:

    Action extended as far north as Glasgow:

    There was a health dose of sarcasm in York:

    However, this is not the end of the RMT’s campaign. As well as the second national day of action on 16 August, the union is holding a rally outside Downing Street. This will take place on Thursday 31 August at 6pm:

    There’s also two separate petitions that people can sign here and here.

    Ticket office closures: further regression of the rail network

    As Lynch summed up:

    Together we need to mobilise to defeat these plans which are part of the Tory government’s agenda of dehumanising the railway on behalf of the private operators and their shareholder.

    It seems that there’s strong public opinion against ticket office closures – although it’s difficult to gauge via social media alone. However, what is clear it that the Tories’ and train operators’ plans would be terrible for chronically ill, disabled, and older people. It would represent the further degradation of our rail service – which has successively regressed since the disastrous Tory privatisation of the 1990s.

    So, all power to the RMT for its opposition. Now, more people need to join it in fighting these dire plans.

    Featured image via the RMT 

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.

  • When police officers found Daniel Prude naked and wandering the streets of Rochester, New York, as snow was falling the evening of March 23, 2020, they did not call for social workers or mental health experts. They pointed a Taser at him and demanded he lie on the ground. Prude had run out of his brother’s house during a mental health crisis, and after a few minutes of sitting handcuffed on the…

    Source

    This post was originally published on Latest – Truthout.

  • In India, recognition of the role of gender identities in preservation of human rights, both in the context of judicial interpretation and cultural acceptance, began to gain significance since the verdict of NALSA v. Union of India came out in 2014. However, India falls short in addressing the emerging intersectional tangents in the arena of human rights. Even though disability rights began to gain recognition internationally as early as in 1975, The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights And Full Participation) Act was passed in India in 1995. Several critiques cropped up against the Act, regarding the insufficient legal protection associated with, inter alia, public employment and the non-inclusion of specific rights to women with disabilities. However, the amended version of the same Act came into effect, after a delayed period of about 21 years, in the year 2016, with the title Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act.  

    Gender and disability were not considered as interconnected to each other until the culmination of the Mexico Report in the first World Conference of the International Women’s Year, 1975 (Bantekas, Stein and Anastasiou, 2018). Eventually, this conceptualization influenced the formulation of the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) which, in turn, formed the foundational basis for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 in India. However, what we need to understand here is that gender is not limited to a binary connotation (Bantekas, Stein and Anastasiou, 2018).

    World Health Organisation emphasizes that gender is shaped through cultural intervention and sex is a biological phenomenon limited to the natural laws (WHO).  This has led to recognising gender as isolated from the confined parameters of sex. Some individuals who do not feel that their gender is aligned with their sex often experience distress and trauma while coming to terms with this reality (Buckwalter, 2017). There has been much debate on identifying gender dysphoria as a disability under the American Disabilities Act of 1990 but this move is still under contention (Levy and Barry, 2021). There have been similar discussions and contemplations in other places such as in Australia​ (Bell, 2015)​, Japan and China ​(Blom, 2016)​  with regards to the intersection of disability rights and gender inclusion. India has a long way to go.

    Where Are The Indian Policies Ignorant?

    The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPWD) rightfully highlights ‘women and children with disabilities’ as a special class of disabled individuals requiring additional protection, but there is absence of any special provision signifying the need for addressing disability rights of persons who identify as genderqueer, transgender or intersex. They are regularly subjected to aggravated discrimination and violence (UCLA, 2021). Moreover, only the two prevalent sexes – male and female – have been identified by the Government of India for disability census (NSO, 2021). With the intersection of disability, gender non-conforming disabled people become one of the most vulnerable groups in Indian society.  RPWD has followed the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which also address the intersection of gender and disability rights in the context of the two conventionally recognised genders: Men and Women. Therefore, the exclusion of a gender inclusive provision or terminology in RPWD seems to have a basis. .

    However, as has been emphasised in the Act and the Convention, the responsibility to come out with effective legislation for preventing discrimination against all kinds of persons with disabilities vests with the State. The State has the duty to ensure a holistic implementation of the objective of the rules and regulations laid down in CRPD. Supreme Court cases of Rajive Raturi v. Union of India (2017) and Disabled Rights Group v. Union of India (2017) have rightfully highlighted the above-mentioned observation. This is where the Indian Government’s legislative conundrums come to the forefront.

    One of the most problematic and flawed legislation of India finds its recognition in the provisions of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. The Act provides erroneous definitions of the term, ‘transgender’, forming the very basis of the legislation. The definition of the term ‘transgender’ under section 2(k) of the Act defines transgender persons as not only those individuals who do not identify with the biological sex assigned at birth but also individuals with ‘intersex variations’. Individuals who identify as transgender are those who do not feel their sex is aligned with their gender but individuals with intersex variations are born with “a reproductive or sexual anatomy which doesn’t seem to fit the typical definitions of female or male”. (Koopman, 2017). As discussed earlier, WHO’s premise of treating sex as the biological phenomenon and gender as the cultural one can be seen to have a distorted implementation in this legislation as it treats sex and gender under the same umbrella. Transgender people cannot be defined to have intersex variations as a matter of fact, but they may also have such variations. Furthermore, Section 15 of the Act, which specifically highlights the government’s responsibilities in provision of adequate health services to transgender individuals, does not cover provisions to transgender people with disabilities.

    Apart from this, even though the Indian Domestic Violence Act of 2005 recognizes intimate partner violence against women, it categorically excludes similar instances of family and partner violence in cases of other individuals belonging to the LGBTQ+ community. Such individuals are, quite frequently, subjected to acts of violence by their partners and other family members. Furthermore, there are no provisions specifically addressing disability rights in the context of intimate partner violence even though that has been considered as an integral arena of concern in the field of disability rights (Smith, 2008).

    Conclusion

    The existing laws and policies surrounding disability rights in India are not equipped to deal with instances of violation of such rights in cases of individuals belonging to the LGBTQ+ communities. As highlighted earlier, the very legislative definition of the term ‘transgender’ in India is flawed. None of the above-mentioned legislation includes any provision holistically addressing the intersection of gender inclusivity and disability rights. The current legal scenario of this intersectional parameter seems to be lacking substantially in India. In a very recent and landmark judgment of Patan Jamal Vali v. State of Andhra Pradesh (2021), Justice D.Y Chandrachud, even though he emphasized the need for addressing intersectional parameters,  in the context of women with disabilities, his observations apply to all. Every individual of any gender, with any kind of recognised disability, are entitled to special protection by the State for reasons stated above. 

    Bibliography

    Bantekas, I., Stein, M. and Anastasiou, D., 2018. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. 1st ed. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, pp.172-173.

    Bell, F., 2015. Children with Gender Dysphoria and the Jurisdiction of the Family Court. University of Wallongong Law Journal, 32(2), pp. 426-454.

    Blom, R. M., 2016. Body integrity identity disorder crosses culture:. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, p. 1419 to 1423.

    Levi, J. and Barry, K., 2022. Embracing the ADA: Transgender People and Disability Rights. [online] Blog.harvardlawreview.org. Available at: <https://blog.harvardlawreview.org/embracing-the-ada-transgender-people-and-disability-rights/> [Accessed 24 July 2022].

    Koopman, S., 2022. Intersex vs Transgender: Here’s What You Need To Know. [online] HuffPost UK. Available at: <https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2017/02/08/intersex-vs-transgender-heres-what-you-need-to-know_a_21709480/> [Accessed 24 July 2022].

    Liang, T. 2017. An Analysis of Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble. London: Macat International Ltd.

    Ministry of Statistics and Program Implementation, Government of India, National Statistics Office. (2021) Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan) in India – A Statistical Profile: 2021.

    Pacific Standard. 2022. When Disability Rights Are Trans Rights. [online] Available at: <https://psmag.com/social-justice/next-frontier-fight-for-trans-rights> [Accessed 24 July 2022].

    Smith, D., 2007. Disability, Gender, and Intimate Partner Violence: Relationships from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. Sexuality and Disability, 26(1), pp.15-28.

    WHO, n.d. Gender and Health. [Online]
    Available at: https://www.who.int/health-topics/gender#tab=tab_1

    Williams Institute. 2022. Transgender people over four times more likely than cisgender people to be victims of violent crime. [online] Available at: <https://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/press/ncvs-trans-press-release/> [Accessed 24 July 2022].

    This post was originally published on LSE Human Rights.

  • Know Your RIghts: What To Do If You Have A Disability and Are Questioned By Police

    Understanding and asserting the rights of people with disabilities during police interrogations is paramount to ensuring their fair treatment and safeguarding their well-being.

    07.31.23 By Meghan Nguyen

    Know Your RIghts: What To Do If You Have A Disability and Are Questioned By Police

    (Image: Nguyen Minh/Unsplash)

    As we celebrate Disability Pride Month, we’re taking the time to recognize and honor the resilience, strength, and diverse experiences of the disabled community. As an organization that strives to create fair, compassionate, and equitable systems of justice for everyone, it’s important to us to ensure that the rights of individuals with disabilities are protected, particularly during encounters with law enforcement. 

    Navigating the complexities of police interrogations can be an especially daunting and potentially overwhelming experience for individuals with disabilities. Understanding and asserting their rights during these critical moments is paramount to ensuring fair treatment and safeguarding their well-being.

    By delving into the legal framework that safeguards their rights, we hope to foster a deeper understanding of the challenges faced by the disabled community during police interactions, and, ultimately, contribute to a more just and inclusive society that respects and celebrates the diversity of all its members.

    People with disabilities have rights during a police interrogation to ensure that the process is fair and accessible. These rights are designed to accommodate individuals with disabilities and allow for them to effectively participate in the legal process. Some of the key rights include:

    1. Right to an interpreter

    If you are Deaf or hearing-impaired, you have the right to a sign language interpreter during police interrogations to facilitate effective communication. An interpreter helps ensure that you can understand the questions being asked and provide accurate responses.

    2. Right to accessible documents

    If you are visually impaired or blind, you are entitled to receive documents, such as written statements or legal documents, in accessible formats like Braille or large print, to review and understand the information provided.

    3. Right to communication aids

    Both hearing and vision-impaired individuals have the right to use communication aids or assistive technologies during interrogations. This may include communication boards, speech-to-text devices, or other tools that assist with effective communication.

    4. Right to reasonable accommodations

    The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and similar laws in other countries require law enforcement agencies to provide reasonable accommodations to individuals with disabilities. This ensures that you have equal access to the legal process and can fully participate in interviews and interrogations.

    5. Right to remain silent

    Just like any other individual, you have the right to remain silent and not answer questions that may incriminate you, regardless of your disability. This right is protected by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and similar provisions in other legal systems.

    6. Right to legal representation

    You have the right to legal representation during police interrogations. Having an attorney present can help protect your rights and ensure that the interrogation is conducted properly.

    Leave a Reply

    Thank you for visiting us. You can learn more about how we consider cases here. Please avoid sharing any personal information in the comments below and join us in making this a hate-speech free and safe space for everyone.

    This field is required.
    This field is required.
    This field is required.

    The post Know Your RIghts: What To Do If You Have A Disability and Are Questioned By Police appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.

  • 8 Ways People With Disabilities Can Be Vulnerable To Wrongful Conviction

    For Disability Pride Month, we’re taking a look at how people with disabilities can face unique challenges that hinder their ability to effectively participate in the criminal legal system.

    07.31.23 By Meghan Nguyen

    8 Ways People With Disabilities Can Be Vulnerable To Wrongful Conviction

    (Image: Tim Mossholder/Unsplash)

    July is #DisabilityPrideMonth — a time to celebrate, empower, and raise awareness about the achievements, diversity, and rights of people with disabilities. 

    Amid this commemoration, it’s crucial to recognize how disability intersects with social justice. At the Innocence Project, we know that people with disabilities can be tragically ensnared in the criminal justice system. Individuals with disabilities face unique challenges — including communication barriers, negative stereotypes, and inadequate accommodations — that can hinder their ability to effectively participate in the legal process and can make them particularly vulnerable to wrongful conviction, incarceration, and death sentences. 

    The cases of Pervis Payne, Sandra Hemme, and Robert Roberson underscore the challenges that people with disabilities face in the criminal justice system. Their stories have compelled us to raise awareness about the unique hurdles that individuals with disabilities encounter during the legal process, which include: 

    1. Communication barriers

    Some disabilities, such as speech or hearing impairments, can hinder effective communication with law enforcement and legal professionals, potentially leading to misunderstandings or misinterpretations. Additionally, some individuals with disabilities may not fully understand their rights or the legal process when communicated, making it difficult for them to navigate their defense effectively.

    2. Misinterpretation of behavior

    Disabilities like autism or intellectual disabilities can result in behaviors that may be misinterpreted by law enforcement as deceitful, non-compliant, or otherwise inculpatory, leading to prejudiced assumptions about their guilt.

    People with autism may not process or display emotion in the same way as neurotypical people. For example, Robert Roberson is a father with autism who has spent 20 years on death row in Texas for a crime that never occurred. In 2002, Mr. Roberson’s two-year-old, chronically ill daughter, Nikki, was sick with a high fever and suffered a short fall from bed. Hospital staff did not know Mr. Roberson had autism and judged his response to his daughter’s grave condition as lacking emotion. Additionally, law enforcement inferred guilt from Mr. Roberson’s emotional response to his daughter’s death because it was different from what they believed to be a normal grief response. Mr. Roberson was prosecuted, convicted, and sentenced to death.

    3. Suggestibility

    People with certain disabilities may be more susceptible to suggestion during police interrogations, leading them to make false confessions or statements. A National Registry of Exonerations report found that, from 1989 to 2020, 70% of people who falsely confessed and were exonerated had a mental illness or intellectual disability. 

    4. Limited access to legal representation

    People with disabilities may face challenges in finding and retaining appropriate legal representation, which can impact the quality of their defense.

    Pervis Payne in Riverbend Maximum Security institution in Tennessee. Photo courtesy of PervisPayne.Org.

    Pervis Payne, who has an intellectual disability, spent 33 years on Tennessee’s death row. (Image: Courtesy of PervisPayne.Org)

    5. Prejudice and bias

    Disabled individuals can be subject to societal prejudice, leading to unfair treatment and bias from judges, jurors, or other legal professionals. Jurors and witnesses might unconsciously rely on stereotypes and misconceptions about people with disabilities, influencing their perception of the defendant’s guilt or innocence

    Pervis Payne has maintained his innocence for more than three decades on death row for murder. Because of his disability, Mr. Payne was not able to fully participate in his defense and was not a strong witness on his own behalf. Additionally, the prosecution’s case against him exploited his intellectual disability and relied on racist stereotypes of Black men to paint a portrait of Mr. Payne as a dangerous and hypersexualized drug user. In 2021, Mr. Payne was officially removed from death row following the Shelby County district attorney’s concession that he is a person with an intellectual disability and therefore cannot be executed.

    6. Inadequate accommodations

    The criminal justice system might not always provide the necessary accommodations, such as accessible facilities, sign language interpreters, or assistive technologies, to ensure a fair trial for people with disabilities.

    Pervis Payne in Riverbend Maximum Security institution in Tennessee. Photo courtesy of PervisPayne.Org.

    Pervis Payne, who has an intellectual disability, spent 33 years on Tennessee’s death row. (Image: Courtesy of PervisPayne.Org)

    Sandra Hemme (center) with her sister and mother. (Image: Courtesy of the Hemme family)

    Sandra Hemme was wrongly convicted after police exploited her mental illness and coerced her into making false statements while she was sedated and receiving treatment for hallucinatory episodes. (Image: Courtesy of the Hemme family)

    7. Memory and perception issues

    Certain disabilities can impact memory and perception, making it harder for the individual to recall details accurately or provide a coherent account of events, leading to inconsistencies in their testimony.

    Sandra Hemme has spent the last 42 years in prison for a crime she didn’t commit, making her the longest-known wrongly convicted woman. Ms. Hemme was a psychiatric patient receiving treatment for auditory hallucinations, derealization, and drug misuse when she was targeted by police. She had spent the majority of her life starting at age 12 in inpatient psychiatric treatment.

    Ms. Hemme was repeatedly interviewed by police under extremely coercive circumstances. Police conducted hours-long interviews with Ms. Hemme while she was in the hospital.  At several points, she was so heavily medicated that she was unable to even hold her head up and was restrained and strapped to a chair. Over the course of these coercive interrogations, Ms. Hemme’s statements conflicted with the known facts of the crime and were internally inconsistent.

    8. Burden of proof

    Some states rely on arcane and unscientific standards for determining and defining intellectual disability, making it difficult for individuals with these disabilities to prove that they even have one. For instance, there are states that appoint people without the requisite expertise to conduct the “assessment” and make the “diagnosis” of intellectual disability.

    At least 12 states define intellectual disability as having an IQ of 70 or lower, even though many experts consider IQ scores alone to be a blunt and highly fallible method of measuring ability. And the burden of proof required to prevail on a claim of intellectual disability varies by state. Indiana, for example, requires clear and convincing evidence. In Missouri, there only needs to be a preponderance of evidence. This means that often, geography, not science, will determine whether or not a person is found to be intellectually disabled.

    To address these vulnerabilities and ensure the fair treatment of those with disabilities, those in the legal system need to be proactive in providing appropriate accommodations and understanding the unique needs of individuals with disabilities during investigations, trials, and the entire criminal justice process. This includes the training of law enforcement, lawyers, judges, and jurors to be more aware of disability-related issues and biases that might impact their decision-making.

    Sandra Hemme (center) with her sister and mother. (Image: Courtesy of the Hemme family)

    Sandra Hemme was wrongly convicted after police exploited her mental illness and coerced her into making false statements while she was sedated and receiving treatment for hallucinatory episodes. (Image: Courtesy of the Hemme family)

    Leave a Reply

    Thank you for visiting us. You can learn more about how we consider cases here. Please avoid sharing any personal information in the comments below and join us in making this a hate-speech free and safe space for everyone.

    This field is required.
    This field is required.
    This field is required.

    The post 8 Ways People With Disabilities Can Be Vulnerable To Wrongful Conviction appeared first on Innocence Project.

    This post was originally published on Innocence Project.


  • This content originally appeared on The Laura Flanders Show and was authored by The Laura Flanders Show.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.

  • The Tories, transport secretary Mark Harper, and train operators’ plans to close most ticket offices in the country have been thrown into chaos – thanks, in part, to disabled activists and trade unions. After they lashed out over the public’s objections, train bosses have now been left red faced. However, it’s also emerged that they aren’t taking the “Save Our Ticket Offices” campaign very well – threatening staff who get involved.

    Ticket office closures: the thin end of the wedge

    The Canary has been documenting the ongoing debacle over ticket office closures. It’s seen the Tories and train operators in cahoots to close most of the outlets across the country. However, people have hit back furiously – not least the National Union of Rail, Transport, and Maritime Workers (RMT), and chronically ill and disabled people. For the latter, as we previously wrote:

    23% of disabled people are internet non-users. Ticket vending machines are often inaccessible. Plus, wheelchair users can only get their 50% discount on tickets from an office. Overall, the rail network is generally still not fully accessible as well. All this makes for a perfect storm for chronically ill and disabled people.

    Train operators are counter-claiming that they’ll redeploy ticket office staff on stations. However, research by the Association of British Commuters (ABC) has shown this not to be true.

    At the centre of the storm has been the government and train operators’ consultation on the process. It was due to close at 11:59pm on Wednesday 26 July. Two legal challenges – one from two disabled people, and one from five mayors – both claimed the consultation breached various laws and regulations.

    Now, it appears that the Tories and train operators have shit themselves and lashed out.

    Consultative chaos

    As the Mirror first revealed, the outcry and response to the contentious consultation has thrown it, the Tories, and train operators, into chaos. It reported on 25 July that:

    the process could yet be extended following crisis talks between the Department for Transport and train operators earlier today.

    It is understood the consultations could even be extended over the summer and could run into September.

    Why, you may ask? Well, the Mirror said:

    Ministers and train companies have been spooked over legal challenges to how the process has been conducted. At its heart are claims that the 21 day consultation was not only too short but also unlawful and discriminated against disabled people.

    So it came to pass on Thursday 26 July that train operators extended the consultation – probably coupled with red faces in bosses’ offices up and down the country. People now have until 1 September to submit their objections – on top of the 170,000 responses already sent in.

    Bosses behaving badly

    Meanwhile, the RMT has revealed that a train operator has threatened its members with disciplinary action. It’s over them wearing “Save Our Ticket Offices” stickers at work. General secretary Mick Lynch wrote to the offending train operator, LNER. He said:

    I have received very disturbing reports this morning from members at your company who are being threatened by managers with disciplinary action and being sent home without pay as a result of them wearing “save our ticket offices” stickers.

    Threatening staff who are fighting for their very futures and for the services they provide in this way is a quite disgraceful tactic to use and I can advise you that any moves to discipline any RMT member for having a simple statement on a sticker will be met with a full industrial response.

    Lynch continued:

    If a genuine and meaningful consultation process really is to be followed in this process, then surely this would include allowing the very staff whose future employment is threatened to voice their opinions.

    I would therefore ask that any disciplinary threats are withdrawn and that you will assure your staff their democratic right to have their opinion heard on this extremely important matter will be respected.

    I look forward to hearing from you on this as a matter of extreme urgency.

    Members have told the RMT that bosses at other train operators, including Northern, and Greater Anglia, have “interfered with campaigns and removed materials from stations”.

    Great British Chaos Plc

    It seems that far from being a done deal, the Tories’ and train operators’ plans are in chaos – thanks to the hard work of campaigners, trade unions, and chronically ill and disabled people. But then, why break the habit of a lifetime? Chaos in ticket office closures is par for the course from a rail network that exists in a perpetual state of chaos anyway – thanks to Tory privatisation.

    Is it time to bring back British Rail, yet?

    Featured image via Channel 4 News – screengrab, and ITV News – YouTube

    By Steve Topple

    This post was originally published on Canary.


  • This content originally appeared on The Laura Flanders Show and was authored by The Laura Flanders Show.

    This post was originally published on Radio Free.