Comments on: “Harmonisation” of disabled parking schemes: What are the current State and Territory criteria?

By: curiousities.livejournal.com/

curiousities.livejournal.com/ — Wed, 03 Jun 2009 12:09:54 +0000

Thank you for this! I had wondered the same thing about what the different criteria was in different states but gave up fairly early on. I included a fair bit of info/analysis from your post in my email to politicians. Well done.

By: Lauredhel

Lauredhel — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 07:58:43 +0000

Oh, Maude. Michael Small, a senior policy officer with the Disability Rights Unit of the Australian Human Rights Commission has today posted to the pdca mailing list talking about how the scheme will provide “improved rules”.

I’m guessing he didn’t consult with people with invisible disabilities before dropping that. (And yes, he’s been informed of the gap in his knowledge.)

By: WildlyParenthetical

WildlyParenthetical — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 01:37:50 +0000

Aww, thanks, you lot :-) Most of my work against ableism has been less practically oriented, so I appreciate the opportunity to get a bit more concrete, though of course I wish the public service were not so awful and stupid and retrograde as to give it to me.

That Feministe thread has made me sigh a lot, Amandaw, but your responses have been great. I sighed right alongside your most recent comment… and wanted to respond, again, but to be honest, I can’t work out how to respond now without affirming the derail further, or coming in over the top of others with TAB privilege. Maybe inspiration will strike post-coffee…

By: amandaw

amandaw — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 17:33:46 +0000

lol. No way I could handle public transportation without something-with-visible-earphones.

I mean, I have all kinds of mobility aids: the TENS; my shoes; the comfortable clothing I wear; my medication; the sleep I got last night. It’s just that, with a few exceptions, you don’t *see* those things. You just see a “healthy” person (maybe with wires hanging out back of her jeans to her pocket).

I love WP’s perspective on it — and rejoiced inside when I saw her comment on Feministe to the same extent — that we have fought so hard for policy based in the social model of disability; to roll that back to a medical model is a huge step back. It defines disability as deviance from an accepted norm — rather than the conflict resulting from how society sets itself up centered around the needs of the dominant group.

The social model recognizes that my access to society is restricted when there are no seats available on the T because everyone automatically fills them up. The medical model says: “Well, you have an objective ability to stand there for the twenty minutes” and ignores the consequences I suffer for weeks afterward. It defines disability as my particular, individual, immediate condition: not as the restrictions of the environment around me.

By: Lauredhel

Lauredhel — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:50:27 +0000

If you’re claiming your TENS, amandaw, I might claim my iPod. It distracts me from the pain.

By: amandaw

amandaw — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 14:42:00 +0000

I wonder if my TENS counts as a mobility device. Because there are certain places I cannot go without it. But it has zero contact points with the ground. :p

By: pkdnotes.wordpress.com/

pkdnotes.wordpress.com/ — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 13:49:01 +0000

An excellent analysis. I’m having trouble coming up with a response to the wrongheadedness of the whole idea of dependency being proposed as the measure of one’s disability.

I don’t know how a walking stick is not a mobility aid, either. Perhaps it’s not medical-enough-looking or something. Or it’s thought anyone could just pick up a stick and pretend to be disabled!

By: hexy

hexy — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 11:59:10 +0000

Brilliant piece. hexy's last blog post.."I do not believe that standing up for the rights of a sister to speak without being attacked, is an attack"