Not “Disabled Enough”: Nathalie Allport-Grantham Goes to Stansted Airport

This happened just after New Year’s, and I’m just hearing about it now. Happy New Year to Nathalie Allport-Grantham, who experienced a particularly annoying variation of discrimination  due to  not looking “disabled enough” to the staff at the Stansted airport in the UK.

Image on "Airport" written in lights in block letters on a black background. Keyword: Allport-Grantham

Image Description: “Airport” in block letters, in lights, against a black background.

Content Note: Ableism, not “disabled enough”, discrimination by airlines, non-apology

“But You Don’t Look Sick”

For those of you who haven’t read thoughts on this before (by me or by other writers in the disability community, because not looking “disabled enough” is unfortunately a common experience among disabled people), here’s the breakdown:  There’s this perception out there, held mostly by non-disabled people, that if someone doesn’t have some sort of sign of a physical disability (like, they’re using a mobility aid or there’s some bodily sign of disability), they’re not really disabled. It’s outright wrong, and offensive enough on its own, but people tend to rub salt in the wound by asking for (sometimes demanding), when they’ve no authority to do so, proof of disability if there’s some sort of disability accommodation involved.

Like when Kanye West sent his staff into the audience to check that audience members that weren’t standing during his concert when he demanded they do so actually couldn’t stand.

(No disability accommodation involved there; Kanye just wanted everyone to stand while he was singing.)

Underlying this desire to “check” is an assumption that a person who says they’re disabled but doesn’t look “disabled enough” is lying; it leads to behaviour like people leaving notes that say “FAKER” by disabled parking passes. There are a lot of people out there who like to act as self-appointed assessors of degree of disability and policers of “fakers”. Some of them take it upon themselves to accordingly mete out justice.

It’s not the public’s role to do any of that. When a non-disabled person on the street assumes that they have the power and the right to assess disability and its degree, and therefore eligibility or ineligibility for a support (and to demand “proof” if a person doesn’t seem disabled to them) is indicative of deep and insidious ableism. The non-disabled person’s belief that they have power over disabled people is clearly on display.

Nathalie Allport-Grantham, who has Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Marfan Syndrome, and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome and uses a wheelchair part-time, experienced an extreme example of this in Stansted Airport in the UK.

It was truly unacceptable – yet another sign of how the airline industry in general needs to get its act together when it comes to service for its disabled customers.

Nathalie Allport-Grantham and Stansted Airport

Nathalie Allport-Grantham uses a wheelchair part-time, but opted not to bring one on her trip out of Stansted Airport, as she was told that the airport could provide one. This service proved less than reliable, but the real trouble started when she and her boyfriend tried to check in at the gate for their flight with Ryanair. She was not in the wheelchair at the time; she’d had to walk to the gate from a nearby lounge, because the staff in the lounge that had taken the airport wheelchair and promised to bring it back and didn’t.)

As Allport-Grantham told The Independent, the woman at the gate decided that she didn’t need help.

“…I told the lady on duty that I had booked special assistance and needed help with my bags and to get on the aircraft.

“She looked at me and said, ‘If you want someone to carry your bags, you’ll have to pay £50.’

“I told her I had pre-booked disability assistance and I need help getting onto the aircraft.

“She said, ‘I’m actually waiting for someone who cannot walk, if you want to get on the plane I suggest you queue up like everyone else. If you don’t want to carry your bag, it’s £50 to have it put in the hold.’

“The person she was waiting for was me, but she expected someone who looked more ‘disabled’ than I do.

“Then she said loudly, in earshot of everyone at the gate: ‘I’ve got disabled people to help and you are wasting my time.’ Everyone was staring. It was humiliating.”

Now, you can argue that the woman at the gate was just doing her job as instructed – she’d presumably been told to look for a person who was much less physically mobile. However, there are a couple of issues with this.

Nathalie Allport-Grantham, Assumptions, and Accommodations Denied

The woman at the  may just have been doing her job, yes. But her perception that just because Allport-Grantham was more mobile than she’d either been explicitly told or that she’d assumed based on given information led her to deny the young woman accommodations to which she was entitled. As I touched on earlier, her behaviour isn’t surprising, given what else Allport-Grantham experienced at the hands of “disability services” at Stansted Airport that day:

  • No lifts available; she was told that staff would have to help her up the stairs into the plane.
  • After checking in at the airport, her boyfriend wheeled her to a lounge in a wheelchair that the airport provided. She transferred into a more comfortable seat, and a staff member took the wheelchair, promising to return it. He never did. It was from here that she had to walk to the gate, five minutes away.
  • She sat on the runway by the plane in an airport wheelchair for ten minutes in the rain before she could get assistance to get on the plane.

But that’s not really the point.

Obviously there are problems with disability services in general that need addressing, but the woman’s behaviour at the gate is especially problematic, as it’s indicative of the deep ableism I talked about earlier. I used a wheelchair on and off for a year after I got out of stroke rehabilitation. Mostly I could get around with my cane, but walking for long distances was very tiring, and it was nice to have the option, on days when my fatigue level was high (or when I wanted to keep it from getting too high too quickly) to be able to use my chair. People with many types of disabilities make use of a wheelchair for exactly the same reasons – you might never see them use a mobility aid, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t use one.

It must have been so frustrating to be in Allport-Grantham’s situation, to have to stay polite after explaining twice that she’d pre-arranged for help to be available, when the person she was talking to  had obviously decided was she wasn’t “disabled enough”  to receive support (even though that’s not her right.)  It must have been so difficult to fight anyway despite the fatigue caused by having to walk to the gate from the lounge on top of the stress of having a plane to catch, and the general stress of travel…,

And to have the woman at the refuse to even investigate whether Allport-Grantham was even right, so sure that she was dealing with a “faker” that she didn’t even ask for her name, so that she could see if Allport-Grantham was actually who she claimed to be…it must have been infuriating, especially in light of the fact that this exact action eventually settled the matter: another staff member stepped in, noticing Allport-Grantham’s tears, checked her name against a list of people who had requested disability services, and verified that she was indeed the person they were waiting for.

Such a simple way to deal with the issue, but so much more effective than saying to a passenger (my paraphrase), “Step aside, faker. You’re wasting my time.” But the woman at the gate’s assumption that Natalie Allport-Grantham was faking a disability so coloured her attitude toward her that she couldn’t be bothered to do even the barest minimum to check a customer’s story.

You’re welcome to argue with me over whether this is ableism, but you can’t deny that it’s horrible customer service.

Meet Me at Camera Three, Stansted Airport

I’ve worked a lot of difference customer service jobs – grocery cashier, ice cream scooper, snack bar attendant in a movie theatre, a brief stint as a cashier in drug store right before my stroke, customer service manager for a website company, customer service for a government agency…

The best advice that I got was when I worked in the grocery store, when my boss once told me that the money that the customers spent in the store was money that went into paying my wages, so it literally paid to keep them happy.

I’m proud of the customer service skills that I’ve developed – and if I was a businessperson who had someone on my staff who:

  • Took a wheelchair that the company provided to a customer, promised to return it, and then didn’t
  • Left a customer sitting in their wheelchair in the rain for ten minutes while luggage was loaded onto the plane
  • Told a customer, any customer, that they were wasting our time,

…there’d have to be a damn good reason for it.

Every time I hear of a story like this, I think not only of the effect on the disabled person involved, but of how short-sighted the business is being.

(Sidebar: It’s hard to know in this case who’s ultimately the most short-sighted, because several organizations are involved: Ryanair presumably employs the woman at the gate, “wheelchair services” within Stansted Airport are provided by a company called Omniserv, which Stansted Airport books with the airlines and the airlines pay for. But Stansted is still responsible for how the services are carried out.)

I don’t quite get it, but given these things, and given the fact that Ryanair’s position on all this was to push it on you, and your position was to push it on Omniserv

If I was still using my wheelchair, instead of driving a little out of my way to fly out of Stansted Airport because of your excellent services for disabled people, I’d rather drive a lot out my way to fly out of an airport where:

  • Omniserv didn’t handle wheelchairs
  • I could get to my destination without having to fly Ryanair
  • Staff have disability sensitivity training (this may not exist; there sure doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence for it.)

Bottom line? You wouldn’t get my business. Businesses that make disabled people feel subhuman don’t get my money, and other disabled people get told why. I usually just buy a snack and a magazine in the airport while I’m waiting for a flight, but I guarantee that lots of disabled passengers spend a lot more than that.

Do you want our business or not?

By now, hopefully someone involved in this Stansted Airport clusterfuck has issued Nathalie Allport-Grantham a real apology, instead of the “pass the buck” non-apology she was offered earlier in the month.

If not, someone needs to get on it – this isn’t that difficult.

Billy Bush Does First Interview After Release of Access Entertainment Bus Tapes

Excuse me while I get political. I’ve got some stuff to say about Billy Bush and…other things.

Image Description: Billy Bush, a white man in his late thirties with short brown hair, stands in front of greenery. He speaks into a microphone that someone holds in front of him. He's wearing a navy polo shirt.

Image Description: Billy Bush, a white man in his late thirties with short brown hair, stands in front of greenery. He speaks into a microphone that someone holds in front of him. He’s wearing a navy polo shirt.

Content Warning: Sexual harassment, sexual assault, Donald Trump, vulgar names for female anatomy, Access Entertainment bus recording, Roy Moore, Al Franken, Harvey Weinstein, Billy Bush

***

There’s an interesting emerging trend in late night lately…if you want your side of a controversial story to be heard, book yourself on The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. First.  We saw this first when Anthony “The Mooch” Scaramucci departed the White House after just eleven days, before he even officially began his position as Communications Director. He thought he could bullshit Colbert. The results were awesome.

Part of the reason why Colbert has been so successful in his new role as host The Late show, I believe, is that he’s a very good interviewer – charming and engaging, but fair, and totally able to hold a person’s feet to the fire when the  occasion calls for it. I made it a point to watch Billy Bush’s “explain myself” interview on The Late Show, his first since his firing from NBC after the now infamous clip of him and Donald Trump talking on the Access Entertainment bus emerged doing the election.

The interview followed an op-ed by Billy Bush confirming that, despite Trump’s recent insistence that it’s not his voice on that recording, it is. Bush followed up in the Colbert interview, saying that he’d not only heard what he’d assumed had been a ” crass stand-up act, Andrew Dice Clay performance “(I’m old enough to remember Andrew Dice Clay’s standup, so I know the reference) , but seven other men on the bus had, and that it wasn’t him laughing on the tape, which he obviously felt had gotten lost in the coverage. Also:

“If I’d have thought that there was a man detailing a sexual assault strategy to me,   I’d have called the FBI, not just reported it to my executive producer…”

I narrowed my eyes, surprised at how angry I was. Because yeah, I totally agree that it sucks that Billy Bush lost his job because he was complicit in the bus incident while the guy that talked about grabbing women by the pussy is now running the free world. But something about how Bush talked about the incident really irritated me.

“Don’t let him off that easy, Colbert.” I said after Bush got done describing how Trump was a big NBC star at the time and how everyone had to “kiss the ring of The Donald.”

Colbert didn’t disappoint. “And where exactly was he wearing that ring at the time?” And he didn’t smile. He didn’t smile much at all during this interview.

Female friends and I have disagreed over whether Colbert was harsh on Billy Bush. One of my female friends saw an interview that was just designed to let Bush get his side of the story out. I saw that, yes, but I also saw an interview where Bush is held accountable for his behaviour. Colbert definitely got some jabs in. He makes Billy Bush relive the embarrassment of being fired from his job, including his feelings on being the one who lost his job over the bus incident, while Trump went on to become President after women actually accused him of sexual assault. Colbert even asks him to speculate on what Trump meant when he said, “I moved on her like a bitch” because it didn’t make sense to him. It all moves forward in a comedic way, yes, but there’s a subtext to it:

“If you want to tell your story, Billy Bush, you’re also going to have to tell us what you’ve learned.”

I do think that’s feasible and fair There’s no reason that an interview can’t be both an opportunity to get a story out and a push toward a broader point. I watch 24-hour news networks, and I see it happen all the time, in a lot less subtle manner than Colbert did with Billy Bush – and Colbert is not a reporter here. And kudos to Billy Bush for going on Colbert likely knowing that he was going to get some jabs. It’s no secret that Colbert can turn the screws when he wants to. After all, in Colbert’s previous life as host of “The Colbert Report”, politicians avoided being booked on his “Better Know a District” segment because he had a tendency to make them look foolish.

What Has Billy Bush Learned?

So what has Billy Bush learned? From my perspective, not a whole lot, but he did give some clues if you read between the lines of his answers: That he really wants to be a better man, one that doesn’t objectify women, one that, hearing today what he heard from Trump on that bus ten years ago, would instantly know that it was wrong and know exactly what to do about it. But I’m not sure that he knows how to start, and I know from hearing men talk and from hearing my female friends talk about what their male friends have said since the Weinstein story broke that he’s not alone.

Don’t get me wrong. There are good men out there who treat women well because they sincerely want to and believe it’s the right thing to do – they value women and their contributions, they talk respectfully about and to the women in their lives, and their actions demonstrate their commitment to making  women feel safe and respected in their presence, without expectation of reward. I was surrounded by men like this as I grew up. I was lucky.

But in adulthood I saw that there are a lot of broken men, too, products and purveyors both of a culture of toxic masculinity. Some know that they aren’t “nice guys” and aren’t interested in challenging their ideas of women. Some think that they are the good guys, and when they’re told, “Your behaviour tells me you’re not” will not believe it. Or maybe wouldn’t believe it until recently, and  now they’re having their eyes opened, and want to be better for the women in their lives…but legitimately don’t have a clue what they need to do.

They don’t know how to not treat a woman like an object. The Billy Bushes of the world are feeling truly lost.

And that’s scary to me as a woman, because that tells me that to achieve true equality between the sexes, the unlearning and relearning that men are going to have to do is so fundamental that just “discussion” and “dialogue” isn’t going to do it – there’s going to need to be a seismic shift in how both women and men look at themselves, each other, and the world.

So What Now?

I’m not exactly sure. I do think that this is going to be big and messy and hard to deal with for a whole lot of people.  I don’t think that any of us should assume that we’ll be exempt from asking tough question about ourselves and people around us.  I thought hard over whether I thought that Al Franken should resign after the recent allegations of sexual assault made against him, because I like Al Franken’s voice in the Senate about issues that are important to me. It was uncomfortable, taking a look at myself and my thoughts and what I’d being saying with my stance. I decided that Al Franken and Billy Bush are guys that are pretty much in the same boat in that they “get it” for the most part but still have some work to do, and that cleared things up for me.

The All Frankens and the Billy Bushes of the world don’t get a free pass for creating an environment that makes women feel unsafe, even if harm wasn’t intended.  It’s not the fault of the victims of sexual violation that society’s failure to work out its issues with women and power on a collective level has  caused some confusion in even men that appear to “get it” about women and respect and power . Even if they didn’t understand the effect of their actions, those actions have real consequences for the victims, and they need to have real consequences for the perpetrators.  In All Franken’s case, it’s too bad for for America because it means the loss of such a valuable voice in the Senate, and it’s okay for Americans to feel conflicted about that, I think. As one of my new favourite bloggers, The Rude Pundit, said on Twitter:

“It is possible to be both glad and angry that Franken is resigning. It’s just a sad fucking situation all around.”

But you can’t have it both ways, America. You can’t do this dance that I’m hearing some Democrats (badly) doing of: “Yes, we believe women, but we don’t want to be too hard on these guys either, because hey, we like them a lot…”

Meet Me at Camera Three, Democrats

Keep your own house clean, because you know…you know…that there are at least two Republicans who are more than well-meaning but a bit confused when it comes to this stuff.  Your President, who has allegations of sexual assault against him, has thrown his support behind Roy Moore, a man running for Senate who has allegations of sexual misconduct with teenagers when he was in his 30s against him. Not only that, he’s got a history of racism, homophobia, and anti-Islam remarks.

I said a while ago that I was going to be careful about what I write about Trump in this space. I’ve considered lately what I want to say. I think that I need to say…this…because it I think it’s one of the things that recent events have dictated *does* need to happen next:

I think that Democrats need to call loudly for Trump’s resignation, every damn day.

I mean, I can write here every day that Trump should resign, but I’m Canadian – I don’t count. *You* need to be pointing out the hypocrisy of the GOP, and what it says about Alabama, the GOP, and your President that apparently electing a Senator who’s been accused of sexual misconduct with a child  is preferable to electing another Democrat.

I’ve had three incidents since Trump took office where watching the news literally made me feel physically ill – two of them have been in the last two weeks, listening to the people of Alabama talk about why the allegations against Roy Moore don’t matter and why they’ll vote for him despite them, including pastors of churches. It’s simply gross that President Trump is in support of him as a Senate candidate – it boggles my mind.

Keep your house clean, and keep showing women who have experienced sexual violation that you are the party that will believe them and fight for them – insist that perpetrators in the GOP resign.

Even the President.

Every. Damn. Day.

Via Rail Pushes Back on CTA Ruling on Tie-Down Spots in Passenger Trains

So I was puttering around  on Twitter on Sunday, trying to get an account that I’ve let go shamefully neglected up and functional again…and a long-time colleague (from the US) tweeted a Canadian story about inaccessibility that just made my blood boil. So I abandoned Twitter to rant a bit about Canada’s national passenger train carrier, Via Rail.

With many thanks to Deb. 🙂

Content Note: Accessibility issues, ableism, transportation

Via Rail train, locomotive the most visible (blue, yellow and gray with VIA in yellow block letters across the front) sits in the train yard.

Image Description: Via Rail train, locomotive the most visible (blue, yellow and gray with VIA in yellow letters across the front) sits in the train yard.

I’ve traveled with Via Rail many times, both as a non-disabled passenger and a passenger using a wheelchair, and found them lovely to deal with. However, when I was using a wheelchair, it was a manual chair that could fold up, I could easily transfer in and out of it, and I could walk for short distances using my cane. I was not in anywhere near the same position that married couple Marie Murphy and Martin Anderson are in: They both use electric scooters because of mobility difficulties caused by cerebral palsy. And the fact that VIA trains have only one tie-down space for an electric wheelchair or scooter per train really impacted the amount of traveling they could do together, unless they were willing to have one person’s scooter’s dismantled and treated as luggage. Given that scooters are very expensive (and that airlines that dismantle wheelchairs and scooters  have a bad reputation for damaging them), I understand why handing one’s pricey mobility device over to strangers to be taken apart doesn’t sound like the most attractive of options.  Both Murphy and Anderson have had their scooters damaged because of being put in storage on Via Rail trains.

And the Canadian Transportation Agency agreed with Murphy and Anderson when they formally complained that VIA’s policy of providing only one tie-down spot per train was discriminatory.  The CTA ruled that “all trains coast to coast must double their capacity to accommodate mobility aids and create two tie-down spots.”

Via Rail countered with a policy change:

  • They’d make it possible for two mobility aids to use the one tie-down area, provided that both passengers could safely transfer in and out of a standard seat for the trip.
  • A customer needing the tie-down area who couldn’t transfer to a standard seat could “bump” another mobility aid user from that area, even if they’d previously reserved it.

However, on further questioning, the CTA discovered that Via Rail’s policy change came with some caveats:

  • Via Rail only intended to implement this policy on trains on trains on the Quebec-Windsor corridor (the corridor along which Murphy and Anderson
  • It would be implemented only on three specific models of train.

Not good enough. On Nov 1, the CTA “ordered the company to either add tie-downs for all trains across the country or present clear arguments as to why doing so would create undue hardship.”

At this time, Via is “analyzing” the situation.

Meet Me at Camera Three, Via Rail

I’ll make this really simple for you.

Marie Murphy and Marin Anderson want to be able to use your trains together with reasonable assurance that their mobility aids – which they rely on to get around; these are not a luxury item –  will come out undamaged at the end of the train ride. They want to do so because they’re married and enjoy traveling together; right now they’re taking separate trains to the same destination when they travel.

They decided to do something about this. They went through the proper channels, like we’re all told to. They made a complaint, they waited for a decision – they followed all the rules. And the CTA agreed that they were right, and put some rules in place for you. But you didn’t like the new rules, so you decided you just wouldn’t follow them, and made a “policy change” that you hoped made it look like you were doing something, but was only designed (badly, I might add) to make the complainants shut up. So the CTA had tell you, “Hey, you’re not following the rules we laid out, and unless you can come up with a pretty convincing reason why you shouldn’t have to, you’re gonna have to start.”

You know what all this makes you look like, Via Rail? A mopey toddler on the brink of throwing a tantrum because the grown-ups at the CTA aren’t letting you have your way.

I really thought you were smarter than that.

I thought you were more committed to Canadians – all Canadians, not just the non-disabled ones.

I’ve always liked you, Via, Rail, but this stinks. Grow up.

 

Manatee County “Interpreter” Signs Nonsense ASL at Hurricane Irma Press Conference

I’m surprised that it took me until early this week to hear about this story, because it does appear that it was covered by several media outlets. But here we are. I only heard on the September 19th edition of The Daily Show that Manatee County in Florida fucked up with its ASL interpretation during a televised press conference designed to get evacuation information out to citizens just before Hurricane Irma hit.

Content Note: Ableism, Weather Emergency, Emergency Planning, Privilege, Classism, Disrespect, PWD as an afterthought

Young white woman wearing a orange shirt holds her hands in front of her, just above chest level, palms facing her with her thumbs up and fingertips almost touching. Her nail polish is orange, and her hair is strawberry blonde. She is smiling. Keyword: Manatee County

Image Description: Young white woman wearing a orange shirt holds her hands in front of her, just above chest level, palms facing her with her thumbs up and fingertips almost touching. Her nail polish is orange, and her hair is strawberry blonde. She is smiling.

***

Seriously, Florida?

It’s this sort of thing that makes disabled people one of the most vulnerable groups in America when it comes to weather emergencies, as I’ve written about before.

The issue isn’t that Manatee County didn’t think about providing ASL interpretation, as you can see in this video. The person who uploaded this video captioned it with what the interpreter is signing, and I think it’s clear what the main issue is.

But for those who don’t want to/can’t watch the video…the issues are:

This is unacceptable and infuriating, for a few reasons.

To Start…

Certified interpreters were available. Florida Governor Rick Scott used interpreter Sam Harris:

Sarasota County also used a qualified interpreter at its news conferences.

VisCom, a company that has provided Manatee County with interpreters in the past, wasn’t called about providing services for Hurricane Irma communications. Charlene McCarthy, the founder of VisCom, had offered to send in an interpreter for a September 9 press conference in Manatee County, but her offer was declined; no interpreter was used for that press conference.

For some reason, Manatee County decided not to use an interpreter. It’s not as if no one was anticipating the need for a press conference; the media started talking about Irma and where she would at least potentially hit just after Hurricane Harvey landed.

Meet Me At Camera Three, Manatee County Administration

All this brings one word to mind: afterthought. Deaf and hard-of-hearing people were an afterthought as you prepared to get potentially life-and-death information to your residents about a weather emergency. Think about what it must feel like to know you’re an afterthought.

It’s this half-ass attitude toward accessibility that continues to give disabled people the impression that their communities of residence don’t value their money, skills, desire to give back to their communities, or (in this case) even their lives. Go ahead and deny that this was the message you meant to send, Manatee County – it’s the message that you *did* send, with your failure to take simple steps to ensure that Deaf and hard-of-hearing people in your communities got the same access to the life-and-death press conference information that hearing people did.

You owe your Deaf and hard-of-hearing communities an apology, and a promise that this won’t happen again.

And for Those of You Who’d Tell Me…

You know who you are, you keyboard warriors.

Yes, you. The ones making comments like these on the internet coverage:

  • Deaf people activate CLOSED CAPTIONING on their tv sets. I guess numbnuts in government and around the country are unaware of that secretive tidbit of information. They also get text messages, emails, instant messages and communications from each other/family and read local news. They can translate audio to text. It’s not like a reeetarded interpreter is their only source in the year 2017. Duhhh
  • “I think what is shocking is that in 2017, taxpayers have to pay for that nonsense. they practically give away voice to text software, and there are plenty of free apps that would instantaneously give the devil a much more complete picture of what the officials are saying…Shameful waste of money.”
  • “Considering the few people who require this, it was a waste of time anyhow”
  • “Reminds me of the fake sign language interpreter at Nelson Mandela’s Memorial, standing right next to Barry O and flailing about – that was quality comedy!”

Listen, folks. There are whole bunch of reasons why these comments are disgusting, but I don’t even need to get into them, because they’re all invalid for one, simple, legal reason:

Title II of the ADA dictates that “state and local governments must ensure that their communications, including emergency communications, are fully accessible to people with disabilities.” 

Accessibility is the law, and it’s been that way in America for 27 years. End of story.

But the fact that people felt comfortable letting fly with that sort  of ableist (not to mention classist, in some cases) shit  in the comments section of a story about how Manatee County’s lack of preparation meant that a group of disabled people didn’t get emergency information about a Category 5 hurricane….well, it made me feel ill. I wanted to draw some attention to it.

That sort of willful ignorance about the challenges that disabled face from the people in their  communities – well, it’s beyond disappointing.  It’s gross, really.

Seriously, America. Grow up.

Canada continues to send its thoughts and prayers for those affected by the recent hurricanes…

Interesting article on captioning vs ASL

Save

Save

Fox News Contributor Calls Autistic Child a “Snowflake”

There’s a quote that goes, “When you assume, you make an ass of you and me.” It’s a funny reminder that speaking and/or acting before we know the whole story can make us (and other people) look foolish.

Content Note: Ableism, Bullying, Cyberbullying, Non-Pology

Snowflake image on blue-green circle. Keyword: Tammy Bruce

Image Description: Snowflake image on blue-green circle

***

Sometimes making assumptions does more than make people look foolish, though — disabled people particularly are often harmed by the assumptions of others. Assumptions like, “If you can’t talk, you have nothing to say”, “people with intellectual disabilities don’t need families and are best cared for in institutions”, “disabled people don’t work for the money”, and “disabled students in schools are better off segregated from non-disabled students” have been used to violate the rights of disabled people in Canada and the US for almost a century, and we are still fighting for the right to live safely as full, active participants in our communities.

Often assumptions are smaller, and their effects are less far-reaching, but just as sad to witness. Let’s consider a segment on the May 10th episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight”, guest hosted by Fox anchor Bill Hemmer.

Fragile Children

Hemmer’s “Are Our Children Fragile?” segment focused on an event for military families hosted by VP Mike Pence. While addressing the families, Pence accidentally brushed the face of one of the children standing just behind the podium, Michael Yee, who afterward said to him several times, “You owe me an apology.” Footage of the interaction here:

 

Pence bumped him in the nose. He wanted an apology. Fair enough.

Not according to Tammy Bruce, radio host, and Hemmer’s guest commentator on what happened. Video in the linked article.

Transcript:

Tammy Bruce: I guess we’re giving birth to snowflakes now, because that looked like that kid needed a safe space in that room.

Bill Hemmer: Is this a different time or not?

Tammy Bruce: It is, a bit. The eight-year-old pretty much stalked the Vice President afterwards. He wasn’t even — the headlines said he was “hit, he was struck, he was smashed, he was bumped.” The fabric on his sleeve touched his nose maybe. He stalks the Vice President, says, “you owe me an apology.” This is like he was channelling [University of Missouri professor] Melissa Click wanting to get some muscle into the room. This is crazy. Now look, he’s seen it either on television, maybe he’s seen it at home perhaps, but he felt aggrieved because, I don’t know, the vice president maybe slightly touched his nose. It’s pretty amazing.

(Background Reading: For those that aren’t familiar with how “snowflake” has come to refer young people that are weak, entitled, and unable to cope with life, this Guardian article provides a good overview that also touches on the conservative disdain for “safe spaces”.

This New York Times op-ed also discusses safe spaces.

Reading Suggestion for Tammy Bruce

I read Stephen Covey’s “7 Secrets of Highly Successful People” when I was in high school. Covey tells a great story in that book about finding himself on a subway one night with a couple of kids that were running around, making noise and grabbing peoples’ papers and generally annoying everyone, and a father that seemed out of it and unwilling to do anything about them. Covey talks about getting more and more annoyed, tired after a long day, until he finally has it and asks the father if he maybe wants to do something about his kids.

Covey says in his book, “The man lifted his gaze as if to come to a consciousness of the situation for the first time and said softly, “Oh, you’re right. I guess I should do something about it. We just came from the hospital where their mother died about an hour ago. I don’t know what to think, and I guess they don’t know how to handle it either.”

Covey talks about how immediately his orientation toward the man changed. Instead of seeing a man that he assumed was just too lazy to take care of his kids, he saw a man that was grieving and overwhelmed, and his first instinct became to find out how if he could help.

Assumptions, people. Everything isn’t always as it looks at first glance.

Tammy Bruce and Assumptions

Tammy Bruce made a lot of assumptions about Michael Yee, and it wasn’t long before she figured it out. Presumably (I realize that I’m making an assumption) it was because she saw CNN’s Jake Tapper’s piece with Michael’s mother later that week, in which we find out that ten-year-old Michael (not eight-year-old, as Bruce said) is autistic, has only been verbal for five years, and has been working very hard with his mother, teacher and therapists on social skills, including for what behaviours he needs to apologize and for what behaviours he should expect an apology from others.

Because the next time we saw Tammy Bruce on Fox News, she was talking about Michael very differently.

Here’s Jake Tapper’s interview with Michael’s mother, Dr. Ingrid Herrera-Yee. Transcript starts at 1:19.

 

Jake Tapper: Regular viewers of “The Lead” know that military families often turn to us then they feel that they’ve been wronged, and that is the case with Michael’s mother, Dr. Ingrid Herrera-Yee. She joins me now. Thank you so much for being with me today. A lot of comments about Michael from people who don’t know him — why don’t you tell us about Michael?

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Well, Michael is ten years old, he is on the autism spectrum, he’s a military child, and he loves the White House; he calls it “the peoples’ house”, he was excited to go visit. For those who don’t have a child with autism, they need to really rehearse and, you know, a lot of their therapy involved practicing social interactions.

Jake Tapper: How long has he been verbal?

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Only five years, so about half his life he’s been verbal.

Jake Tapper: So that was — when you see that video, you see a kid who’s working hard to —

Dr. Herrera-Yee: I see a champ, yeah.

Jake Tapper: A champ — to say…somebody did something and he thinks an apology is owed.

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Absolutely. Because for him it was about manners. He says that to me and his dad all the time: ”You owe me an apology”. It’s not meant in any sort of negative way, it’s just him learning, again, the social interaction with someone else — so, what is appropriate to say, what isn’t…and we teach him about being, you know, having his manners and apologizing if he’s done something wrong. He was simply following, you know, what he’s learned in therapy, and what his wonderful teachers at school have taught him, and what we’ve taught him at home, just to, you know, make sure that there’s an apology there. And he was so sweet about it — just “Excuse me.” There was no…he wasn’t overly…

Jake Tapper: No, no, he was wonderful. He was very charming. And I assume that you thought until Friday night that the media coverage seemed respectful, and, ”Look at this charming moment”, and the Vice President was wonderful.

Dr. Herrera-Yee: The Vice President was wonderful. My son was so excited to be there and to meet him. He’s a big fan of the Vice President. He (Mike Pence) came into the room…he (Michael) doesn’t know about politics, he was just hanging around, having a good time. They gave him ice cream and brownies, you know? He had fun. And the Vice President was so respectful, he gave him a hug at the end, gave him a high five. He apologized when he noticed. It was no big deal. It was just a cute little clip.

Jake Tapper: And then what happened Friday night? When did you find out about, um, this attack of your ten-year-old boy?

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Well, um, I’d actually gotten a call from my mother, who had seen a teaser, and she had told me that they were going to talk about Michael. Now, earlier in the morning, on Fox and Friends, they’d talked about Michael in a really positive way, so I was excited. So I sat down with my coffee and started watching, and then suddenly it just went south. I was…devastated…when I saw — and what they were saying. People who- they didn’t even know his age. They didn’t know who he was. They were really taking out of context a really innocent, you know, interchange between the Vice President and my son.

Jake Tapper: And you have-you have other children. And your fifteen-year-old, Will-um, this hit him pretty hard.

Dr. Herrera-Yee: It did. I’ve tried to shield my children from this, as any, you know, parent would. I would not want them to, to be reading some of the comments that are out there about my son and my family and myself. And he, unfortunately, being that he’s a teenager and he’s online, saw this. So, not understanding, he went online and answered some of the negativity, trying to defend his brother. But he was viciously attacked online, and I came home to find him crying, um, about this. So, it’s definitely affecting our family.

Jake Tapper: How can we fix this? What do you want? What do you want to be done for this wrong to be righted?

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Well first I’d want people to be more aware of autism and how our kids interact in the world. And, um, second, just like Mike asked the Vice President so sweetly for an apology, I’d like to ask, on his behalf, for FOX News to apologize for having used my son out of context, and using those really horrible words to describe him and our family. That’s really what I would want to come out of this, is just more awareness. And please don’t use kids — whether they’re typically developing kids — it doesn’t matter that he’s autistic or he’s a military kid, forget all that, that doesn’t matter. He’s a kid. And you don’t use children as examples on national television like that. I would hope that this is the very last time that this happens.

Jake Tapper: Thank you so much for being here. I know that it’s not easy to do that, but you’re standing up for your son, and I really appreciate it.

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Thank you very much for having me.

Jake Tapper: Of course.

Tammy Bruce apologized after “The Lead” segment aired.

Tammy Bruce’s Apology


Transcript starts at 0:13.

Tammy Bruce: Good Morning, Bill, thank you so much. First of all, I am so sorry to the family. My intention was never to hurt a kid and his mom. We had absolutely no idea that Michael was on the autism spectrum, and as a gay woman and feminist, I’ve spent most of my adult life working to improve the lives of women, children, and those that are disenfranchised. I get it and I apologize. I also appreciated the boy’s mother, Dr. Ingrid Herrera, public comments, and her clarity on this. A main lesson here, no matter intent, is to leave kids out of our political discussions. We certainly agree on this.

Meet Me at Camera Three, Tammy Bruce

As a disabled woman, I have some concerns:

  • You “apologize” to “the family”, despite demonstrating later in this trainwreck of an apology that you know at least the mother’s name and, more importantly, Michael’s name. You never apologize to any of them by name. This *screamed* at me.
  • You say that you never intended to hurt a kid and his mom. What did you intend to do? You made it clear in your remarks on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that you knew you were commenting about a child. You called him a snowflake and implied he needed a safe space (and after viewing your other videos, noting that you’re a frequent guest on Carlson’s show, and listening carefully to your tone of voice as you said those things, I actually feel comfortable assuming that you fall on the political far right where “snowflakes” and “safe spaces” are unwelcome), and implied that Dr. Herrera-Yee wasn’t a good parent. If that display on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was you not intending to hurt a kid and his mom, God help the people you do intend to hurt!
  • You had no idea that Michael was autistic? For what reason do you think that this buys you some slack? You made a mistake because he didn’t “look disabled enough”? You made a mistake because you couldn’t be bothered to do some research into this story? Both? Whatever it was, the fact remains that you saw a chance to make a political point by taking a cheap shot at a kid on national television, and you went with it. And as his mom said, that’s not an okay thing to do to *any* kid. Shame on you.
  • You’re a gay woman and feminist working for social justice? Great. Keep it up. But talk about it somewhere else. All of that doesn’t mean that you “get it”, and it’s not really the point of all this. Or it shouldn’t be.
  • You agree that the main lesson here is to leave kids out of political discussions? Then why did you bring Michael into a political discussion in the first place?

You did owe Michael an apology, Tammy Bruce. You made assumptions about why he felt so strongly about getting an apology from the Vice President, and said some hurtful things as a result. But here’s what really bothers me: I suspect that you apologized only because you (or Fox) were uncomfortable with the fact that you’d bullied a disabled child, and not that you’d bullied a child *period*. Your beliefs as outlined in your apology contradict your words in the “Tucker Carlson Tonight”, otherwise — if you really believed what you said in your apology applied to all children, you wouldn’t have said the things you did in the first place.

Parents of non-disabled children should be insulted by that, and parents of disabled children should be, like Ingrid Herrera-Yee, uncomfortable with this whole business.

I will give Fox News kudos for at least attempting an apology. There are definitely networks out there that wouldn’t have. And if what you said was enough for Michael and his family, then that’s great.

But I know it wasn’t enough for the disability community, Tammy Bruce. I’ve heard them talk about this.

It wasn’t enough for me, either, Tammy Bruce.

Just so you know.

Save

Calling Liberals Out about Kellyanne Conway

I asked you all not to make me do this again — to make me write something where it comes across like I’m defending Donald Trump. For those that haven’t heard me say it before, I don’t like the man. I don’t like what he stands for. I don’t like that my nieces and nephew are spending their formative years in a world where he is President. And I don’t like Kellyanne Conway either, for that matter.

Content Note: Sexism, Crude commentsRoadway stop sign. Keyword: Kellyanne ConwayImage Description: Red roadway stop sign

***

I’m Canadian, but I watched the campaigning for Election 2016 from the word “Go!” I didn’t like Kellyanne Conway when she was working for Ted Cruz, I liked her even less during Donald Trump’s campaign, and I like her even less now. I have a grudging something-very-vaguely-resembling-respect for her in that I think that she knows that she’s full of shit and she’s found a way to weaponize it — The Daily Show did a good piece on Kellyane Conway’s rhetorical strategies  — and you can’t deny that, while it was working, the method behind her madness was arguably brilliant. But the fact remains that she’s full of shit, and it’s hard for me to have any long-term something-very-vaguely-resembling-respect for someone who lies so easily and so much that Morning Joe will no longer interview her.

That’s a low, right there.

There is plenty — plenty — about which Liberals can rightfully criticize Kellyanne Conway:

  1. How she joined Trump when it looked like he’d win, after personally maligning him as part of the Cruz team. Although, to be fair, she wasn’t the only person involved in Election 2016 who sold out in this way.
  2. Her allegiance to a bully of a President who’s just about every “-ist” there is.
  3. Her refusal to give a straight answer to a question — the reliance on lies, deflection, and denial. Not something that just she does these days, and not something just the GOP does, but frustrating all the same.

However, liberals are *not* sticking to criticisms of her on these grounds. I’m hearing some nasty sexist attacks of Kellyanne Conway from liberals, in conversation and on Facebook and other places, and that needs to stop.

We are better than this.

If You Don’t Like What Kellyanne Conway is Doing or What She Stands For

Then you need to say so and make an argument.

Don’t:

  • Say, “She’s ugly” or “She’s haggard-looking” or “She looks like a coke addict.” Especially if you’ve talked in the past about how sexist it is that there’s so much focus on looks in women in politics.
  • Call her a “whore.” I shouldn’t even have to explain why this is wrong.
  • Make crass, sexist jokes about her. At the Washington Press Club Annual Dinner, Cedric Richmond said, about the picture profiled in the video below: “And you can just explain to me…that circumstance, because she really look kind of familiar in that position there…”

ETA: Richmond’s joke was in response to a thread in a comedy routine earlier in the evening by Republican Tim Scott that “a whole lot worse” had happened on that sofa in the 1990s. Richmond’s full joke (as opposed to the bit that CNN chose to air) went as follows: “Tim, you kind of opened the door. I really just want to know what was going on there, because, you know, I won’t tell anybody. And you can just explain to me that circumstance — because she really looked kind of familiar in that position there. Don’t answer — and I don’t want you to refer back to the 1990s.”

Image Description: Kellyanne Conway kneels on a white sofa in the Oval Office, knees slightly apart, back against the back of the sofa, looking at her phone. She wears a dark dress that ends just above her knees.

Richmond has since apologized to Kellyanne Conway for his joke, and insists that he didn’t mean for it to be sexual. I wasn’t sure that it was at first, but I changed my mind before I even heard the full joke, after thinking about just what was aired on CNN. I’m still mentioning it in this call-out despite Richmond’s apology because Nancy Pelosi didn’t seem to think that the “familiar” joke required an apology when she was interviewed about it on “State of the Union” on March 5.

In case the captioning doesn’t work, here’s the transcript:

Jake Tapper: I need to ask you about this rude joke that was told this week by a member of your caucus, a Democratic Congressman, Cedric Richmond, at the Washington Press Club Annual Dinner at the expense of White House Counselor Kellyanne Conway. Take a listen:

Cut to Cedric Richmond at the event

Richmond: And you can just explain to me that circumstance — because she really looked kind of familiar in that position there.

Cut to Jake Tapper

Jake Tapper: Leader Pelosi, the joke was sexist, it was disgusting…shouldn’t the Congressman apologize to Kellyanne Conway and, honestly, why isn’t the Democratic Party expressing outrage about this?

Nancy Pelosi: I wasn’t at the dinner; I’m just finding out about this. The fact is, I’m still in sort of a state of, “What is going on here?”, that the person who occupies the White House is the person who was on that Hollywood video that said the crude things he said about women. You all are criticizing Cedric for something he said in the course of the evening, and maybe he should be criticized for that, I just don’t know the particulars. I do every day marvel at the fact that someone who said the gross and crude things that Donald Trump said wouldn’t even be allowed in a frat house, and now he’s in the White House.

Jake Tapper: Well, I think we’ve covered the Access Hollywood tape quite a bit, but I guess the question is: If one only criticizes Republicans when they make crude comments, does that not undermine the moral authority if you don’t criticize when Democrats make crude comments?

Nancy Pelosi: Well, I think everyone was making crude comments and I, I just don’t know, I wasn’t at that dinner. But I was at the dinner last night at the Grid Iron Club and we were all, I think, quite, shall we say, respectable. I’ll look at what my colleague said there. But I do think that, in the Oval Office, we were always…always with decorum appropriate for the White House.

Nancy Pelosi, Meet Me at Camera Three

I thought that the Access Hollywood video was disgusting, too. But Kellyanne Conway wasn’t there, and even if she was — citing Donald Trump’s record of bad behaviour toward women doesn’t mean that a member of your party gets a pass when he makes a female White House counselor the subject of a sexist and disgusting joke. Nor does “everyone was making crude comments” excuse his.

I appreciate that you were trying not to make definitive statements about a situation that you knew little about, but you came across as defending a colleague who told a sexist, demeaning joke about one of the President’s main advisers, even going so far as to imply that because she didn’t conduct herself with the standard of decorum that you and your colleagues did in the Oval Office, that she should expect that rudeness.

And if the GOP had done that to Hillary, you and a bunch of other Democrats would have screamed bloody murder. You know it’s true.

I just hope that later on you reconsidered your words and how they came across, and that you were one of the people that encouraged Richmond to apologize.

Bottom Line

Again — there is plenty to criticize Kellyanne Conway on without being sexist. derogatory, dismissive, and crude.

Criticize Kellyanne Conway all you want. But have some integrity about it.

Don’t let Trump take that from you.

Save

Christopher McFadden: What Do We Do When a Judge is Wrong?

Note: There’s an update on this story that became available to me just as I was about to post this: Christopher McFadden recused himself from the case late Friday afternoon. I will comment on it this week.

I still wanted to post this. After reading the update, nothing about what I believe about this story has changed, and this one really upset me.

Content Note: Rape and rape culture, victim-blaming, revictimization by justice system, ableism

A gavel and the scales of justice sit on top of law books. Keyword: Christopher McFadden

Image Description: A gavel and the scales of justice sit on top of law books.

***

A Facebook friend brought this story to my attention on Friday. Let’s all welcome Judge Christopher McFadden of Georgia to the blog. I doubt that this will be “one time only” appearance, as I plan on following this story.

The controversy rests on the 2012 trial of Jeffrey Dumas. Dumas was tried for raping a woman with Down Syndrome multiple times in 2010. She was 24 at the time, staying with family friends while her parents were out of town. Dumas visited the friends’ residence and, according to the woman’s testimony and to physical evidence, raped her three times in the twelve hours that he spent there. He was convicted by a jury and is currently serving 25 years. Christopher McFadden presided over the trial.

And now he has reversed the jury’s verdict and called for a new trial.

Wow.

Just a note before I get into this that for the sake of simplicity, I’m only going to talk about women and rape in this post. But I’ve not forgotten (and no one should ever forget) that men get raped, too. The statistic that I found in my go-to essay on rape culture (I’ll talk about that later) said that the number is 1 in 33, and that was in 2009.

Let’s unpack this. The woman’s name is not mentioned in the media. I’ll call her Jane, instead of “the woman”.

Christopher McFadden’s Concerns

Christopher McFadden apparently has some concerns with discrepancies in some witness testimony, the specifics of which I haven’t been able to find in the media. If he’s so concerned by these discrepancies that he feels that they affected the outcome of the original trial, then it’s my understanding that overturning the jury’s decision is a step, albeit one almost never taken by trial judges, that’s within his judicial power to take.

The media is giving those concerns only a passing mention, however, if mentioning them at all. And, in my opinion, he’d better be pretty damn sure that they’re worth giving a convicted rapist a new trial over.

Because Christopher McFadden hasn’t got a leg to stand on legally about anything else that concerns him about this trial, and needs to be called out properly on it.

You see, Christopher McFadden also believes that a new trial is necessary because Jane didn’t “act like a victim” and Dumas didn’t “like someone who had recently perpetrated a series of violent crimes”.

Welcome to living in rape culture in America, folks.

A Lesson in Rape Culture for Christopher McFadden

When I’m talking with people about rape culture, I refer them to Melissa McEwan’s excellent essay on the topic. For anyone who wants to understand how truly scarily pervasive rape culture is, how it thoroughly saturates our culture and keeps both women and men at risk, McEwan’s website is an excellent resource.

Christopher McFadden wonders if what happened to Jane is truly rape, apparently, given that her testimony that the rapes happened over a twelve hour period and she waited until the next day to report them. He posits that she had plenty of plenty of time and opportunity to report what was happening her caregivers and to ask for help before she did so.

Let’s let Melissa take this one:

“Rape culture is the pervasive narrative that there is a “typical” way to behave after being raped, instead of the acknowledgment that responses to rape are as varied as its victims, that, immediately following a rape, some women go into shock; some are lucid; some are angry; some are ashamed; some are stoic; some are erratic; some want to report it; some don’t; some will act out; some will crawl inside themselves; some will have healthy sex lives; some never will again.”

The fact that every woman reacts differently to rape isn’t ground-breaking news. Anyone who works with rape victims will tell you that. But this is the power of rape culture.

Or ignorance from a highly-educated individual of one of the most very basic elements of personal aftermath after a rape.

Or both.

In any case, it’s first-order victim-blaming, and a judge should know better.

And by the way, what *does* a man who has just raped woman 3 times behave like? What is he *supposed* to behave like? Why does this matter, when the jury found that the physical evidence supported that Dumas raped Jane?

Fayette County State Attorney Scott Ballard, who prosecuted this case, reacted to Christopher McFadden’s ruling with “disgust”.  After reading Christopher McFadden’s ruling,  the District’s Attorney’s office filed a motion asking him to recuse himself from the case, but he denied the motion.  The motion is being appealed (to the same appeals court that McFadden sits on.)

Obviously Christopher McFadden’s attitudes about rape would be problematic (to say the least!) regardless of whether the woman was disabled. But the fact that this woman is makes all this an issue of ableism as well, as Jane has Down Syndrome.

The Ableism Issues

If Christopher McFadden feels that discrepancies in witness testimony actually are significant enough to call for a new trial, that’s one thing. But this “she didn’t act like a victim” nonsense is especially unfair for a woman with an intellectual disability who, depending on her level of understanding, education and experience, may have a very limited understanding of how people “act” after consensual sex, let alone rape. There’s still a perception out there that disabled people, especially when the disability is intellectual, aren’t sexual beings, and don’t need education about sexuality, sexual relationships, and sexual safety.

I have no idea about Jane’s particular situation, of course. But, unless these issues were explored in the original trial, Christopher McFadden is assuming that she would even be clear after the initial rape that what had happened to her was wrong or why. After all, even some women who aren’t facing the challenges inherent in having an intellectual disability sometimes aren’t sure after an assault that what’s happened to them was rape.

These are factors that need to be considered by the entire support team helping a woman with an intellectual disability work her way through the issues involved with a rape, including the judge if the case goes to trial.

The evidence doesn’t seem to point to Christopher McFadden having awareness of these issues. I could be wrong, but I’m willing to bet that I’m not.

I’m also asking myself if this idea of “she didn’t act like a victim” isn’t somehow tied in to assumptions about people with an intellectual disability. I don’t think it’s an unfair question, although I’m sure we’ll never know the answer.

But ultimately it doesn’t matter whether Jane is disabled or not, does it?

Meet Me at Camera Three, Judge Christopher McFadden

I’m just sick about your ruling.

Not just because it means that a woman with Down Syndrome will have to go through a trial again, when the man charged with raping her was found guilty, when she she thought that he would stay behind bars for 25 years.

Because a *woman* will have to will to go through a trial again, when the man charged with  raping her was found guilty, when she thought that he would stay behind bars for 25 years.

Some of the articles about this don’t even mention that you had concerns about testimony. All of them mention that this is happening because you didn’t think that Jane acted enough like a victim. This not only demonstrates ignorance on a basic level of how women react to being raped, it’s an affront to rape victims everywhere. You ignorance is revictimizing this woman, and further proves that in a rape trial, the victim is just as much on trial as the rapist. Her sexual history is used against her. The way she dresses is used against her. And now, the way she acts after the rape is used against her.

And God help her if her rapist doesn’t “act” like a rapist.

If you are thoroughly convinced that witness testimony had discrepancies that could have affected the outcome of the original trial (not that I’m buying that), call for the new trial on that basis.

And then recuse yourself! How does this woman have a ghost of a chance in this new trial if you preside?

And yet, when she was told that the trial was going to be reopened, after her tears, she said that she was ready to do this again.

I can’t do much for her, but I can make sure that people know what’s happening, and get as much support as I can behind her.

Be a responsible judge and a decent human being and don’t force yourself into this young woman’s life again. She’s been violated enough.

This article by Bill Rankin and Steve Visser really helped me to get needed background information and to better understand the legal aspects of what’s happening with this case.

 

Save

Revisiting The Goodwill Controversy: Slave Wages Aren’t Cool

I know that I’ve posted before about Goodwill’s practice practice of paying its disabled workers next to nothing. but it all bears repeating.

Content Note: Ableism, sheltered workshop, sub-minimum wage, discrimination

A drawing of a hand, white, at the end of an arm wearing an aqua suit with cuffs of a white dress peeking out at the wrist, dangles a bill of indeterminate worth (aqua with a dollar sign in a white circle centred on it) over two figures who jump and grab for it. They are wearing grey blazers, black pants and orange ties, and we can't see their faces. They cast black shadows on an orange floors. The background is light grey. Keyword: Goodwill

Image Description: A drawing of a hand, white, at the end of an arm wearing an aqua suit with cuffs of a white dress peeking out at the wrist, dangles a bill of indeterminate worth (aqua with a dollar sign in a white circle centred on it) over two figures who jump and grab for it. They are wearing grey blazers, black pants and orange ties, and we can’t see their faces. They cast black shadows on an orange floors. The background is light grey.

***

After viewing this video about Goodwill, I’m all fired up.

The issue is that Goodwill employs 7000-8000 disabled people in America who, due to a loophole in the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, legally don’t have to be paid minimum wage. And Goodwill takes advantage of this – some disabled employees get  paid as little as $0.22 an hour. It’s all documented.

Goodwill operates sheltered workshops for its disabled employees. Regular readers will know that I’m not a fan of sheltered workshops for a variety of reasons: they promote exclusion and segregation, they pigeonhole people into performing certain types of tasks, they encourage society to  of the work of disabled people, and they’re environments in which it’s difficult even for staff to assist the people they support to reach their full potential. Goodwill’s operation is a particularly good support for the idea of totally abolishing sheltered workshops, in my opinion (one that’s shared by the head of the National Federation of the Blind, Mark Maurer, interviewed in the video).

Goodwill and Employment Discrimination: The Thing Is…

Head of Goodwill International Jim Gibbons is disabled himself, so you’d think that he’d understand these issues. But he’s got it all worked out in his head about why the sheltered workshop model works for Goodwill and its disabled employees, including reasoning for why a company that could afford to pay him half a million dollars last year and that could afford to pay other executives similarly hefty salaries (including $1.1 million dollars in salary and deferred compensation to the CEO of Goodwill Industries of Southern California in 2011) shouldn’t feel badly about paying some of the company’s disabled employees less than a quarter an hour.

In the video, Gibbons spoke about people having the right to define success for themselves, about how everything at Goodwill is focused on the workers and “their strengths, their skills, and their abilities” and went on to comment, about Goodwill’s disabled employees: “It’s typically not about their livelihood. It’s about their fulfillment. It’s about being a part of something, and it’s probably a small part of their overall program.”

Gibbons wasn’t talking like he was the head of a company whose management model includes large-scale use of sheltered workshops. The language that he was using, about being committed to having disabled in an employment environment that uses their strengths, skill sets and abilities, is the language of the much more progressive person-centred approach to support.

It pisses me off that Jim Gibbons has appropriated this language to describe what’s going on in Goodwill (all suggestions appear to be that it’s not). It makes me feel sick to my stomach that he’s twisted it to imply that the people who are questioning his discriminatory employment practices are the bad guys, because everyone has the right to define success for themselves and for most of his disabled employees their take-home pay isn’t their measure of their success as a Goodwill employee.

Meet Me at Camera Three, Mr. Gibbons

Mr. Gibbons, you made $729 000 in 2011. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that you worked 50 hours a week. That’s $280 an hour.

The employee that works 40 hours a week at $0.22 an hour has to work almost 32 weeks to make what you make in an hour, as opposed to 1 week at the $7.25 that non-disabled Americans get for the work that they do.

It’s easiest to abuse the people who don’t know that they’re worth more than the treatment they’re getting, don’t know that anything better exists, or who don’t have the resources (which more often than not require money) to help them to get out of a bad situation. You take people who already are at high risk of living in poverty, some of whom have never had a job, some who are desperate to be employed in a society where they can’t find work (or both), and you exploit economic need and the desperation for employment by paying them slave wages – and then have the nerve to twist it into, “But look how much good we do for them, and how committed we are to them.”

Some will stay because they don’t feel that they have a choice, even though they feel trapped and unhappy. But others will stay because they simply don’t realize what’s being done to them – that for (not enough, but many) people, having a job means that they get paid enough of a wage to meet their basic needs as well as having work to do that they like each day. They’ve never had a job that was like that.

That’s not making the community a better place. That’s being a huge part of the problem. And until you start to become part of the solution, Goodwill will not get my support again.

Goodwill is a tax-exempt, non-profit business that brings in over five billion dollars a year AND that gets hundreds of million dollars a year in American government funding. They’re supposed to be helping communities. Use your power as a consumer and make them accountable for the promises that they make, starting with how they treat the most socially vulnerable of their employees.

Learn more about the Brian Williams video

Jim Gibbons has responded to critics of Goodwill’s employment practices

Goodwill’s full statement