Tag Archives: dignity

“Do you Want Fries with That?”

02 Thursday Jun 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , ,

A few days ago this article blew up my social media accounts: a blind man is suing McDonald’s for providing exclusively drive-through service during certain hours late at night, thus alienating blind customers. VERY strong opinions – often conflicting – have been voiced by many people I respect. There are two definite schools of thought, and I haven’t seen much middle ground:

(1) the plaintiff is acting entitled and wants special treatment for blind people, which makes all of us look bad;

(2) If a paying customer wants chicken McNuggets at 2:00AM, a driver’s license shouldn’t be required.

After considering the angles myself (admittedly not the legal implications), I’ve got a few brilliant thoughts to add to the pile… but let’s leave the “why would you want to eat at McDonald’s in the first place?” comment out of this, okay?

 

First: drive-throughs are for cars, period, the end. If you’re a particularly height-challenged pedestrian walking through a drive-through and someone pulls up in a big tall truck, the likelihood is that the driver can’t see you and you’ll end up being road pizza. Add to that the small size of drive-through lanes, some of which have curves that make it impossible for drivers to see pedestrians anyway, and being a pedestrian in a drive-through lane is taking your life into your hands. That’s why they’re called drive-through windows, OK? Good?

 

It is completely understandable that McDonald’s as a business wishes to serve late-night customers without having to keep open a storefront where people enter who may be intoxicated and/or disruptive and/or wish to find a warm dry place to sleep. So they get the benefits of serving drive-through customers without having to watch a storefront. I would assume that intoxicated pedestrians have attempted to walk through the drive-through lanes and order food, and I’m sure that’s not always pleasant. The customers who are driving (in theory) are sober and just want their food and everyone is happy.

 

But this is where in my opinion it gets sticky. Like it or not, not everyone drives or has ready access to a vehicle – and it isn’t always because of blindness. This is where I think the plaintiff is short-sighted (no pun intended). Over the years I’ve met people who have epilepsy, are terrified of driving at night, or don’t wish to take on the financial responsibility of keeping a car in good working order. While the article indicated employees mocked him on several occasions (unprofessional?), I’m sure they’ve had many intoxicated people try and take their lives in their hands by walking through the drive-through. But relegating this lawsuit to discrimination against exclusively blind people – instead of all those who can’t/don’t drive – has many blind people thinking he’s wanting special treatment.

 

But is he really and truly wrong? I don’t think so. McDonald’s and other fast food restaurants with drive-through-only hours are providing an additional perk to those who can drive just because they can drive. And I don’t think that’s fair either. Driving is a huge societal advantage; you can get in your car and go wherever you want to go. You don’t have to rely on someone else’s schedule to leave a dreaded Thanksgiving dinner with your in-laws, you can take a spontaneous road trip just because you want to, and you don’t have to worry that you’ll get stuck in the rain because the next car (read: bus) won’t show up for 45 minutes. And, yes, you can get McDonald’s fries at 2:00 AM because you have a car and driving is the only way you’ll get served.

 

I don’t know how this lawsuit will pan out. But maybe if everyone meets in the middle, something will change and pedestrians will get served at 2:00 AM because we get hungry at that hour and we’re paying customers too. Maybe this happens by opening a designated walk-up window out of the way of those cars that can run us over. Maybe the storefront should be open the same hours as the drive-through windows. Maybe fast-food restaurants can take advantage of food-delivery services that have become extremely popular in the past few years (I’ve seen this, by the way). However it happens, it’s 11:00PM as I finish typing this. I live four blocks from a McDonalds… I wonder if they’re open? I think I’ll walk over there, because I really want some fries.

“You’re… um… Not What I Expected”

27 Friday May 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, ,

Expectations. Everyone has them. From the one that says your dream vacation will be… well… dreamy, to the one that your friends and family will be there for you. Usually, life follows this script, at least most of the time… but what if it doesn’t? What if your dream vacation ends up going just sideways enough that you have hilarious stories to tell for years to come? Or what if you needed someone you thought would always be there and they devastated you by being distant or unavailable?
What if you spent your life dealing with not only your expectations about how your life should go but other peoples’ vocal perceptions of it?
I am a 31-year-old married woman with a solid work history, a jewelry design business, a love of running, and a huge mental vocabulary of words to pull out at a moment’s notice… Oh, and I’m blind.
I can just hear your thought [processes, because I’ve heard them vocalized in my presence (if not at me, around me).
Whoa! But you… you can work? Make things? Run? Play Scrabble? But… but…. you’re… you’re blind!
Um… yeah? So? You make little adaptations to your life every day, from changing the way your cell phone’s wallpaper looks to rearranging your kitchen so you can find things more easily. My life is a bit more linear than yours, but that doesn’t mean I can’t do anything I wish to pursue (except, maybe, drive a car, but the technology is coming). The fact that you expect my life to be a certain way because you just don’t know isn’t hurtful in and of itself, but refusing to listen and be educated to change your perceptions… that IS damaging.
And I am not alone. Many people with visible physical disabilities are nearly constantly bombarded with the idea that because they do things differently they can’t be done at all. People who use wheelchairs are frequently publicly asked if they can enjoy an active intimate life. Many friends who are deaf or hard of hearing or have non-speaking autism are treated like they can’t understand information or directions because they cannot hear and/or communicate differently than the general public (ASL, interpreters, written communication). Many people with chronic pain are told they aren’t eating healthy enough or doing enough yoga or “thinking positively” enough. We can educate only so much; if the general public expects sob stories and the drudgery of disability – like in a movie I won’t name that’s being released this week – it directly affects our ability to make a living (if our disability permits) and undermines our autonomy and dignity (if our disability doesn’t).
I’ve walked into many job interviews where my blindness overshadows my work history and experience. With one exception, all jobs in that work history have been incredibly accommodating and have been true partnerships between employer and employee from day one. I don’t mind educating companies, interviewers, or even the general public if they honestly want to know how I do things productively, that my life isn’t drudgery, and take away with them the fact that I’m really no different from anyone else. But when it directly affects my ability to make a living or live an independent, autonomous life, that I do mind. If someone tells you that you have done something that hurts them, it should empower you to discover if there’s any truth in it. If so, it’s important to make changes to validate the lived experience of the person who’s been hurt. For many in the disability community, that isn’t happening.

So I’m not what you expect of someone who is blind. I am confident, independent, a quick learner who works with her hands and moves quickly on her feet. Even if I weren’t, so what? People with disabilities intersect all manner of age, race, gender, belief system, political affiliation, personality traits, motivation, hobbies, interests… and some of us have physical challenges that are much less of a barrier to independent, autonomous living than the perceptions that surround us. If I – or anyone else – is not what you expect… Does that make me super awesome? Sure, my ego would like to think that. But doesn’t it reflect less on me and my “awesomeness” than on you and your own prejudgments?

So next time you reorganize your kitchen to make things easier to access, or change the brightness setting on your cell phone screen, or get map directions to somewhere you’ve never been… you’d feel awfully patronized if I told you it’s awesome that you prepare so well or do things that make your life easier. So, do me a favor, don’t do it to me or my friends in the disability community. Our physical “limitations” are nothing compared to the pity, the discrimination, and the “expectations” the general public has about our lives. Leave your expectations at the door, and listen to what we are really and truly saying. Many of us love our lives and are trying to tell you; many of you just won’t listen. Many thanks to those of you who do.

Satire: Choosing a Guide… Criminal?

22 Friday Apr 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

, , , ,

It happens every day. A video is posted on facebook and a zillion comments follow. Against my better judgment, I read some of the comments on one of these shares. Interspersed among comments wishing that more video was shown of the dog to the “awwwww doggie!” responses was a group of people who expressed that it was cruel for dogs to be “enslaved” to serve people, even people with disabilities that “need extra help”. I’ve never met one of these types (at least one that acknowledged it openly), but many of my friends have. What surprised me was a comment stating that it was not only cruel of us as humans to force dogs to work for us, but that criminals should be trained to provide guiding services to blind people.

 

OK, so forcing a dog to work for love and praise and pets and treats and constant companionship is cruel… but forcing a blind person to be at the mercy and whim of another person – criminal or not – is completely logical? And training a released criminal to perform guiding services at the whim of a blind person is not enslavement? Oooookay. Let’s run with that line of thinking. If someone chose to do this… how would one be matched with a guide criminal?

 

Which institution will train your guide criminal? It would be advantageous to select an institution close to home, because there’s no way a blind person can travel independently before they are matched. So blind people should all live in the basement of their chosen training jail or prison, and in the event that’s not possible, they should at least live next door, with no tricky streets, steps or any changes in elevation more than 1/16 of an inch. Ideally, the jail or prison should screen their guide criminals carefully, produce capable trainees, and make sure they are trustworthy people, but the fact they’re there at all should be sufficient reason for blind people who are recipients of their trained guide criminals to weep and genuflect in gratitude. I’m sure there will be studies eventually, but what previously-enjoyed activities would increase the success rate: embezzlement, robbery, assault, drug possession, driving under the influence of alcohol? And would it be expected that a guide criminal should be able to continue to enjoy these activities post-placement, even if it might put the blind person at risk?

 

What attributes would be preferred? Sure, compassion is one; they need to love what they do in support of the poor poor blind people of the world… But what about reliability, personality, habits, age, gender… I mean, this person is supposed to be on-call for guiding duties 24/7 in the unlikely event that a blind person would actually want to go somewhere. So you’d want someone with a good enough work ethic to – at a moment’s notice – keep a blind person safe from creepy people, from falling down stairs, or from looking or acting normal in any way… but they can’t be reliable enough to hold down any other job after all of that training in case the blind person needs their services. How much do you tell a blind person about their guide criminal’s life pre-placement? They shouldn’t care, but occasionally one of them might ask about their great skills or bad habits or health problems or family background or why they would want to be a guide criminal in the first place.

 

The logistics of working with a guide criminal… What if they get distracted and wish to go on a hot date with that attractive person across the street? Would they need to bring their blind handler along for this date? What do guide criminals eat? Where would they sleep? Does anyone cover medical expenses in the event they get sick and can’t work? What behaviors or health conditions would make a guide criminal no longer fit for service? Since blind people are incapable of deciding things for themselves, who decides if a match just isn’t working out?

 

I don’t think the guide criminal lifestyle is for me… I’m off to enslave my dog by taking her for a run around the neighborhood, followed by a seriously good game of fetch, a big bowl of fresh water, and a snuggle on my bed. Doing such things with a guide criminal would be… really creepy. But, hey, thanks for indulging my catharsis in imagining a life where conscripting the time, dignity, and autonomy of not only blind people but post-released criminals is a thing…

First They Denied Access…

09 Saturday Apr 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , , , , , ,

Earlier this week, my friend Meagan wrote a brilliant blog post about selective discrimination. If you haven’t read it yet, you should, because it’s important. I had full intentions of writing about a similar topic from another angle; thankfully she is gracious enough not to point out that SHE wrote about it first…

Over the past six months or so, since becoming more involved in the disability rights movement and meeting more people, I’ve come face-to-face with some of my own ideas about disability, access, and availability of information. People with a wide range of disabilities – those who are deaf or hard of hearing, who use wheelchairs, who are on the autism spectrum, who live with PTSD – have been far more patient than I deserve. I’ve had my own sense of privilege pointed out – just because I have access to something doesn’t mean that everyone does, and how dare I sit back and be content that I have access to facilities, employment, or information, when the fight for equality is far from over for everyone else? If you live with a disability, and even if you don’t, I hope you’ll consider the next few paragraphs carefully, make whatever necessary changes in yourself, and realize that it’s up to you and me to make things happen, even if it doesn’t directly benefit us.

Let’s start with a few examples. Several followers on twitter have recently opened up a huge discussion about a popular podcasting website that provides audio posts for their blind followers, but delays (if it publishes at all) the publication of transcripts so that deaf or deaf-blind followers can follow along. Many blind people are pushing for TV networks and video-on-demand services like Netflix to provide descriptive video, even as closed captioning has been part of TV networks for years now so that those who are deaf or hard of hearing can more fully enjoy movies and TV programming. In either example, many of those who have received access to the information or service are strangely silent on pushing for others with different accessibility needs to have that same access for themselves. What about physical access to buildings? Just because I have two strong feet and the ability to use them to propel myself forward, how dare I take for granted the ability to walk into any building I choose – a shop, a restaurant, a concert venue – and not even have to think twice about it? Many wheelchair users have to contact restaurants ahead of time to ensure there are ramps to the building, or make sure the seats they purchased for that blockbuster concert are truly accessible. Many are too gracious to point out that we all have our own struggles, but that’s hardly the point now, is it?

 

Among service dog users, the guide dog is the most commonly recognized. But many other service dogs exist. What gives guide dog users (myself included) the right to police what specific services another’s service dog provides so long as it mitigates a disability? How dare we sit smugly by when other legitimate service dog teams are denied access to public facilities just because we are the privileged and most recognizable? What gives other service dog users the right to tell guide dog handlers how much more training our dogs need than theirs? I’ve seen all of this and more… and it’s ugly. And I’m not even touching on the service dog fakers…

 

The blind community in and of itself is not exempt from such stances of privilege. There is an outspoken outrage when a guide dog user is denied access to a restaurant, movie theatre, or taxi. Yet, in moments of vulnerability and candor, some blind people who prefer to travel with canes acknowledge that there’s a teeny tiny part of themselves that is grateful that the battle for access isn’t directly related to them. Until this past week when two blind friends using canes were refused entry to a restaurant because the eating area was upstairs, modern instances of service denial to the blind traveling with canes are exceedingly rare. Several of my deaf-blind friends have had blind people question their dignity and right to access information, resources, and employment services. None of these things are right, and no one should ever indicate that discrimination in any form is OK… and yet…

 

I’m going to go out on a limb and borrow an oft-quoted and paraphrased poem by Martin Niemöller. Maybe this will help the disability community realize that we’re not so different after all, and denying access to some of us should be considered equally as horrible as doing so to all of us:

 

First they denied access to the service dog handler, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a service dog handler.

Then they denied access to buildings for the wheelchair user, and I did not speak out— Because I was not a wheelchair user.

Then they denied access to information for the deaf, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not deaf.

Then they denied access and accommodations for the autistic, and I did not speak out— Because I was not autistic.

 

Then they denied access and dignity to those with PTSD, and I did not speak out— Because I did not have PTSD.

 

Then they denied access to me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Book Review: For the Benefit of Those who See

29 Monday Feb 2016

Posted by in Book reviews, Nonfiction

≈ 4 Comments

Tags

, , , , , ,

One of my blog’s most consistently viewed posts is this one, regarding the portrayal of blind characters in books. Because of this, I’ve decided to do a monthly book review, alternating between fiction and nonfiction, beginning with this book that created quite a stir in the blind community when it was first released.

 

For the Benefit of Those who See

By: Rosemary Mahoney

I chose to review this book because of this article that made the rounds of social media nearly two years after its publication. I found it well-rounded and compassionate, at great odds with reviews of this book. After mentioning this disparity  to a friend, I realized that I needed to read the book, to form my own opinion. Nearly a month after putting the book down, I still find myself incredibly conflicted by it. How can I be so awed by some beautiful friendships and inspired by the resilience of many of the blind students, yet put off by some of the awkward and inappropriate behavior and the fixation on everyone’s eyes?

 

Some Unnecessary Detours

 

The introduction to this book begins with a rather graphic description of an eye surgery. This is not for the squeamish. Perhaps the author uses this to reminisce about her own temporary blindness, how scared she felt. Then she uses this as a springboard to how she got involved with Braille without Borders. The first couple of chapters tend to jump around unnecessarily; I honestly found myself not caring about Rosemary herself, as her own experience of blindness was temporary and she was able to go back to her sighted life, with a seemingly perpetual fear of blindness itself. Later in the book, she describes the perception of the blind in wider western society, beginning in the eighteenth century and ending midway through the twentieth. The placement of this information was between the two sections of the book (the school in Tibet and that in India), which was quite logical, but the author didn’t cite any historical data from eastern countries, nor did she truly address the strides that have been made in western society in the past sixty years. It appeared that she viewed her ideas through the lens of a contemporary western chronicler, while not really addressing many of the true social realities that have historically been lived in the east. In these ways, the book takes off on tangents that may be informative as their own volume, but were cobbled together as a west-meets-east education model that doesn’t truly convey either particularly well.

 

I Did Find Inspiration Here

 

Unlike many other reviews by blind people, I did find myself truly awed by some of the students and their friendships portrayed in this book. I chuckled at the seriousness of the 12-year-old braille teacher, was touched by the young girl who persistently physically refused to allow a classmate to disengage by constantly praying for a cure, laughed out loud at the friendship of two loud and rather bawdy students at the school in India. Two young girls took Rosemary through a crowded Tibetan square, and showed her how they used their other senses to determine where they were; they were neither self-pitying nor constantly happy, yet they simply gave Rosemary the information they had. I was awed by many of the blind students’ resilience, not because they got up and got out of bed in the morning and did what they had to do with little or no vision, but they did so in a society that truly didn’t know what to do with them, and with little or no governmental or family assistance, sometimes fleeing truly abusive family environments.

 

But… But…

 

Some of the behaviors described in this book were truly cringe-worthy. I would hate to see any other group of people walk around with tea streaming down the backs of their shirts, waving long sticks around, crying out how glad they were to be (insert disability/race/gender here). It baffles my mind that in one breath, the heart-warming friendships and terrific adaptability of the students are wonderfully depicted, then in the next some of these same students are acting with the social grace of a toddler. It surprises me that a confident blind woman who runs the school would not address these behaviors; if she had, perhaps the author could have described the strides the students were making as she did with their computer learning. But as it stands, my western mind just can’t compute the disparity, especially in countries and cultures where cleanliness and propriety are quite important.

 

Educational Advantage

 

Two schools are described in this book. They provide food, shelter, and education for blind students, both children and adults. My opinion on blind schools has been documented here, and yet I applaud the author’s ability to detail the complex nuances and ironies at play for blind students in Tibet and India. In cultures where families run farms, and sighted children work on the farm, their blind child/sibling has an opportunity for an education. It’s one of the few times in which blindness has its own unique advantage.

 

Fixation on Eyes

 

I grew very uncomfortable with the author’s seemingly endless descriptions of people’s eyes. Many blind people wish we could make eye contact, but are uncertain how best to do this appropriately. Some of us are self-conscious about how our eyes appear to others, and based on the never-ending descriptions in this book, we have every right to be. Very few, if any people, were described as having nice eyes, and it appears that those who did have “normal” eyes had their blindness questioned by the author because of their confidence and social normality (see above). If eyes are the window to the soul, I’d hate to think of how soulless we are.

 

Conclusion

 

There are some nuggets of beauty in this book. Unfortunately, they are dispersed throughout outdated, unnecessary, and demeaning information. Even now, more than a month after concluding this book, I can’t seem to get it out of my head. As someone who lives in the “world of the blind”, I object to the characterization of us – of me – based on what my eyes do or don’t do, and the truly horrid manners exemplified in these pages. And yet, I draw inspiration, perhaps as the author intended, from the depictions of deep friendships, of learning despite the naysaying of family and society, of falling down and getting back up. I am glad I chose not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, but that bathwater is truly quite murky.

 

2.5/5 stars.

 

If you have any book recommendations, or wish me to review books more or less frequently than monthly, please comment below!

Don’t Fire your Employees!

15 Friday Jan 2016

Posted by in blindness

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

, , ,

Yesterday this post made national news, and many guide dog users praised the city of Calgary and/or the cab company for firing this driver. Having seen (though not truly experienced) this situation many times, I’m not sure I am completely comfortable with this resolution…

 

The situation is not unfamiliar to many guide dog users: a taxi driver, store clerk, mall security officer refused access to a person with a disability accompanied by a service dog. In this case, the whole incident was captured on camera, and the driver was fined $750 and lost his job for refusing access. Such incidents are not uncommon, but appear to be less common than they used to be (according to many long-time guide dog handlers I know). According to the Alberta Service Dogs Act, the financial penalty is within the limit of the law. But human resources decisions are made by companies, and I wish them to reconsider their stance on firing employees who for the first time refuse service to passengers or customers with service dogs.

 

Don’t get me wrong – I understand the implications. An employee has represented your company badly and clearly broken the law. The provincial government’s financial penalty should have teeth, but making this a job-costing offense doesn’t serve your company or the employee who is fired, nor does it in the long run serve those who rely on service dogs. Such swift action tells the employee that his actions were wrong, but it doesn’t give them an understanding of why it’s wrong. I also firmly believe that it doesn’t give other employees an opportunity to learn from the experience, except for sending the message that “they need to provide service or lose their job.

 

I propose a different remedy:

  1. The financial penalty as outlined by Alberta law.
  2. A written reprimand in the employee file. If the employee in this case is licensed by the city, the city should receive a copy of such a reprimand.
  3. A probationary period (the length of which is at the discretion of the employer/city); If the access refusal happens again, THEN fire them. At least in that instance, they can’t say in any certain terms they didn’t know.
  4. Strongly encourage such employees to volunteer with service dog organizations. I firmly believe that many of these instances are based on a lack of education on what these dogs do. Their presence can provide a disabled person a degree of dignity that refusing access strips away. Maintaining volunteer relationships with service dog organizations may provide an opportunity for service providers to learn first-hand the work that’s involved in training these dogs.

 

This does not address the very real concern of allergies, because such an issue has already been addressed. It is made very clear that if someone is allergic to dogs, reliable documentation must be provided to the employer, and all efforts must be made for the safety and access of both the disabled person accompanied by a service dog and the employee or service provider with allergies. The above suggestions are for employees who for the first time refuse service to a service dog team.

 

In no way am I saying that such behavior is acceptable; I am simply saying that education goes a lot further than lowering a hammer. If an employer wishes to fire an employee for breaking the law and representing their name badly, that is their decision. But please don’t do it in my name.

“So… what does that do?” – On Assistive Technology

13 Sunday Dec 2015

Posted by in blindness

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

For some reason I still don’t understand, a previous blog post generated a really lively discussion at a school for the blind far far away. I appreciate that this blog has readers from many backgrounds, ages and countries, and love that my opinions can open the door to some great conversations. One of the topics of discussion was regarding assistive technology (those braille/talking/large-print things that make many blind peoples’ lives so much easier). Stemming from that, when is it appropriate to be “treated like everyone else” and there by not receive any accommodations), and be protected and coddled so much that we aren’t required to advocate for ourselves at all?

 

Reading about this discussion, I took a trip down memory lane. As with all technology over the past 15-20 years, assistive technology ( braille displays, screen reading software, scanning applications) has grown in leaps and bounds. When I was in school, I used a Perkins brailler (think like a 25-pound braillle typewriter, which was as heavy and noisy as you’d think), a slate and stylus for on-the-fly braille writing, and a specialized notetaker (like a bad version of today’s tablets without a screen) called a Braille ‘n Speak to type out assignments. Computers took up lots of space and had to be pre-loaded with specialized text-to-speech software to run on the limited accessible programs available (my first laptop ran only Word Perfect and a braille transcription software so I could print out assignments). A transcriber had her own office and brailled my worksheets, tests, and books unavailable through provincial/federal resource centers – by hand in the early days, by scanning into a computer and printing them out on a big noisy braille printer when the technology was more readily available. Any assignments I did using braille, she had to write above the braille so my teachers could read them. Needless to say, while my work got done, I was far from being treated “like everyone else”; it took a small army and my own special room to get through elementary and high school. Now that I write this out, I owe a HUGE debt of gratitude for those who tirelessly did this work, so THANK YOU!

 

Over the years, technology has evolved. While specialized equipment such as braille displays, screen reading software, and braille printers are still on the market, many aspects of technology have been made more readily available to the general public. Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software is available inexpensively or free of charge, so scanning documents to read them can be done by almost anyone, sighted or blind. Some screen reading software (which reads the content on a screen in a synthesized voice) is available pre-installed on computers, smartphones and tablets; other options are available for purchase or free of charge, which leaves the market wide open to choose which software works best for a particular individual. High schools and colleges have teachers and professors emailing their assignments to students, and students being able to email them back; if a blind person needs to print out hard copy, printers are readily available at the local Staples for less than the cost of a microwave.

 

We are at a time when technology has opened up many possibilities, and yet it has closed doors in other ways. Even as I have been writing this post, I’ve seen tweets describing an experience buying groceries and having to ask for assistance because the debit pin pad is a touch screen with no spoken menus and no tactile buttons, or a customer wishing to contact a company but being unable to because of those distorted images on the screen that a screen reader cannot read. When is what we are asking for too much? When does requesting accommodations make us “more valued” than anyone else? For me, personally, it comes down to dignity and respect. I want to be able to go about my day as a consumer, an employee, a student, a patron just like everyone else. Yes, I use specific technology to make that happen, but it has come through figuring out what works for me, and has put me on more of an even footing than I have ever been. Technology can be the great equalizer, providing access to information, employment possibilities, education and commerce; making that equalization possible should be the responsibility of all of us – individuals, institutions, businesses and governments. If I ask for accommodations, it is something that will benefit not only me, but other customers in that store, other students at that school (either currently or in future), other employees in that office. Perhaps it looks like purchasing that screen reading software will benefit only that one student in the classroom, but in effect, it benefits everyone by giving that student an opportunity to learn and engage and educate the others.

 

So, while technology grows at a rapid rate, ask the questions, request what you need. If it can improve your access to information, employment, education or commerce, ask the tough questions. Ironically, what can be viewed as “special treatment” may be the only thing that will allow you to be treated equally. If we all stay silent and hope someone will come along and make our lives better, we’d wind up with such advanced technology as this… I think we’re a bit past that, no?

X marks the Spot: On Voting, Dignity, And Putting Things Away

14 Saturday Nov 2015

Posted by in blindness

≈ 13 Comments

Tags

, , , ,

Nearly four weeks ago, Canadians elected a new Prime Minister. Citizens came out in droves to polling stations all across the country – so many, in fact, that at least one polling station in Alberta ran out of ballots.  But what often went unmentioned, except by those who experienced it firsthand, is an inconsistent process for voters with disabilities or mobility challenges.  For those with disabilities, who face discrimination and incomprehension on a regular basis, an overwhelming sentiment was felt that on October 19- a day when all Canadians were to be treated equally by casting their ballot – inequality still very much exists.

 

A Human Rights complaint was filed after a 2011 Federal election, after a voter who used a walker for mobility was forced to enter a polling station by going down a flight of stairs on his behind. A short time later, that same polling station was still in use, with the same barriers to access with walker or wheelchair. The Canadian government implemented changes for voters with disabilities, theoretically upholding the dignity of all Canadians. Four years later, progress had been made, but – as you will soon see – we still have a long way to go. Even though Elections Canada has made policies to accommodate voters with disabilities, many of these require advanced notice – whether it’s booking an ASL interpreter (if you are not able to bring one yourself) or having an Elections Canada volunteer come to your home so you can cast your ballot prior to Election Day. For Election day itself, independently accessing a voting booth is far from a simple or consistent process. From polling stations lacking clear signage for easy visibility, to inoperable or non-existent elevators, to volunteers not knowing about options for voters with visual impairments, it’s clear that voting is not as smooth for everyone as it could be.

 

I chose not to vote in this election, for a variety of personal and political reasons. But based on what several visually impaired friends have told me, the process was far from smooth or consistent. At best, one friend was guided from the front door, to filling out paperwork, to casting his ballot, and back out again. Some polling stations had large print lists of candidates with corresponding numbers, some had braille ones, some had neither. A template with braille numbers representing the candidates beside holes to mark your X could be used to hold a ballot, but there was nothing to hold the ballot in place – a potential for spoiling a ballot or voting for an unintended candidate. Many friends expressed concern over a lack of privacy, because an Elections Canada volunteer would have to place the ballot in the holder, then make sure the ballot didn’t slip. One friend of mine expressed shock that her ballot was taken from her and put in the ballot box on her behalf. Another was dismayed that she was grabbed and nearly dragged to the booth by an Elections Canada worker. Yet another had the misfortune of walking into the polling station and hearing (loudly) “Oh, here’s our first one!” and then having this same person direct all questions to her mother, who was there to cast her vote as well. Meagan even describes a completely bizarre requirement of having to write down the full name of the desired candidate – something that seemed unique to that polling station.

 

Voting is a right in this country. Perhaps because I chose not to vote, I have no right to describe or disparage the voting process. But the voters have spoken, and unfortunately, for many of the most misunderstood population, it was yet another way to be told that we aren’t quite equal, after all. I hope more steps can be taken in this country for equality for people with disabilities, whether it’s finding a job, raising a family, or voting in an election. But governments can only do so much; if attitudes don’t change, then I fear we’re just spitting into the wind.