For IDS disability is an aberration that needs to be, and can be, fixed
Iain Duncan Smith’s latest gaffe shows clearly the direction he is taking the country in. It is a return to an age of prejudice.
Speaking in the House of Commons, yesterday, the work and pensions secretary talked about getting disabled people in work up to the levels of ‘normal, non-disabled people’.
A slip of the tongue? Maybe, but one that reveals the dangerous ideology which lies behind IDS’s welfare reforms, which is reversing decades of struggle for disabled rights.
For IDS it is now clear that disability is not something to be embraced, let alone celebrated as part of the diversity which makes us all stronger. Disability is an aberration. It is a problem which needs to be fixed.
And if those who are different get the right therapy, or where necessary they are sanctioned, they can be pushed into the workplace to become like ‘normal’ people.
This is one-size-fits-all welfare. It is how over four thousand people can die after being certified ‘fit for work’. It is why he is moving therapists into job centres, and why and the Conservative manifesto suggested sanctioning those who refuse medical treatment. It may well be why some people on benefits are taking their own lives.
When my own disabled son started in a mainstream primary school, he lined up to take part in the 100 metres with the rest of his classmates. What the teachers didn’t know was that his small powered wheelchair would only travel around half the speed that a child of his age could run.
The starting gun was fired. The children set off, and as the penultimate child crossed the finish line there was my son half way down the track, pushing the joystick on his chair as far as it would go. Suddenly, someone in the crowd started to chant his name: “Samuel, Samuel…”. Soon everyone else joined in, and cheered him across the finish line.
As a parent of three children, I know that we always tell our kids ‘it’s not the winning that matters, but the taking part’. Deep down we all love it when our children win. But at that point, in that school, I can honestly say that every child, every teacher, and every parent really knew that it was the taking part that was important.
Over the next few years, that school changed because it had included a disabled child. And it changed for the better. The monochrome culture of testing, competition and league tables was challenged. There was first hand exposure to the reality of a world of diversity and difference. Prejudices were overcome. Everyone’s experience was richer as a result.
‘Nothing about us without us’ was a slogan at the heart of the campaign for civil rights and the anti-discrimination movement. It led to important victories for equal opportunities, empowerment, the removal of social barriers and changes in attitudes.
The position of disabled people in the UK improved with more accessible transport, access to work, independent living, employment and housing, culminating in the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act.
Campaigners also recognised that equality required real social inclusion, not forced integration. Integration is about coercing the disabled to fit into a non-disabled world. But inclusion acknowledges the barriers that a non-disabled world creates. It then seeks to address them by changing the way it works, and empowering everyone to play a full part so they can help bring about further change. And when it does, everyone benefits together.
This was what lay behind the establishment of the Independent Living Fund and Disability Living Allowance. The former has now been abolished. The latter is in the process of being phased out. And along with them progressive social attitudes are going too. A huge rise in disability hate crime should come as no surprise, when the disabled are told they must take on non-disabled notions of ‘normality’.
Iain Duncan Smith is returning us to dark times of inequality, social exclusion and discrimination.
113 Responses to “Comment: Iain Duncan Smith is undoing years of struggle for disabled rights”
Faerieson
‘!’
Nick
Your a little like myself quite a deep thinker and you have a point on the church and the charities with regards welfare
with regret and i know everything about charities and the church there not what they were
as for today’s charities they only offer verbal help and for anything above that will depend on your post code in many circumstances
as for the church that is i have found over the years is just a meeting place for business and business chat and general chit chat nothing of trying to do something for the local community albeit this is a conservative church i grew up in in eltham
by a large is was a conservative church going under the umbrella of a Christian church
And there lies the problem from when i was kid looking out for the old the sick and disabled and being of help with a friend those days are over in fact if i’m being honest they never took off as it was only my family that provided any type of support to the local eltham community from 1950 to 1980 when my mother moved away after my fathers death
so the idea that a charity or church will step in and fill any gaps is years away but it is something i would like to see in operation like on my estate as chairman i look out for those that need help or guidance and work on what i can do but as i say it’s not much as the charities as i say are not what they seam and in reality all they do is what i do and give advice
Achilles
Dear Nick,
I can appreciate your skepticism re Churches (and other charitable institutions) “stepping up to the plate”, as they say in America, to take over the responsibility for seeing to the those of us who can’t take care of ourselves. However, I can almost guarantee you that once you take away any tax benefits from churches or a charities. they will fall in line quickly. To borrow from another American phrase, “money talks, shit walks”.
Another aspect that has been missing from the conversation is the role of off-springs WRT to their parents. I believe once an OAP is declared indigent or otherwise incapable of taking care of them selves, all their off-springs should share in the responsibility to see to it. This could be in the form of taking them into ones household or through payments for their care. A penalty should be assessed on off-springs for failure to do so.
And while we are on the subject of taking care of parents, let’s not forget the cost of raising a child. My belief is that both parents of a child should shoulder the financial responsibility to raise that child. If a custodial parent decides to remain single (or un-wed) he/she should be required to identify the non-custodial parent to the local council. Each council should assess the cost of raising that child (based on local COL) and notify the non-custodial parent. He/she would be required to pay half that sum directly to the mother or to the Council (with admin fees added). The Council would then make payments to the custodial parent. Failing to ID the non-custodial parent or failure to pay child support should be a felony and result in after hours/weekend jail, if necessary.
Vice Squad
Aye .. alright then…
Achilles
That’s the most sensible thing you’ve said so far. Have a good day, laddie.