Disability & the Federal Election

Canadians have been thrust into the longest elections campaign in Canadian history. As with other elections, some of the key issues where disability is concerned include inclusion of disability issues in party platforms and debates, as well as how accessible the political process is for disabled voters. Sadly on both fronts we have a long way to go.

For those interested in steps Elections Canada has taken to make voting more accessible, check out their resources and policies.  While accessibility on voting day is a part of the issue, making the political process more accessible is a larger and more complex process and there are  key barriers we must confront in order to do this.

First, we know that many disabled persons still face significant barriers that likely result in their exclusion from the electoral process. For example, those living in institutional settings, group homes, and with parents may not be actively supported in this aspect of their lives.  Antidotal evidence indicates many disabled adults are prevented form taking part in the political process because of a lack of control around decision making coupled with attitudinal barriers that falsely suggest some disabled persons are incapable of making an informed political decisions. Here it is important to note that in Canada voting is still a relatively new opportunity, for example citizens with intellectual disabilities were disqualified from voting in federal election until 1988. This means many voting-aged adults with intellectual disabilities were born at a time when their right to participate politically was not guaranteed. In addition to how this might impact how notions of citizenship and participation are internalized,  this may also influence the extent to which an individual's existing support system may value, promote, and facilitate this right.  

Second, with respect to representation, historically our major political parties have done a poor job where disability issues are concerned. In fact, accessibility and inclusion often seem more like token gestures rather than a core element within political platforms and policy design. We still lack disabled candidates on the ballot, and there are significant barriers that prevent disabled persons from volunteering in the campaign process. This means disability remains excluded from the larger political process itself. 

The barriers noted above are just the tip of the iceberg, but begin to illustrate how exclusion operates with respect to the political participation. In part though these may help explain why disabled persons are 20% less likely to vote, as well as why decreasing voter participation remains high among disabled persons. 

These issues do matter and making making the political process more accessible and inclusive requires work.  There is no excuse for these barriers to remain, and with ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) in 2010, Canada has a duty to enable this political participation. The question remains, can we leverage the time granted to us under the longest election campaign in Canadian history to make sure disabled voters and their needs are fully included this time around? 

To learn more about disability and the electoral process check out the following links:  

Council of Canadians with Disabilities (CCD)Federal Elections Archives.

Electoral Participation of Electors with Disabilities: Canadian Practices in a Comparative Context. 

Facilitating an Equal Right to Vote for PErsons with Disabilities (Lord, Stein & Fiala-Butora, 2014) 

Independent Living Canada facts sheet on political rights of persons with disabilities.

More Than Voting Booths: Accessibility of Electoral Campaigns for People with Disabilities in Ontario (McColl, 2015).

Enabling the Voter Participation of Canadians with Disabilities: Reforming Canada’s Electoral System (Prince, 2014)

Persons with Disabilities and Canada's Electoral Systems: Gradually Advancing the Democratic Right to Vote (Prince. 2004) 

Exploitive Labour for Disabled is not Work

The federal government's announcement to shut down a wastepaper disposal plant sparked public outrage as it was reported 50 individuals with disabilities would lose their "jobs". While this sudden change would indeed impact the daily routine of 50 people with disabilities (and this is certainly something that must be addressed), the public outcry and government's quick extension of this program ignore the real problem at hand. 

This program isn't a form of employment for persons with disabilities. This program is part of a larger system that routinely promotes exploitive labour as a policy solution for persons with disabilities. This is not acceptable. 

The coverage of this specific case has ignored some very important points with respect to this labour. While some people did ask important questions about these "wages" ($1.15 an hour), much of the media coverage on this issue defers back to OCAPDD (the agency that runs this program) to clarify this issue. This is where a critical lens is lacking. 

There is a very good reason why OCAPDD classifies this pay as an "honorarium" rather than a "wage". This is a purposeful measure to get around existing employment standards. This is also why these types of programs do not classify recipients as "employees" but rather frame these experiences differently. In OCAPDD's case, these activities are framed as "enclave-type work experiences for adults with developmental disabilities." Yet, in terms of drumming up public support for this program, OCAPDD had no problem framing this issue as one in which 50 individuals with disabilities would callously lose their "jobs" because of a dispassionate government  decision. 

OCAPDD's executive director was quick to address the publics discomfort with these low wages, claiming in news reports their "ideal" aim was to get workers to a minimum wage and suggested the reason the agency is not there yet is because this program was establish "long before any concern about that kind of standard." This isn't true. In 1973 the Welch Green Paper noted concerns with scandalously low wages within community-based sheltered workshops and suggested the need for more "normalized" labour relations that took into consideration the needs of families, individuals, and industry. We have known for a long time that these kinds of programs are problematic - to frame this discomfort as a new issue or concern is disingenuous. 

In fact, there is ample research that illustrates the success of non-exploitive program alternatives. This includes research that compares these types of programs to supported employment models and finds persons with disabilities overwhelmingly prefer supported employment. Additionally, research on this issue also finds non-exploitive models are more successful in terms of transitioning into paid employment, facilitating stronger social networks, and indicate significantly higher levels of success in a number of indicators linked to inclusion. In short, research show us the many ways OCAPDD's model fails the employment and inclusion goals of persons with disabilities (if you want to learn more on this issue the National Disability Rights Network has a great piece). 

There are bigger questions we need to be asking including the role of various levels of government in supporting these programs, corporate incentives in contracting this labour out and parallel impacts this has on existing workforces, why people with disabilities are not being hired directly by these contractors, and greater transparency in terms of how agencies like OCAPDD operate both as a social services and a business. 

This is not to say that participants did not enjoy these activities, or that the federal government does not have a responsibility to these individuals. Rather, this case illustrates the need to critically evaluate supports and services that provide profit and cost-saving measures for organizations and contractors at the expense of persons with intellectual disabilities. There are solutions that support the training and social needs of participants without violating employment standards -  we need to demand these. 

Different but not Broken: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D & Disability

If you are interested in disability representation in pop culture, you might want to check out a guest post I wrote on disability in the television show Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This post "Different but not Broken: Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D & Disability" can be read over at The Nerds of Color or The Disability Visibility Project. 

A big thank you to Alice Wong for her continued support and encouragement on all things nerd, sociological, and academic! 

Mad Matters needs to be on your reading list

Mad Matters: A Critical Reader in Canadian Mad Studies is an impressive new edited volume that explores the evolution of Mad Studies in Canada. If you haven't already done so, you need to make sure this is first on your reading list! 

If you want to know more about this collection, and my thoughts on why it is so important, check out my review of this book for H-Net. 

Problematizing the Down syndrome & selective abortion debate

Richard Dawkins caused controversy last week for an offensive tweet about Down syndrome, prenatal screening and selective abortion. In what is becoming somewhat of a predictable pattern, Dawkins said something offensive, tried to argue his opinion was based on logic, then after facing significant backlash offered a sort of sorry-not-sorry ‘apology.’

In this ‘apology’ he framed his position as one of science and ‘ours’ as one of ‘emotion.’ While he suggested his position defended women’s rights, subtle reminders throughout his ‘apology’ that linked disability, a mother’s choices and actions, and notions of morality contradicted this. His ‘apology’ was problematic in too many ways to count.

In this ‘apology’ he argued his position on selective abortion follows the logic of being pro-choice, as if the rights of women and persons with disabilities are necessarily separate. To follow this logic being a feminist, having a disability, and being a mother are all separate and distinct identities. This is of course not true.

He also argued he likely holds the moral high ground, as his position would reduce the suffering of others. At the same time he suggested knowingly bringing a child with Down syndrome into this world naturally perpetuates ‘suffering.’ This is also untrue and upholds ableist notions that link disability and suffering.

Furthermore, ‘proof’ of his logic rested on stereotypes of adults with Down syndrome as perpetual children, and the false assumption that having a child with Down syndrome means a lifetime of care for parents. This ignores a growing body of research that that rejects notions of care based on the separation of independent and dependent bodies. This also ignores the reality that persons with Down syndrome are contributing in real and meaningful ways that don’t fit this limited understanding.

Finally, he suggested that while he is sympathetic those of us that oppose his position, our arguments are based on ‘emotions’, and his are based on logic. In stating this he makes the assumption that what he knows of Down syndrome is based on ‘logical’ unbiased scientific evidence. Yet John Langdon Down, often uncritically referred to as the ‘father’ of Down syndrome, grounded his understanding of Down syndrome on racist ideas that argued Down syndrome was a genetic throwback to less evolved races. It’s a conveniently ignored fact that the ‘father’ of Down syndrome based his opinion of Down syndrome on notions of white supremacy.

The reality is that the ‘logic’ of science Dawkins is so keen to draw from has consistently been wrong where Down syndrome is concerned. It was wrong when people with Down syndrome were euthanized, it was wrong when it called for and achieved their mass incarceration, and it was wrong when it forcibly sterilized young adults. While a discussion about the ethics of prenatal screening and selective abortion needs to take place, to assume this discussion can take place without serious and critical reflection around the ‘logic’ shaping these discourses is illogical.

Disability Visibility Project: Sharing Individual Stories to Preserve Disability History

Thanks to social media, I recently learned about an important grassroots initiative in the US to gather stories from persons with disabilities about their experiences. To celebrate the upcoming 25^th anniversary of the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) in 2015, the Disability Visibility Project is encouraging persons with disabilities to have their stories recorded and available to the public in an effort to preserve and make these histories accessible.

Founded by Alice Wong in 2014, stories from Americans with disabilities will be collected and archived at the American Folklife Center at the Library of Congress. Persons with disabilities who want to participate can make a reservation with StoryCorps San Francisco and record their story. By tagging their interview as part of the Disability Visibility Project, individual stories will become part of a larger grassroots tapestry that will highlight the lived experience of disability.

As a researcher, the appeal of initiatives like this are in their power to position persons with disabilities as the experts in their own experiences and needs. Additionally, individual stories are important as they help counter the existing history of disability – which is largely dominated by a medical model that erroneously frames disability as an individual tragedy and/or uniform experience. Documenting and sharing individual stories counters this problematic history through the preservation of narratives that celebrate the knowledge, skills, and individual and collective power within this diverse community.

I had the opportunity to briefly speak with Alice Wong about this important project, below are some of her answers.

Q: How did this project start?

A: I went to a StoryCorps event in San Francisco and they talked about the various community partnerships they had with different groups. I went up to them and asked if they’ve had any partnerships with any disability organizations and they said not yet. It sparked an idea that I could do something with StoryCorps about disability history with the upcoming anniversary of the ADA in 2015.

Q: Can you speak to what you believe to be the power behind sharing personal stories?

A: Talking and sharing about your life with someone is a powerful act. It’s an act of bravery to reveal your thoughts and emotions with someone. When you’re vulnerable and open yourself to an intimate and honest conversation, these interactions can change lives and this can have a ripple effect among the people around us. 

Q: The project celebrates the upcoming anniversary of the ADA, what do you think are some of the most significant accomplishments of this legislation?

A: The ADA prohibits discrimination of people with disabilities and mandates equal opportunity and access in some of basic life activities (e.g. employment, transportation, public facilities and government services). While there have been many important pieces of legislation impacting people with disabilities such as the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, I think the ADA is ‘our’ civil rights law that identifies us as a protected class, this means that we have some basic rights and that there are legal means to ensure those rights when they are violated. It’s not a perfect law (no law is), but it provides a tool to advocate for full participation in society.

Q: Lastly, while the collective benefits of the Disability Visibility Project are clear, what are some of the individual benefits for participants?

A:  I hope people have fun with this experience—there are no rules on what a person should talk about. Ideally, two individuals who know each other well will take some time to have a conversation about things that are important to them such as their connection to each other or their passions in life. Overall, I’d like people with disabilities to celebrate and discuss their lived experiences because every story matters.

To learn more about how to participate in this project visit the project website or Facebook page.

Disability Incarcerated is Out!

Disability Incarcerated has finally been released and includes a forward by Anglea Y. Davis. 

Available in hardcover and paperback. 

Check out this link to the promotional flyer to get 20% off!