Australian Accessible Parking Scheme Would Exclude Many People with Disabilities

99 thoughts on Australian Accessible Parking Scheme Would Exclude Many People with Disabilities

1. wow. I really hope this new regulation isn’t adopted.

2. Or how about my mom, whose heart condition makes walking a short distance very possible, but anything else impossible?

3. In Australia, does one need a doctor’s note to get a permit?

4. It took my aunt several years to get a disabled permit in the UK. She has ME (plus several unrelated conditions, and has survived cancer) and can’t walk very far, but has never needed a wheelchair and so had to keep nagging to get the permit.

   Not sure how similar the UK guidelines are to what they’re proposing in Australia, but it sounds as though she would be excluded under those rules

5. I agree that this seems overly strict – But the third criteria includes the word ‘sometimes’ in respect to needing assistance. This in a policy sense doesn’t mean ‘has to’ – there is a lot of wiggle room there for people when they see their doctors for the certificate. Its probably not the best wording, but then it was written by the government….

6. It’s maybe worth mentioning, the quoted section refers to permanent permits. In the document the next section talks about temporary permits and disabilities. They aren’t considering excluding people with broken legs, recent knee surgery, or the like.

7. Synna — as Lauredhel said in her post, “arguable isn’t good enough.”

8. Libdevil — that’s correct, but that’s also not the group we’re primarily talking about. We’re primarily talking about people with chronic illness/pain and/or long-term disability.

9. My 12-year-old son is physically fit, and is in excellent physical health. He also cannot be left alone to cross a street — his autism means his situational awareness is severely hindered. He also suffers from anxiety and panic attacks, which is heightened when he is in confusing, chaotic situations. We have a handicapped placard because his disability, although invisible, makes walking through a parking lot extremely dangerous for him.

   I can’t tell you how many dirty looks we get whenever we get out of the car. And how often I feel guilty, and have to remind myself that my son does indeed need this accommodation.

   Thanks for this post.

10. My grandfather can walk relatively well. What he can’t do is breathe–he has chronic emphysema, and the humid air of the US midwest means he can only walk about 50 feet before coughing and gasping. He constantly needs to be in air conditioning, and a long trip outside in hot or humid weather is dangerous.

    My great-aunt uses a cane. She’s a polio survivor, and one leg is shorter than the other. She can also walk. Would she be allowed an accommodation?

    My friend recently found out that her top vertebrae in her back (the one inside her skull) is mis-aligned. While she prepares for surgery and undergoes serious therapy, occassionally seizing from the pinched nerves, she uses a cane to help her walk. Would she be allowed to have a permit?

    Or how about this: would someone with no arms be allowed a permit? They can walk just fine!

    Sometimes people can’t stretch their brains a half-inch, I swear.

11. I thought they had House, MD on Australian television.

12. My grandmother has a permit, and she doesn’t “need assistance”. She can walk just fine–for short distances (emphasis there on “short”). On the other hand, she is elderly, so she probably had an easier time convincing the bureaucrats that she needed a permit than people with similar disabilities but who appear able-bodied. But it would made everyone in my family’s life so much more difficult if she couldn’t get a permit because she did not use a wheelchair for a while. Periodically, we push her around in one now, but that wasn’t always true.

13. I have a fairly severe physical disability, and use handicapped parking on a routine basis (I live in the US). I think the entire system here in the States should be reformed. As it stands, each state has its own parking policies, some of which are horrible. There is also widespread abuse of parking spots and sale of counterfeit placards. Some people think it’s no big deal to just take a handicapped spot for a few minutes while they run into a store, especially if the lot is full.

    To sum up, I can understand why Australia wants to define who has access to these spots, but the criteria above is a mess. They should talk to some disability advocacy groups and doctors to figure out how and where to set the limits. Cracking down on parking offenders and placard forgery can also go a long way to improving the situation for those in need.

14. nikki: More acessible parking spaces will improve the situation for people who need them.. The spaces are fewer than the people who require them. Mandated minimum percentages are way too low to ensure availability, and some places don’t even comply with them.

    There will always be abuse. It should be fought, but only as one small aspect of a broad focus on accessibility. It is not the only answer, nor is it the most important one.

    In my experience, the “abuse” argument is usually able-bodied people fighting amongst themselves, and beneath the surface it is far more about “why should HE get a good spot when I can’t?!” than about actually improving the lives of PWD.

15. Turned out I have a lot more to say about this, because it’s an over-and-over issue, so I put it here.

16. I think this is pretty easy to work around. Just argue that *if* you had to walk the long distances because you did not have access to the disabled parking space, *then* you might sometimes need assistance. Ie, if you did not have the accomodation you would need assistance. The US ADA was just amended to make this sort of situation clearer — just because your accomodation or treatment renders you able to access the community does NOT mean you are not disabled.

17. malathion: seriously, that’s it? That’s all you’ve got? PWD should just, what, suck it up and weasel their way around bad, bad legislation?

    This proposed scheme is being proposed SPECIFICALLY to reduce the number of permit holders, rather than to improve disability accommodations for all who need it. They say it outright. And they want to base the new criteria on the VISIBILITY of disability to the casual observer. Can you not see the threats that presents to people with invisible or less visible disabilities?

18. Yeah. Um. The point of this post, seeing as how it was seemingly unclear though I’m not sure how, was to make Australians who have disabilities or are allies to people with disabilities aware of the problem so that they could take action. The point was not to grant an open season for people to say that people with disabilities need to suck it up and quit whining and find a workaround, regardless of the fact that there is no guarantee that such a workaround is actually possible and the further fact that no one should need a fucking workaround. No one should need argue for their goddamn rights. No one should need to argue for personal basic access to society. Period. The end. Not up for discussion.

19. . . . and in case that was unclear, seeing as how I apparently need to be extraordinarily explicit, that means that further comments along those lines will be deleted, and those leaving them will be placed on mod.

20. I see this over and over again.

    PWD: Society is placing obstacles in my path yet again. (ABC) restricts my access to society.
    TAB: Well, why don’t you just do (XYZ) to get around it?

    Almost always, XYZ is an individual, one-time solution to a wide-ranging, systemic problem. And often, it doesn’t even deserve the label “solution” — it is an off-hand thought, offered in the name of “help” (I am sure nikki will return to tell us that sie meant it in the best of ways, and I am sure sie did), usually with less than thirty seconds’ thought behind it, which ultimately does not address the obstacle itself so much as it renders invisible the problem the PWD is facing, to the TAB. This means the TAB is no longer bothered, and need no longer engage, to consider the implications, to face up to the part sie has in this problem.

    The problem the TAB is addressing is not “restricted access to society for PWD,” it is “PWD’s problems being made visible and getting in my way.”

    The fact that it is a one-time, individual solution is perhaps the most telling: if the TAB were truly interested in improving PWD’s access, sie would engage with the systemic problem — in this case, would fill out the forms indicated in the original post, or help spread word to Aussies sie knows. But engaging with a systemic problem means acknowledging hir part in that system — so the TAB will choose, every time, to instead address the individual incident instead. This allows hir to sit comfortable in hir privilege, returning to a state where sie does not see PWD or their problems, need not consider them, and certainly could never have any part as a cause of those problems.

    PWD are returned to their invisible state, and all is well with the world.

21. to make clearer,

    PWD = (person/people) with (a disability/disabilities)
    TAB = temporarily able-bodied

22. I also wouldn’t have my parking placard under these rules. I have herniated discs in my back, also an invisible disability, and do not use a wheelchair or scooter. I also sometimes have edema, which means my feet are monstrously swollen and the only shoes I can fit on my feet are my slippers. I don’t need assistance, it’s just very painful for me to walk long distances. Last night I went to dinner and a movie with my family, when I left the house my feet were fine and I wore a normal pair of shoes, by the time I got home they had swollen so bad I had to come home barefoot and carry my shoes.

    The people who like to give dirty looks to people with invisible disabilities don’t know that many of us are already sucking it up and that sometimes I am in so much pain walking the short distance from the walking disability parking spot to the frigging back of the grocery store where they keep things like milk, bread, and eggs and back out that I drive home in tears. That thing with the grocery stores is one of my pet peeves. They purposely put the things most people need in the back corners to force you to go through more aisles and maybe pick up a few more spur of the moment buys before you make it back to the front. But this wreaks havoc on a PWD who needs milk from the far right corner of the store and a loaf of bread from the far left corner of the store and winds up walking what feels like 10 miles before they can get out of there to their thankfully nearby vehicle.

23. I think this is pretty easy to work around.

    No, it isn’t.

24. Regarding the “work-around” comment… I have a three year old with cerebral palsy, and I find that each and every service that we require seems to come with built-in obstacles that seem designed to discourage most applicants. If we’re stubborn as hell we get the service… eventually… but the effort that goes into “working around” every fucking thing is exhausting.

    I would have all-capped “exhausting” in the last sentence, but I know it’s rude. You do not have to tell people who deal with issues related to disability and access to vital services that it is possible to work around the obstacles. We know it is possible. Please understand that the incredible effort that goes into having to overcome obstacles that are built into every part of your life is just not tenable on a long-term basis.

    You can’t solve the problem of scarce disabled parking by redefining people out of their disability.

    —-

    I’d also like to sympathize with the mom of the autistic 12 year old. We sometimes use disabled parking (not van spots) when it looks like we won’t have room to safely unload our toddler into her stroller, and I have been abused in stores for taking a space from someone more deserving. People need to stop policing the world and mind themselves a little bit more. My daughter needs her placard. The effort of safely navigating her out of a car and into a store in a crowded parking lot was beginning to discourage us from taking her out with us. She loves to be out with people. The placard helps us to keep her in the world. People who think that’s a misuse of the system can fuck themselves.

25. Amandaw, that comment is so spot-on. It mirrors my experiences as well.

26. OK, maybe this is an ignorance on my part, so if I’m wrong or offend anyone I’m sorry in advance… but, I don’t completely understand some of the disabilities mentioned would not be included under criteria 3.

    Criteria 3: You do not use a mobility or medical aid but your ability to walk is permanently restricted by a significant medical condition or disability, which sometimes requires the physical assistance of another person and limits your access to the community.

    I mean, how do they define “ability to walk”… is it literally the ability to move your legs and walk or is it about how able/easy walking is for you/your health? Some of the examples given seem (to me) that they would in fact be covered by Criteria 3… unless I’m wrong about the definition.

    For example:

    (Personal Failure) Wouldn’t a heart condition that makes walking more than short distances “impossible” be considered to restrict the ability to walk/limit access to the community?

    (Kat) If autism and hindered situational awareness makes it unsafe for him to walk far distances through a parking lot, wouldn’t that also be considered a restriction of his ability to walk without the assistance of another person?

    (karak) Again, if his breathing issues mean he can’t walk more than 50 feet without physical problems, then isn’t that considered a restriction of his ability to walk?

    It comes down to whether it is a literal definition of the ABILITY to WALK or if it’s about the ability to safely walk or comfortably walk, etc… I would feel better about this all if they did make the definition clearer, but I don’t necessarily know yet whether it would in fact exclude some of the people mentioned.

    I do agree that use of the word “sometimes” is problematic and I would prefer to see “may require” instead of “sometimes requires”. Again though, it begs the question of how they determine what constitutes as requiring assistance.

27. “which sometimes requires the physical assistance of another person”

    What about folks who do not sometimes require the physical assistance of another person?

28. Actually, Lilith, the best way to consider this may be a bit easier.

    A bunch of folks who have disabilities are saying there is a problem. They’ve lived this problem. I’m not sure if this is the best place to say “But I don’t think this problem is what you’re saying it is”, because it requires people who live with disabilities – who spend a lot of time dealing with the full-time, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week job of having a disability or living with someone with a disability (which is a different, but related, situation), to explain in detail what their issues are with this particular wording.

    I think it may be better, instead of asking them to explain, to read through Lauredhel’s two posts on Hoyden (the first one and the second one and consider the details of what she’s saying there.

    I think your question has already been answered in those posts.

29. I live in fairly densely populated part of Chicago. Here in Illinois is relatively easy to get a permit (I think my mother has to reapply every two years, but its little more than an annoyance) and at most smaller stores you’re lucky to see two spaces for handicapped (still the legal term…) parking. The permits also allow you to not pay at parking meters (a big deal now that its 5 minutes a quarter in some places). You can’t go six months without local news doing a story on the abuse of disabled parking permits. Still, with the exception of one restaurant which has a disproportionately elderly clientèle, I almost never see all of the parking slots filled unless people without permits are parked in them.

    I was suspicious of this story from the moment I read it. Its easy to talk about reducing abuse of permits, but every time I see something like this I get the distinct impression that what we’re really looking at is policing of PWDs. The way the law is written it basically says “we allow these spaces, grudgingly, for people who we can’t argue are disabled. The rest of you will be assumed to be gaming the system.” Its an exercise of power, a little piece of oppression designed as protection. The end result is that healthy people won’t have to see PWDs getting “special” rights unless they’re visibly disabled, which means healthy people won’t have to be as jealous of the “special” rights. At the same time, PWDs are put in the place society wants them to be, either invisible (non-anxiety provoking) or pitiful (an object one can feel superior to while at the same time feeling good for “helping”).

30. Lilith, I think that Anna covered it quite well. You bolded the wrong part of the statement. The part that needs to be bold is: which sometimes requires the physical assistance of another person. It’s a which, not an or, and that’s really extremely significant. Also, everything else Anna said about reading the links, too.

31. Eileen:

    Regarding the “work-around” comment… I have a three year old with cerebral palsy, and I find that each and every service that we require seems to come with built-in obstacles that seem designed to discourage most applicants. If we’re stubborn as hell we get the service… eventually… but the effort that goes into “working around” every fucking thing is exhausting.

    I would have all-capped “exhausting” in the last sentence, but I know it’s rude. You do not have to tell people who deal with issues related to disability and access to vital services that it is possible to work around the obstacles. We know it is possible. Please understand that the incredible effort that goes into having to overcome obstacles that are built into every part of your life is just not tenable on a long-term basis.

    You can’t solve the problem of scarce disabled parking by redefining people out of their disability.

    Yes. Quoted for emphasis. This is exactly what I am getting at when I ramble on about “second shift for the sick.” Our access to society is founded upon our will to fight, fight, fight, work, work, work, push, push, push, and never give up. For any given service an able-bodied person could access without a second thought, there are at least half a dozen additional steps a PWD would face to get something stripped down and inferior…

    And when we get tired, and exhausted, and just want to stop *fighting* for three seconds, people look at us askance, tsk to themselves about lazy/lack of motivation/willpower, entitlement/expect them to have everything delivered on a silver platter/wasting my tax dollars/abusing services, etc…

32. I guarantee you this:

    What looks to a TAB like a “loophole” that allows PWD access,
    is always in practice instead a tool used to help keep PWD from having that access.

    You think “Well, it’s possible to interpret this sentence in a way that allows you access.”
    The people charged with enforcing that access see that sentence and think “Well, you don’t fit the letter of the law,” [and even if you do, maybe you looked at them funny or they don’t like the way you smell], “so you are attempting to abuse this service and must be properly shamed for your effort.”

    The PWD in this thread are telling you as much. You see weasel room to get through. They see gates to slam down on your bruised and broken feet.

33. Take it from someone who is both a woman with disabilities, and a woman who works in welfare and human services. I straddle both sides of that fence. I know what goes on.

34. For once in my bloody life, I would like for not every.goddamn.thing I do to involve a shitpile of wrangling and lawyerising with people over whether or not I’m actually just engaging in a touch of hysterical over-interpretation and catastrophisation, dear?

    Because it’s not like people with CFS have never encountered that before.

    Plus, what amandaw said about second shift, and Anna too. Educating everyone else is third shift.

    If you’re ignorant, educate yourself. Resources are provided. Consider engaging at the source.

35. Well actually, my question wasn’t addressed in the comments or the links (which I did read originally), which was why I asked it. I’m not suggesting that there isn’t anything wrong with the new rules or that anyone upset by it is overreacting or that anyone should have to “deal with it”. I definitely didn’t say “I don’t think this problem is what you’re saying” as Anna has implied. (I would be in no position to make that statement, even if I did feel that way – which I don’t).

    I already agreed that the “sometimes” part is problematic, but that was not the part I was asking about. That is, some of the examples given in the comments seemed as though they would still fit under Criteria 3 even with the “sometimes requires the physical assistance of another person” and that was what my question pertained to. Please don’t assume that just because I wasn’t focusing on the “sometimes” part, that it means I accept the “sometimes” part. As I already said, it’s problematic and would be better replaced with “may or may not” or something else that would be appropriately inclusive. I just am curious about the language of the other parts AS WELL.

    I do think that attempts at changing the language would benefit from an examination of the language itself. So again, my question was regarding what are the legal definitions of phrases like “ability to walk”, “restricted”, “requires”, “physical assistance of another person”, etc. Theoretically, you could make the argument that some of the conditions mentioned in comments do require assistance sometimes, depending on how you define the terms. But since real life rarely meets theoretical conditions – my question was how are the terms actually defined, how should they be defined, and who would be in the position of determining what does or doesn’t meet the criteria?

36. Lilith the questions you are asking are hypothetical derails. If you read carefully you will see that they don’t even fucking include people who use a cane/walking stick but you think they would include someone like me who NEVER needs the assistance of another person or a cane or anything like that? The fact that any of us can manage on our own screws us with this language. Accomodations are supposed to make us independent, but this instead is guaranteeing that we will be dependent. Someone like me damn well better have another person willing to do my shopping, pick up my prescriptions, take me to the doctor/movies/restaurant and drop me at the door, since I can’t park my own damned vehicle nearby and do it myself.

37. Lilith, your answer may best be found by contacting the Australian government directly. There are links in this post that will direct you to a number to call.

38. As has already been pointed out, Lilith, existing schemes often have a distance measure, which says something like ‘person’s impairment would be unduly affected by walking 50m.’ When you compare the proposal with that, something becomes incredibly clear: what they’re doing is mandating what kind of impairment you have, rather than assessing the effect of the combination of the impairment and the disabling context of distant or inaccessible parking. We’re moving from an acknowledgement of the way that parking requirements can be disabling for particular people, whatever their impairment, to configuring particular people as ‘deserving’ based on an assessment of their impairment or their dependency.

    People have already pointed out why work-arounds are so problematic, and effectively, that’s what you’re also suggesting: you’re saying things like ‘ability to walk’ could be interpreted broadly (if you read the proposal, you’ll see that ‘ability to walk’ and ‘sometimes requires assistance of others’ are not defined). And on the one hand, yeah, you’re right. However, this relies upon someone being generous to PWD, and this, as we’ve already seen, is unlikely, especially for people with invisible disabilities. And why would we be okay with legislation which relies on procedural generosity to PWD when that generosity is clearly so often lacking? Why are you implying that the scheme might be adequate because it might be able to be interpreted, by someone making an assessment, as allowing someone with, say, a heart condition, to get access to a permit?

    The major problem here is that it requires PWD to provide evidence of dependency. You have to prove that if you push yourself too hard, if you work beyond your known limits and ‘act’ like an able-bodied person, not only that you can’t do it but that you will need help from someone else to walk. It makes dependence, again, the supposed essence of disability, and it attributes this to the individual, rather that seeing it as occurring at the intersection of ‘normal’ parking and impairment.

39. Lilith, I think Lauredhel’s post at HAT (linked by Anna in her first comment above) answers your question, as it seems that the proposed legislation is going on the physical ability to move one’s legs–and *not* the pain question, which is, of course, extremely problematic for people with invisible disabilities.

    From Lauredhel’s post: People who can walk without physical assistance from another person, with or without a cane, no matter how restricted their walking distance, will no longer have access to accessible parking.

    Seems pretty clear to me.

40. It seems clear to me that that is Lauredhel’s interpretation of the language used, but it not explicit on the FAHSCIA website that that is definitely what they mean. (I think most likely that is the meaning intended by the Australian government, which is unfortunate, but in the absence of explicit definitions they’re leaving themselves open to debate.) Also, it’s unclear what they mean by “physical assistance from another person”.

    These are all things that need to be explicitly defined and, in my opinion, defined as broadly as possible in order to be as inclusive as possible. (And obviously, the “sometimes” thing is a big deal on top of that). I’m also curious what recommendations they would make in terms of allowing additional concessions. (These are the minimum standards, but other jurisdictions are free to add to that, in order to broaden the spectrum of eligibility). Obviously, that’s not a solution, but I’d be curious to see what they had to say about it anyway.

41. Oops! I didn’t even see WildlyParenthetical’s detailed response. I think all of the issues raised are valid and I do agree. I guess I may have originally given the impression that my questioning of the language meant that I felt it was no big deal.

    I wasn’t suggesting that the proposal was adequate in any way, but a few of the comments given mentioned conditions that seemed that they might actually fit under the criteria… which got me thinking about the language in general.

    My questioning of the language is because the language is questionable. It could be defined broadly… or it could not be defined broadly. That’s the problem in my opinion. (Well, one of the problems, lol, there are clearly other problems).

    What I’m trying to get at though, was that because the language is not defined there is the opportunity to push for the broadest definitions. The intention of this entry, I assume, was to get everyone to take action and tell the Australian government what is wrong with the proposal. There are some things that are just plain wrong, no matter how you swing it, like the “sometimes” thing. But then there are the things that are only wrong if you use narrow definitions… which yeah, they are probably using. I think an reexamination of the language is important and I think that any comments or suggestions made to the Australian government should tell them not only what is missing from the criteria, and what should be deleted from the criteria, but also how they should define the information that is there.

42. You’ve missed one of my big points about the language, though, Lilith, which is that the new scheme would effectively shift us from regulations which deploy the social model (by assessing the extent to which one is disabled by walking a distance which is involved in ‘normal’ parking) to regulations which deploy the medical model (by requiring that one’s impairment ought to involve an inability to walk (at least sometimes) and a particular level of dependence). That shift is quite important, I think, for a couple of reasons, and it’s why I wouldn’t want anyone arguing that we can keep the proposed regs so long as they’re ‘generously’ interpreted. First, the new regulation would focus on the individual as having the problem, rather than the way that we’ve set up parking. Second, because the more legislation that passes which involves a social model – namely the acknowledgement that we built the world in such a way as to disable those whose bodies don’t match a random standard – the more this way of thinking about disability actually has a chance. To wind back a system which is already thoroughly shaped by the social model of disability is a problem.

    The other thing to keep in mind, of course, is that current regulations don’t have the same level of ‘questionable’ness, precisely because they test for how one is disabled by inaccessible parking, not for how dependent/unable to walk one is. In that respect, I think it’s pretty telling that we’re shifting to something ‘questionable’, or where, as Lauredhel explores, one’s accessibility is premised on how well one can argue the point (which privileges, of course, white, middle-class, educated people who tend to do better in the ‘persuasive’ stakes).

43. Lilith: You do realize that essentially the best possible interpretation of the law is that PWD need to prove that their disabilities fit into a specific, objective, essentially permanent set of criteria that read less like the experience of PWDs and more like how able bodied people view disability, right? The law is essentially saying that disability will be defined by your ability to walk, and the language itself implies that ability to walk will be judged by physical mobility. Furthermore, the law explicitly rejects needing a cane as good enough to get the permit.

    Lets take my mother as an example. She has severe Rheumatoid Arthritis, the kind of arthritis that causes physical deformity and destroys joints. On a good day she can walk at an almost normal pace for a couple of blocks (although she’d be pretty much immobile by the time she went to bed that night). On a bad day she might only be able to manage a dozen yards or so and every step would be excruciating. If she absolutely had to, she could probably go further, but thats more a testament to the almost inhuman pain tolerance shes developed over the years than to her ability to move around freely. Moreover, there is no device which might help her (shy of the disqualified cane) and someone else would just get in the way. Under the proposed laws, she’d be inelligible.

    I think a better question then “how might these laws be interpreted” would be “are these laws necessary and is this implementation likely to do anything.” Too many people think that the government should be able to just do things, set policies, and the citizens should hope/trust/work the system. What this is about isn’t setting policy, its about controlling people and deciding who is pathetic enough to get “special treatment.” Its turning a policy that should be about improving access into a policy of forcing PWDs to beg for pity. Fuck that.

44. No, I didn’t miss that point. I agree with it. There are a lot of issues with the new scheme. I was not arguing that the proposed regs should be kept or that the format is appropriate. I don’t know how many times I can say that and it’s sort of annoying that I have to keep defending that point.

    I was saying that in addition to the obvious changes, there also need to be explicit definitions of the terms used. And what’s wrong with examining hypotheticals? If I seemed like I was playing Devil’s Advocate, it wasn’t to derail the issue but to see all possible angles of it. I think in order to make any kind of effective change, you need to consider all possible counter-arguments and approach the situation fully armed.

45. I was saying that in addition to the obvious changes, there also need to be explicit definitions of the terms used.

    That would be contributing to the problem. The issue with having explicit definitions is that, ultimately, they will always serve to limit the range of people able to obtain access. No matter how well crafted a definition is it’s actual effect will be to make some PWDs intelligible for a service because PWDs are a wide and varied group. You cannot balance making a “good law” which will reduce fraud with granting broad access, which is what you’d be trying to do with any restrictive scheme. Moreover, every definition you provide will have a number of ambiguous words nested in it, creating an almost infinite need for more explicit definitions.

    I think the reason some people are getting angry with you and feeling you’re defending the new regs is that you’re approaching the issues from the same point of view that the legislators in question are. PWDs are saying that any restriction is likely to restrict access, legislators (who don’t know what its like to fight until you’re too damned tired to move just to get basic accommodations) want to flex their muscle and police who gets to call themselves disabled. That might not be your intent (or your experience) but the end result of crafting any restrictive/explicit-and-objective set of standards is to police disability. I promise you, for every legitimate case of fraud that a standard prevents it removes the service from several PWDs, makes obtaining a license significantly harder for many more, and creates yet another hurdle in a lifetime of hurdles for all the rest. No amount of crafting and defining will fix that.

46. Grumble, hit submit too quickly….

    One more thing, which I’m not sure many people have pointed out. The very existence of these restrictive regulations changes the nature of the interaction between PWDs and their government. Regulations turn the accommodations provided by a licensing scheme from a right held by the disabled to a privilege doled out by the government. It shifts the burden of proof to the PWD and places places them in an inherently dependent position. It isn’t just the words which explicitly require a person to be dependent that reinforces the social roles that PWDs are forced into, but the entire system of making them beg.

47. But… you have to also recognize that there need to be some kind of regulations don’t there? I mean, there are a limited number of spaces and you want legitimate PWDs to have access to them, not just anybody with a blister on their toe or something like that. I absolutely agree that these regulation changes are bad for all the reasons you (and others) have already mentioned… But if you’re actually going to make any sort of headway with the legislators, it’s important to examine the issue from their point of view as well as the point of view of PWDs. Please don’t assume that because I can see it from the government’s perspective that I necessarily agree with their perspective.

48. Fwiw, Lilith, I do thank you for coming back from an initial sorta-rebuke and doing your best to be constructive rather than defensive. People will still push you on some points cuz, well, those points are rather important to us 🙂 But thanks for that, at least. I don’t want you to feel like it wasn’t appreciated at all.

49. I mean, there are a limited number of spaces and you want legitimate PWDs to have access to them, not just anybody with a blister on their toe or something like that.

    Whoa. Wait. What? Seriously?

    Did you read Lauredhel’s post? To repeat, again: PWD are usually not concerned with whether one person in a million might “abuse” a privilege because they stubbed their toe. If the restrictions you use to keep the stubby toe away from that privilege also casts a net wide enough to catch them, what good is it doing them?

50. Well, I already said many times that I don’t agree with the proposed restrictions, but I do recognize why the restrictions exist.

51. Lilith, is there some reason you think it’s easy to get a disabled parking permit?

    Does this person who can or has gotten a permit with a something like a “blister on their toe” exist? Or are you thinking of something else?

    Whenever I talk about PWD being assumed to be faking, someone who is currently not-disabled usually says some variation of “Well, that’s because people fake being disabled all the time!” Your comment about someone witha blister on their toe managing to get the approval for a parking merit under any scheme sounds a lot like that. Strangely, the cases of people faking being disabled get a lot of attention. The significant number of people who do not fake having a disability, not so much.

52. Also, you know, there were obviously restrictions before. Do you really think that they are making things more restrictive to get rid of people with…toe blisters? like they would have qualified before?, or to force as many disabled people as they possibly could off the list, and make things harder for the rest…as governments seem to like to do?

    Seems pretty clear that there weren’t enough disabled parking spaces, so the Australian government decided the solution was to not allow as many people with disabilities who need to use them to do that, fuck the consequences for the disabled people, who needs to consider consequences to the actual people affected?

53. But… you have to also recognize that there need to be some kind of regulations don’t there?

    This might come as something of a surprise but no, no I don’t think there needs to be “some kind of regulations” beyond a doctor’s note. As someone with a family member who has and needs a permit, I can tell you that even in a state with extremely lax requirements abuse is very rare.

    I mean, there are a limited number of spaces and you want legitimate PWDs to have access to them, not just anybody with a blister on their toe or something like that.

    Yes, there are a limited number of spaces, but once you start talking about “legitimate PWDs” you’ve begun the process of drawing lines and deciding who is worthy of an indulgence and who is not. Abuse is going to happen in any system regardless of the standards you draw up, but worse than that is preventing people who need spaces from getting permits in the name of reducing an already rare problem.

    But if you’re actually going to make any sort of headway with the legislators, it’s important to examine the issue from their point of view as well as the point of view of PWDs.

    With all due respect, thats bullshit. I’ve got some pretty serious disabilities (though they don’t require a parking permit) and I have absolutely no responsibility to compromise with a legislator over my goddamn rights. Its a simple interaction, either the allowances which are mine by right are given to me or I sue. It isn’t a discussion, it isn’t a meeting of different POVs. This is not a transaction, thats the kind of ableist crap that I’ve been putting up with my whole life. If a legislator has a problem with what I need I really couldn’t give a flying fuck theoretically, and pragmatically I’d much rather use the force of litigation than give an inch.

    Legislators aren’t some protected or superior class. They are public servants. The moment they forget that is the moment they lose their utility.

    Please don’t assume that because I can see it from the government’s perspective that I necessarily agree with their perspective.

    The problem isn’t what you agree with, its what the end result is. Engaging in a dialog with someone who seeks to oppress, playing the compromise game, giving a little, “seeing things from their point of view” necessarily lends legitimacy to their point of view and ends with you accepting some oppression in exchange for something which out to be yours by right. Thats problematic at the best of times, but when the legislator’s point of view is basically aimed at policing who gets to have “special” spaces (in all likelihood because the legislator has a bug in their ass over perceived “special” rights) its downright unacceptable.

    Remember the fundamental issue here. PWDs are saying they need access, legislators are saying that PWDs need to give up access so that legislators can protect them from abuse by reducing the number of people eligible for access. The fundamental logic there isn’t just insulting, its a thin defense to cover ressentiment. Legislators aren’t protecting PWDs from people they perceive as “abusing” permits, they’re protecting able bodied people from feeling like someone is getting a special privilege.

54. Lilith, is there some reason you think it’s easy to get a disabled parking permit?

    Does this person who can or has gotten a permit with a something like a “blister on their toe” exist? Or are you thinking of something else?

    Obviously I don’t think it’s easy, but having NO regulations would open up for people to exploit the system. I think it’s wrong to make anyone jump through metaphorical hoops to get a permit and I don’t agree with them making it even more difficult or enforcing someone else’s “dependence”. I just think that a lack of ANY criteria is not an option the government would consider. I know plenty of “abled” people who park illegally or who use a family member’s permit and that takes away a spot from someone who legitimately needs it.

    Whenever I talk about PWD being assumed to be faking

    I’m DEFINITELY not talking about actual PWD “faking”. And I don’t think anyone with a blister on their toe would get a permit under any scheme. I’m talking about why there can’t be an absence of regulations. I think the regulations should be FAIR, but they have to exist. William said that any restriction is likely to restrict access, but there have to exist some criteria or else ANYONE could just say “oh I’d like to have a more convenient parking space”. The problem with the proposed restrictions is that they will do more to limit PWD (which is a point that I do understand even though everyone seems to keep responding like I don’t).

    Also, you know, there were obviously restrictions before. Do you really think that they are making things more restrictive to get rid of people with…toe blisters? like they would have qualified before?, or to force as many disabled people as they possibly could off the list, and make things harder for the rest…as governments seem to like to do?

    Again, I was referring to the total absence of regulations, which is not a viable solution.

    This might come as something of a surprise but no, no I don’t think there needs to be “some kind of regulations” beyond a doctor’s note.

    Requiring a doctor’s note is still a regulation. I don’t necessarily think there needs to be more beyond that, but there does need to exist some kind of system.

    I have absolutely no responsibility to compromise with a legislator over my goddamn rights.

    And now I’m going to requote myself:

    But if you’re actually going to make any sort of headway with the legislators, it’s important to examine the issue from their point of view as well as the point of view of PWDs.

    Nowhere did I suggest that you should compromise or settle or “talk it out”. But the best offense is a good defense… how can you break down an argument without comprehending it? How can you convince someone to change their point of view without understanding their point of view? Obviously, these legislators just don’t get it or they’d have never proposed something like this in the first place. I don’t think they need to be coddled or anything, but having an effective argument to enact change benefits from being able to foresee counter-arguments before they come up.
    That doesn’t mean that you should legitimize their point of view, but you have to be able to comprehend it in order to refute it.

    Legislators aren’t protecting PWDs from people they perceive as “abusing” permits, they’re protecting able bodied people from feeling like someone is getting a special privilege.

    But they’re likely to make the bullshit argument that they are trying to “protect” PWD from abuse… seeing it from their bullshit point of view, doesn’t mean that you accept that point of view. It means that you can more effectively counter that bullshit argument by pointing out the flaws in it.

    Like you’re doing right here. Despite what some readers might think, I’m NOT defending the legislation, I’m not making any criticisms of PWD… I’m just looking at the issue from various points of view. There have been some really intelligent and thought-provoking “rebuttals” to the issues I’ve raised, but please understand that I’m not making some deeper commentary that others have implied I’m making.

55. Oh and just to clarify again, my ORIGINAL post was a question “wouldn’t [this specific example given] fit under the criteria?” It wasn’t a comment about whether the criteria was fair or whether there were issues with the criteria or anything like that. The original responses I got implied that I was suggesting the criteria were fine which sparked the rest of this discussion/debate. I was NEVER suggesting that the criteria was okay, even though a lot of people have responded to me as so. I was asking an honest question and admitted that it may come down to ignorance. By wondering if Condition X was actually covered in the new scheme does NOT mean that I was saying the scheme was okay. But it did get me thinking about the definitions of terms used and that sort of thing.

    You don’t have to agree with my brand of “activism” but it’s my personal philosophy that in order to best counter what someone is saying is to understand what they are saying and why they are saying it. I usually apply that to issues I’m personally invested in and informed on (clearly, I’m not completely well versed in PWD issues). For example, to use an issue I AM more familiar with, I can make pro-choice arguments for days and days, but having an understanding of the anti-choice movement (no matter how much I disagree with it) does help better form those arguments.

    If you disagree with that philosophy that’s perfectly fine, but please don’t mistake it for any attitudes or opinions that I don’t actually hold. I may not be the most informed person on issues of PWD, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re unimportant or frivolous. I think discrimination or injustice in any form are wrong. So if you want to imply that I’m playing Devil’s Advocate, I’ll respect that and shut up, but I’m offended by the implication that I think PWD are “faking” or that I just didn’t read the links or that I suggested “oh there’s no problem here” because that’s really not the case.

56. There is next to no space available for PWD to really explore their issues without having to “understand” the abled default perspective and modify and frame their words to be more appealing to that perspective.

    We do that every single second of every single day in our real lives. Every interaction with every person.

    Which is why we get a bit ruffled when someone steps into a space where we’re trying to, for *once*, take the conversation further than that, and tells us that we just need to /understand/ the abled-default-persepective or else we’ll never make any headway.

    I know you have the framework to understand this — you’re kind of tripping over yourself here, and that’s understandable (everybody does it, including us) — but I know you can understand why those suggestions can be upsetting to PWD, and why we will push back against them. It doesn’t mean we’re then refusing to understand or engage with the default perspective — it means we’re already doing that the other 23.99 hours of the day, and here we are being asked to give up the five minutes we get free of that burden, and lectured on why it would be better if we would just do it that way.

57. Requiring a doctor’s note is still a regulation. I don’t necessarily think there needs to be more beyond that, but there does need to exist some kind of system.

    But its a regulation of a very different kind. Rather than the government setting standards and defining who gets to call themselves disabled the process becomes one of a patient going to their doctor and getting what amounts to a prescription. The same process is used in schools to develop IEPs (Individualized Educational Plans). The government doesn’t decide if a kid a disabled, they just (in theory) supervise the process of accommodations. The role of the government here is to ensure that PWDs get the accommodations they need, not to police who is or is not getting the accommodations. Enforcement should be focused on people who don’t have permits parking in spaces or businesses which do not provide the legally required space.

    This isn’t a minor difference. Requiring a doctor’s note is not on the same continuum as creating explicit definitions of who does or does not count as disabled. Requiring a doctor’s note is a minimal standard which leaves the responsibility of determining who is disabled to PWDs and their doctors, all other restrictions serve to police PWDs.

    how can you break down an argument without comprehending it? How can you convince someone to change their point of view without understanding their point of view?

    Disability 101 isn’t the responsibility of PWDs. If a legislator doesn’t get it then their laws need to be thrown out in court. Sure, conciliatory discussions are nice, but in my experience government agencies just aren’t interested in hearing the opinions of people who aren’t making campaign contributions. If given the choice between breaking the wills and changing the minds of able-bodied officials I will always choose the former because I’ve learned time and again that the latter is “a long wait for a train don’t come.”

    I don’t think they need to be coddled or anything, but having an effective argument to enact change benefits from being able to foresee counter-arguments before they come up.

    Human rights aren’t about effective arguments. The proper remedy to government behaviors like this is litigation, not discussion.

    That doesn’t mean that you should legitimize their point of view, but you have to be able to comprehend it in order to refute it.

    Any engagement is legitimization. I comprehend their point of view, I simply disregard it. Legislators believe that they have the right to decide who is and is not disabled. They don’t. It really is as simple as that. PWDs have played nice and begged for scraps for a long time, but now we have precedent on our side and we don’t have to depend on the kindness of government.

    But they’re likely to make the bullshit argument that they are trying to “protect” PWD from abuse… seeing it from their bullshit point of view, doesn’t mean that you accept that point of view. It means that you can more effectively counter that bullshit argument by pointing out the flaws in it.

    Perhaps I came out a bit harshly, but I’ll try to explain. PWDs, as several others have pointed out, have to fight constantly. We have to fight for every accommodation no matter how reasonable. We have to anticipate and counter every argument that might come our way. We are constantly called upon to defend our right to exist or our rights to have basic access. In any discussion it is assumed that we have to prove our need. Its draining. Because of that we sometimes have to pick our battles, we have to let little things go even when they’re wrong or destructive, because there are only so many hours in the day. After all of that, sometimes you just lean back and depend on being right when you know you can. Sure, it would be nice if legislators learned a thing or two, but no one likes to look at an angry cripple/retard/psycho/freak who sounds like they’re demanding something from someone who believes that providing basic accommodations is a charity the offending PWD should be thankful to have. As a result, sometimes we don’t care to enter into reasoned discussions and carefully counter an argument we’ve countered a dozen times in the last month.

    If you disagree with that philosophy that’s perfectly fine, but please don’t mistake it for any attitudes or opinions that I don’t actually hold. I may not be the most informed person on issues of PWD, but that doesn’t mean I think they’re unimportant or frivolous.

    I apologize for my part. Still, its seems obvious that you aren’t too familiar with the experiences of PWDs. What got to me about your questions was that there seemed to be an implicit assumption that either a) the government had a right to set standards for our own good or b) it was the responsibility of PWDs to make the best out of a bad situation. Perhaps thats how you do feel even if you aren’t able to see it, perhaps I read too much into your posts (I’d put my money on both).

58. Maybe so many people are pushing back at you because of something you’re actually saying, instead of something you mean.

    I get that it’s frustrating, but you’re asking people to answer very specific questions for you. Since no one here is in the Australian government, on this task force, they can’t. Asking those questions here is derailing, and it’s asking people who have the least amount of energy and time to put into it – those who have a disability or those who are otherwise affected by disability issues – to educate you on the subject. You’ve also picked an offensive way of framing part of your argument – the mythical person who can get a permit just by saying they’ve hurt their foot. This is like being in a discussion about pro-choice vs pro-life and having it be all about the mythical woman who, at 8 months pregnant, decides she just doesn’t want to have a kid and has her late-term abortion on a whim.

    I get that you want to learn more about this, but the best way you can do that is the same way you would on any other topic: Listen. People with disabilities and their allies are telling you what the problem is. There are multiple blogs on the subject that you could read – Amandaw rights one, as does Annaham and Lauredhel. You could google “disability blogs”, or just look for “wheelchair dancer”, “screw bronze”, “wheelie catholic”, “autism speaks doesn’t speak for me”, “brilliant mind, broken body”, or look at some of the disability-focused communities on livejournal – no_pity, for example. (I would put links, but that would hold this post up in moderation.)

    I know it’s hard, because you want to help, and you want to understand. I get that. So do the other people here. But you’re asking us to give you lessons in disability activism, instead of going out and getting those lessons yourself.

59. As a PWD, just know that I agree with almost all of what you’ve said, Lillith. I’ve seen sooo many instances of abuse, most often of people carrying their many shopping bags out of the huge mall and then pulling out of their accessible parking space. As someone mentioned before, the permit gives you free parking in Chicago, which is actually a pretty huge economic incentive to get a permit through any means neccessary. I’ve very often not been able to park at all, because there were no spaces left that had the extra room to allow my wheelchair lift out.

    Of course, as a person with a very obvious disability, I get all the same flack you do, even if it’s my disabilities that people can’t see that I find most debilitating. But just don’t feel disheartened, alot of what you’re saying is perfectly valid. Of COURSE there should be regulations. I think you’ll often find that people think those regulations should come just on the other side of their disability. And while we HATE being being the encyclopedia of disabilty for the able-bodied, I do often wonder how the able bodied will really get the picture without someone enlightening them.

    I just wanted to say that I think you’re trying to genuinely understand the issue and I commend you for keeping your posts very respectful.

60. *sigh*

61. As a PWD, just know that I agree with almost all of what you’ve said, Lillith. I’ve seen sooo many instances of abuse, most often of people carrying their many shopping bags out of the huge mall and then pulling out of their accessible parking space. As someone mentioned before, the permit gives you free parking in Chicago, which is actually a pretty huge economic incentive to get a permit through any means neccessary. I’ve very often not been able to park at all, because there were no spaces left that had the extra room to allow my wheelchair lift out.

    My mother is one of those people you might have seen carrying a ton of bags into a car in a handicapped space. Take a look at her on a good day, or even a middling day, and you’d wonder why she was in that space. She doesn’t necessarily walk with a limp (or one that would be noticed when she was carrying a lot of bags) and you won’t see her wince or cry out. The reason for that is because shes spartan. She saw her grandmother wither from RA, saw the reactions of other people to the gnarled hands, and has an incredible sense of shame regarding her disability. You wouldn’t see her double over once she was behind tinted windows and felt safely away from judgmental eyes. You wouldn’t see her massaging knees that have each seen more surgeries than most people have had immunizations. You wouldn’t see a woman who gave birth with dry eyes fighting tears as her knees locked up from pain that even high doses of opiates couldn’t dent so she’d given up spending the money.

    You see abuse, but you don’t know what you see. As a PWD you should know better.

62. Cara shuts down one derail, so you choose another. Ine words of 2 syllables or fewer:

    TALKING. ABOUT. PARKING. SPACE. ABUSE. IS. A. GIANT. DERAIL.

    IT. IS. NOT. WHAT. THE. POST. IS. ABOUT.

    I. THOUGHT. I. HAD. MADE. THAT. CRYSTAL. CLEAR.

    See comments 15 and 16, please.

63. Furthermore, if you’re asking me to put energy into educating you, and you’re _not_ planning to use your new-found knowledge to make a face-to-face appointment with an Australian Federal MP to go into bat against this problem, why are you doing that? For whose good?

64. tells us that we just need to /understand/ the abled-default-persepective or else we’ll never make any headway.

    Well, I did say that you were free to disagree with my “seeing the other point of view” position. I was insisting that anyone else do that, I simply meant to explain that that was what I was doing. So many of the responses implied that I was saying “there’s nothing wrong with this” simply because I was trying to understand the opposing perspective. I’ve had to defend myself quite a bit, when my opinion of the proposal really isn’t that different than most of the opinions given here.

    But its a regulation of a very different kind.

    Again, my comment about there needing to be regulations was in response to your earlier comment that there should be no restrictions whatsoever. Obviously, there can’t just be a “anyone park wherever you want” laissez-faire attitude… that doesn’t mean that I think they should be policing people based on how dependent they are on another person’s assistance or anything like that.

    Human rights aren’t about effective arguments. The proper remedy to government behaviors like this is litigation, not discussion.

    But in litigation you need to have an effective argument to make your case. You don’t just walk into a courtroom and say “this isn’t fair!” You have to be able to explain why it isn’t fair and refute the opposition’s claims that it is. That’s all I was saying. I’m not suggesting you go sit down with Joe Senator and have a chit chat and expect him to come out enlightened.

    I apologize for my part. Still, its seems obvious that you aren’t too familiar with the experiences of PWDs. What got to me about your questions was that there seemed to be an implicit assumption that either a) the government had a right to set standards for our own good or b) it was the responsibility of PWDs to make the best out of a bad situation.

    I don’t agree with either A or B, just for the record. I also don’t think that my posts really portrayed that sort of attitude, but I do recognize how they could have been misinterpreted in that way. I do apologize for any flaws in my phrasing that came out offensive. You are right – I am not too familiar with the experiences of PWDs, as I’ve said already. But I do hope you realize that I’m well intentioned and trying my best to understand the things that I don’t have the experiences to fully understand.

    I get that it’s frustrating, but you’re asking people to answer very specific questions for you. Since no one here is in the Australian government, on this task force, they can’t. Asking those questions here is derailing, and it’s asking people who have the least amount of energy and time to put into it

    Well, I wasn’t expecting anyone to actually ANSWER ALL of my questions. My original question was about a few specific conditions mentioned in the comments that seemed (to me) to fall under Criteria 3. Obviously no one here is from the Australian government, but I figured someone might have an opinion on that specific point. However, instead of getting an “answer” (or even just being ignored, which would’ve been legitimate) the focus moved to all the points that I didn’t question and the focus was then put on all the other issues about the proposal and the implications that I somehow agreed with the proposal simply because I was confused over one small point.

    Most of the issues that I brought up later were more in the form of “I’m curious about this” or “I wonder about this” or “it seems worth examining this” or “maybe it would help the argument to consider this”… and not so much “so please tell me the specifics of this legislation from a government agency of which no one here is a member”.

    I was not asking for education per se… I was simply acknowledging the limits to my knowledge on the subject. I would be completely satisfied with “you’re wrong, but I’m not going to take the time to educate you on why”. What was upsetting to me, was that I wasn’t just being told that I was wrong on the facts, but that I apparently felt a certain way that I don’t actually feel.

    You’ve also picked an offensive way of framing part of your argument – the mythical person who can get a permit just by saying they’ve hurt their foot. This is like being in a discussion about pro-choice vs pro-life and having it be all about the mythical woman who, at 8 months pregnant, decides she just doesn’t want to have a kid and has her late-term abortion on a whim.

    Again, that specific example in response to William’s statement that “any restriction is likely to restrict access” because obviously there needs to be some system in place, even if that system is just getting a doctor’s note/prescription. I’ve already said this, but I wasn’t suggesting that there actually are people out there with stubbed toes trying (and/or succeeding) in getting permits. The abortion example is a good one in making the point I was making… I’m sure that most people do not fit that description, but there still need to be restrictions about when late-term abortion is or isn’t appropriate. Of course, I want those restrictions to be FAIR and accurate, which is the same way I feel about any restrictions on parking permits.

    But just don’t feel disheartened, alot of what you’re saying is perfectly valid. Of COURSE there should be regulations.

    Thank you for that Candace. In a way, it feels like because I’m not a PWD or totally familiar with these issues, my thoughts were automatically dismissed as something they weren’t. It seems a little unfair to be disallowed to engage in the topic of discrimination, simply because I haven’t experienced this specific form of it. I might’ve had the same types of theoretical questions on a totally different topic, because that’s just the way my mind works… if you consider it a derail or don’t care to consider it/discuss it – ignore me. I’m not offended at all by the suggestion that I’m ignorant on the subject (obviously I am) or just plain wrong on some points (again, I’m sure I am), but I was definitely disappointed that so much of the criticism was directed at things I didn’t say/imply/mean/feel instead of just that which I did.

65. Oops, typo.. That first paragraph should say: I wasn’t insisting that anyone else do that. Sorry!

66. Oh for fuck’s sake Lilith. Shut up. SHUT UP. SHUT UP. Stop talking. Stop making it about you. Stop talking about what’s “unfair” to YOU.

67. Well, I wasn’t trying to make it about me to begin with, but when I’m accused of something I feel justified in defending myself and clarifying my point. If you don’t want me to continue to “make it about me”, then please refrain from telling me how I feel and I won’t be so compelled to explain my actual feelings. It’s unfortunate that on a site like feministe, I’m being silenced… but I think I’ve explained myself in every way possible by now, so anyone who still thinks I’m a bigot or whatever is not going to be convinced otherwise. Again, I do apologize for any way that my words and opinions were misconstrued.

68. Wow. That’s… wow.

    Wow. That’s such a very special form of derail and fauxpology that it should be framed as an example for future generations.

    Again, maybe the problem is what you said, not what you meant.

69. What you’re missing, Lilith, is that in focussing your questions on the things you did – can’t the legislation include this? how could we make this argument so that they understand it? don’t we *need* some kind of regulation – you’re already distracting from the actual issue, which is that people with disabilities wind up being catered for only at the whim of legislators whose concerns are not their access, and that often means that their lives are dramatically affected by people’s refusal to think about these issues. In a context where you could have expressed concern about what PWD, who had already considered this proposal in some depth and knew they were excluded from it, were experiencing around this proposal – anxiety, demoralisation, anger – you instead turned to asking whether they were really sure the whole thing was really that exclusive. I get that you were curious, but curiosity is not politically neutral; in fact, in this case it’s distinctly not, which is why people reacted the way they did. You say that you do this because you want us to be clear on how to argue our case. Weirdly enough, people really are clear on these things, and can argue them til the cows come home (and a point that keeps irritating me is that you’re overlooking the point that clearly legislators have *in the past* understood why the social model is important, yet you want us to act as if we need to start from the very beginning all over again, show why the medical model is problematic and argue for something else – in order to convince who, exactly? you?). But in a supposed ally space, that step comes later, and it comes if you are involved in some kind of activism around the topic which requires making oneself clear to legislators. You’re requiring that clarity of PWD – that justification of access – in what is meant to be an ally space.

    You seem to be focussing quite a bit on William’s claim that any regulation is a restriction, and effectively saying (I hope I’m not misrepresenting you) that this is impractical and problematic. William’s claim is a larger political one: it’s asking why, exactly, PWD have to justify their access to parts of the community. In other words, it’s a more thorough-going critique of the ableism of our culture. I can’t speak for the other people who’ve spoken on this thread, but my take is: William is absolutely right. The world is built so as to disable a whole range of bodies which don’t fit this arbitrary standard. This is a massive, systemic problem. I will argue for a more generous permit system which will ensure access to the community for PWD, but I do this knowing it is always already a compromise, because in the end, that access shouldn’t be something one is ‘permitted’ or ‘allowed’ to have; it shouldn’t be able to be denied. Indeed, the only reason we can understand it as something someone is permitted or allowed is because we made spaces inaccessible to certain people, and then we controlled regulation of accessibility for them. We created a limitation in the economy of accessible space, and now we seek to regulate it. To push the ‘you’re being impractical’ line is to miss this larger political point, or worse, to pretend that it doesn’t really matter. And that, my friend, is TAB privilege in action. You might feel like you’re being silenced, but you’ve managed to ensure a whole other conversation in which PWD felt supported never saw the light of day.

    Apologies for contributing to the derail, everyone else… I hate the way that happens!

70. If the problem is what was said, then address that… but the original responses to me were all about what wasn’t said and how that apparently meant this and that. I acknowledge that a lot of what I said was wrong, so I won’t continue to defend it further.

71. Seriously, Lilith, listen. Listen. Just listen. Go out and read those blogs I suggested. Spend time on this. Spend more time on this than you’re currently spending defending yourself. This is a very big deal, it affects a minimum of 1 out of 7 adults directly and many more people indirectly, statistically people will spend at least seven years of their lives living directly with a disability, and this may or may not become a very big deal in your life at some point in the future. Listen, because people who are not listened to very often, who are not respected, who are marganilized in feminism, in queer rights, in anti-racist work, are talking. They need your support, because they are least able to spend the energy and time into educating, because so much of their energy is taken up with other things.

    Just listen. Don’t talk, listen.

72. Dude. The point is that when you come into a space like this and say things that are all about pushing people with disabilities to justify their access to parking to you, then you’re implying a whole lot more than you actually say. Mostly your privilege.

73. I keep thinking I won’t comment again. I am working on continuing my “education” on the subject and I am listening… but it’s confusing when some of the points directed at me are contrary to my belief system. I don’t deny my privilege. But I’m not pushing people with disabilities to justify their access to parking to me, or to anyone else. I know a lot of what I said implied my privilege, but how much did my implied privilege help form your interpretation of what I said?

74. Right now, I think the best thing for you to do is listen. Read those blogs. Spend some time on it. Don’t keep asking questions right now. Go read, and think. Please.

75. SHUT UP. STOP TALKING ABOUT YOU.

76. but it’s confusing when some of the points directed at me are contrary to my belief system.

    That’s it. I’m done. If you’re not even willing to listen when we ask you to reconsider/listen/do your own 101 stuff, then there’s no point.

77. But in litigation you need to have an effective argument to make your case.

    Ever been to court over an ADA complaint? Neither have I. Care to know why? Because when you’re in black-letter-law, settled-fucking-precedent territory you don’t make an argument. You show up with a lawyer and give the other party an ultimatum: do what they’re required to do, or shoulder two legal bills and then do what they’re required to. I know this because I’ve lived it. Now kindly do the rest of us the favor of shutting the fuck up and listening rather than letting the wind blow through your teeth because you happened to have an uninformed thought.

    I am working on continuing my “education” on the subject and I am listening… but it’s confusing when some of the points directed at me are contrary to my belief system.

    Let me educate you, let me lay it out. You’re speaking from a position of privilege. You’re offering opinions on things you know nothing about. You’re derailing by making this post about you and how people aren’t treating you the way you’d like. Stop that.

    While you’re listening, perhaps do a bit of self reflection. Ask yourself: “why is it everyone seems to be making this assumption about me that I believe is faulty?” Just because something is contrary to your conscious or explicit belief system doesn’t mean that you don’t hold those feelings unconsciously or implicitly. Perhaps if people who have lived this fight countless times before are telling you that you’re making an argument you don’t think you’re making, try to work out why they’re saying that instead of defending yourself to the ends of the earth.

    I don’t deny my privilege.

    Except that you do, every time you substitute your judgment as an able bodied person for the judgment of PWDs. You say that thats not what you’re doing but, sadly, that isn’t the case.

    As for my part, I’m done. I’m done arguing with you over bullshit. I’m done explaining why what you’re saying is offensive. I’m done with the derail. I’m done calling your your ressentiment.

78. OK, I realize this kind of devolved away from the original post, but as a 2 cents on the original topic–

    My mother can walk just fine. The woman RUNS multiple miles when she can. She also gets seizures and mild brain swelling from heat exposure. (it’s complicated)

    Zip, nada, fsking NOTHING to do with her ability to walk. A whole lot to do with how far she has to walk in the heat to the supermarket. Or, on days when she was sick and managed to drag herself to a school play in the spring, the ability to walk to the door.

    Now you see I’m starting to justify. And we shouldn’t have had to justify. Because we already had to justify every day, to the insurance company, the government, the airlines, to everything you can think of–be nice if something little like parking could be easy. The abuse argument assumes PWD or their families are somehow deeply invested in scamming the system and totally without dignity. For fuck’s sake, I have to force my mother to use the damn pass.

79. you’ve managed to ensure a whole other conversation in which PWD felt supported never saw the light of day.

    This! This right here is what you have done, Lilith. Yes, you made it all about the poor poor able bodied person, “being silenced”, not allowed to barge right in and say whatever she wants and frame the conversation in any way she feels like. It should have been about PWD finally getting the chance to have OUR discussion about how this affects US, and it should have been OUR chance to tell people what WE have to go through and how things like this affect US and get support from our allies who do “get it”. Instead we are wasting our precious time trying to wrestle this conversation back on track after your multiple derails about poor poor able bodied person not being understood and coddled by those mean nasty PWD.

    And for the rest of you, this is exactly how it worked with the derailed conversations about transgender issues, with the cis people trying to steer the conversation to something they are more comfortable with or simply ignore the ongoing discussion and totally talk about something else in comments. And this is how it works with derailed conversations about racism too…and every other group of women who comes here and isn’t the default young TAB cis hetero white middle class woman!

80. And this is how it works with derailed conversations about racism too…and every other group of women who comes here and isn’t the default young TAB cis hetero white middle class woman!

    DING DING DING

    Donna, you win an internet, as far as I’m concerned.

81. Also, as Donna said, this reminds me a lot of the whole “but what about our bathrooms!’ business on trans oriented threads.

82. William, while what you’re saying might apply in the USA, there is no Australians With Disabilities Act; there is no hard-wired precedent in this area. Litigation is not the next step, even if I or any of the other people with primarily energy-related or pain disorders could manage it in the first place.

83. uh, moderators, can we get some moderation here so that this thread can benefit those that it is addressing, instead of people having to waste their energy in smoothing the feathers of TAB derailers?

    Donna@81: THIS THIS THIS THIS

84. 1. Listen to people with disabilities.
    2. Follow their recommendations.

85. What Zoe said, plus
    (3) Make sure, if you’re planning a scheme like this, that you consult with all types of people with all types of disabilities. Michael Small, a senior policy officer with the Disability Rights Unit of the Australian Human Rights Commission has today posted to the pdca mailing list talking about how the scheme will provide “improved rules”.

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

86. I just want to thank WildlyParenthetical and Lauredhel for writing great pieces which made the situation crystal clear for this TAB.

    When I read the proposed legislation, my immediate response was “Well, you could probably work around that, but that’s not the point.” I just couldn’t articulate, or even identify, why it wasn’t the point. (Apologies to Lauredhel if the first part of my response was annoying enough.)

    I was already going to send in the feedback form, now I have a much clearer understanding of what I need to write. It’s not a matter of tweaking what they’ve written, it’s about throwing it out and putting something much closer to the existing criteria in place. Or indeed, forgetting it altogether. The case for a national system is weak anyway.

    No-one should have to argue their case, I remember people with CF going through the process, and it was arduous. Utterly wrong for people least equipped to deal with it.

87. Wow, these regulations are horrific. I’m not in Australia, but my dad is so I’ll forward this to him. My Grandad has had a stoke which means walking is difficult for him, but he wouldn’t be covered by this.

    I’m also pretty dismayed at how the comment thread has gone (although not surprised).

    Particularly these comments:

    In a way, it feels like because I’m not a PWD or totally familiar with these issues, my thoughts were automatically dismissed as something they weren’t. It seems a little unfair to be disallowed to engage in the topic of discrimination, simply because I haven’t experienced this specific form of it.

    No, what’s really unfair is the fact that PWDs’ voices are silenced all the time in favour of a TAB perspective. TAB people feel perfectly free to inform me about my disability, what I should be doing with my body and so on, yet when I talk about it I am moaning, catastrophising, finding problems where they aren’t and so on.

    You’re not being “disallowed to engage”, you’re being told to listen and disagreed with. Is it really so hard to accept that people who deal with ableism day in, day out have more understanding of it than you, for whom it is just a theoretical concern?

    And we’re not talking about a generic experience of discrimination which you can relate to, we’re talking about ABLEISM, whose extent TAB people are usually unaware of, because its their privilege to be unbothered by it.

    How do I know this? Because I used to be a TAB person. Then I got sick and let me tell you, my introduction to ableism was a lot harsher than being challenged on a blog post.

    I’ve seen sooo many instances of abuse, most often of people carrying their many shopping bags out of the huge mall and then pulling out of their accessible parking space.

    I have chronic fatigue syndrome. I don’t currently need accessible parking, but I can imagine it in the future because I’ve been declining quite rapidly. I could then very well be your so called “abuser” of the system.

    Want to know why?

    Well, if I live by myself I will need to go shopping at some point. To do frivilous things like buying food and clothing. I will calculate that I will suffer more if I don’t carry heavy bags. because then I will need to come back and use my precious energy on more driving, walking and even getting presentable so I can go out. Once I get back from the mall I will collapse into bed and not be able to do anything for the rest on the day, possibly even the next two will be affected.

    But you wouldn’t see that. Neither would you see the things I have to do to make sure I can go- resting before hand, taking medication, taking rest breaks in the mall itself.

    Would it be better if I was denied an accessible parking space, merely because I can technically carry heavy bags? Even if that meant I could not go to the mall to supply my basic needs? Even if that meant public places were inaccesible to me?

88. Donna, this is exactly what I thought during this whole thread. This is beyond ridiculous to the point of anger and hurt.

    PS, Lilith–I have no idea what your background is, but the faux-legal crappy arguments you’ve been spewing aren’t quite how the system works, just to let you know.

    ON TOPIC: As I said to Anna last night, I think *more* spaces are needed. I also think that instead of making it harder to get a permit, the government might want to spend more of its time checking cars in those spaces to make sure they HAVE a permit. Those are the people that piss me off, not the people who have mostly or entirely invisible disabilities, and it’s a big problem here in Florida, where we probably have a larger percentage of need for those spaces due to our elderly population.

89. Well, I did say that you were free to disagree with my “seeing the other point of view” position. I was insisting that anyone else do that, I simply meant to explain that that was what I was doing. So many of the responses implied that I was saying “there’s nothing wrong with this” simply because I was trying to understand the opposing perspective. I’ve had to defend myself quite a bit, when my opinion of the proposal really isn’t that different than most of the opinions given here.

    FOR GOD’S SAKE! I don’t disagree! I play that part EVERY SINGLE FUCKING DAY, stopping and taking a breath and patiently and courteously explaining, clarifying, correcting, advocating, being respectful and framing things in such a way that able-bodied people will Understand, and trying to persuade people with a smile and a thank-you.

    Just because I want FIVE FUCKING MINUTES to acknowledge how fucking hard able-bodied people ARE MAKING MY LIFE, without having to kowtow to their tender feelings, doesn’t mean I’m therefore this unreasonable person who will not listen to others or try to understand or make compromises to be able to make some progress.

    THAT’S WHAT WE DO TWENTY FUCKING FOUR HOURS A DAY SEVEN FUCKING DAYS A WEEK THREE HUNDRED SIXTY FUCKING FIVE DAYS A YEAR, for EVERY SINGLE YEAR OF THE ENTIRETY OF OUR FUCKING LIVES!

    FOR GOD’S FUCKING SAKE

90. I’d also like to note that most people were being awfully nice to Lilith, they just weren’t complimenting her for correcting us in our knowledge of What It Means To Be Disabled And How To Go About Life With A Disability. They were making points politely and respectfully, framing things in ways they thought she would understand.

    Ninety fucking comments later, look where we are. BOY, THAT FIVE MORE MINUTES OF KOWTOWING TO ABLE-BODIED PERSPECTIVE SURE DID US A LOT OF GOOD, DIDN’T IT.

91. *sigh*

    Roles, people, roles. We know how to fill these different roles. We’d never get through our lives as PWD if we didn’t. We know how to be nice and courteous and always have a plate of cookies ready for the hand-out. We know how to frame our arguments so that people from different perspectives will understand.

    And then we come on here and find other PWD and start talking, and find we don’t have to hold to those abled-default frames anymore, and we find that we’re making so much progress in understanding everything together, and we start talking and working with each other to see how far we can take this, how much of a difference we can make in this world for other people like us.

    And then someone shows up and chastises us for not fulfilling that diplomacy role 24/7, without a single second’s stop, because how else are we going to make headway and oh, well I guess you just don’t care to make an actual difference then, you just want to wail shrilly to yourselves about the evil oppressor and must revel in being a victim.

    OH WAIT HAVE YOU HEARD THIS ALL BEFORE.
    I KNOW YOU HAVE.
    YOU ARE ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THIS.

    Be upset now, be frustrated now, because it is frustrating to go through an argument like this. Then give it six or twelve months of stepping back, taking a breath, listening to PWD, reading, educating yourself, and giving yourself time to digest it and understand it. Hopefully, you will understand why this kind of conversation frustrates *us.*

92. William, while what you’re saying might apply in the USA, there is no Australians With Disabilities Act; there is no hard-wired precedent in this area. Litigation is not the next step, even if I or any of the other people with primarily energy-related or pain disorders could manage it in the first place.

    You’re right, I was being USA-centric. I still feel like, when rights are involved, asking nicely and trying to convince the other side to not oppress you is a losing argument, but thats pretty significantly informed by my experience as a PWD in a country with the ADA and a history of armed insurrection. Mea culpa.

93. That really wasn’t what I was trying to do… and so much of my continued posting was just an attempt to make that point clear because I hate it when I offend people inadvertently. I do appreciate the attempts at explaining the flaws in my choice of words. I was just saddened by the suggestion that I meant something other than I meant. I understand why that inference was made and I wholeheartedly apologize for derailing the topic and making it seem as though I was trying to correct anyone or impose my privileged opinion on yours. (It was more about rhetorical over-analysis, which is sorta “my thing”, but I do see how that came off way different than I meant it to because of the nature of the topic).

    I was trying to be respectful as possible, but I understand why that wasn’t coming across because of my obvious ignorance on certain points. As I said, some implications are still confusing to me, but please don’t associate that confusion with a lack of respect or refusal to listen. I’m definitely reading and “listening” and trying… and I appreciate all of your futile attempts. (And I also acknowledge that you shouldn’t have to make those attempts, so they are doubly appreciated). I apologize for basically being dense and hope that through all of my poor word choices, some of you at least realize that my intentions were never malicious.

    Best,
    Lilith

94. Roles, people, roles. We know how to fill these different roles.

    THIS!

    The most important role PWDs end up having to play is pity magnet. If we’re pitiful, if we’re nice, if we’re grateful, if we’re conciliatory, if we see things from the other side, then people can use us to feel better about themselves. Even if they have to “give up” something (like 6 out of 100 parking spots), they can do it while getting the warm fuzzy feeling one gets from charity. And we know that, we know that the easiest way to get our needs met is to be the source of someone’s pity, to be an object they can feel superior over and a situation they can feel progressive and charitable in.

    The moment we step out of that, through, we’re a threat. The moment we demand instead of beg, the moment we forget to say thank you as if someone were doing us a favor, the moment we talk amongst ourselves or start to act “entitled,” thats when we become a threat to ableism. Thats when we get lectured, as I was by an able-bodied special education teacher with the best of intentions, about how no one likes an aggressive retard (using those words). Thats when able “allies” begin to tell us about how we need to engage more. Thats when the subtle silencing and sideways glances begin.

    When PWDs stop allowing themselves to be used as an object of inferiority the game changes and people begin to treat us differently. When we lose our ability to smile through every fight and oppression and every endless hurdle and forget to thank our oppressors, we become enemies. In that situation PWDs become targets.

    Thats whats happening with this bill. People with invisible disabilities, people who don’t look disabled, don’t give society that little boost in self esteem. PWDs who are able to live independently and get around on their own, who are able to go about their business without the direct aid of another, well they just don’t participate in the social exchange that able bodied people expect of all interactions with the disabled. Thats why discussions about abusing the “privilege” are so goddamn grating, because built into that very idea is the assumption that basic accommodations are a basic and limited privilege that society provides, not a right that society protects. Thats why discussions about the government “protecting” the disabled by restricting them are so offensive, they enforce the dependency and social roles which serve to benefit able society. Thats why someone without a disability coming in and lecturing is so damned frustrating, because its another subtle reenforcement of the roles that a discussion like this is supposed to be breaking down. Its saying “hey, I know you don’t like being oppressed, but can you please accept it with a smile while you argue why you shouldn’t be oppressed?” Even if that isn’t the intent, thats the effect.

95. “People with invisible disabilities, people who don’t look disabled, don’t give society that little boost in self esteem. PWDs who are able to live independently and get around on their own, who are able to go about their business without the direct aid of another, well they just don’t participate in the social exchange that able bodied people expect of all interactions with the disabled.” – William

    Bolded for emphasis.

    It also gives wonderful fuel to the shame that’s supposed to be felt by those with invisible disabilities. If you had a REAL disability, you’d have a cane/walker/scooter/chair. And if you had a REAL disability, you would need to use it FULL TIME, not just some of the time. And if you had a REAL disability, everyone would be able to tell. So, we’ll let you have your wee little parking pass, but only if you prove, to the satisfaction of folks who don’t live with a disability, that you REALLY REALLY deserve it. And we know better than you and your doctor.

    [Insert random anecdote of how Easy It Is To Abuse The System here.]

    It’s predictable, because it happens all the time.

96. Okay, first off my apologies for not being present here. I was asleep for most of the time that this recent bought of, er, conversation has been going on. Also, I know there have been some issues with comments getting stuck in the mod queue, and I’m not sure why that has been either, but again my apologies.

    I’m not sure what I can add that is constructive at this point; Lauredhel, Anna, William, Amandaw, and Wildly Parenthetical have made all of the points that I would have made and many more. There has obviously been a huge problem here with refocusing the conversation on TAB concerns, as others have repeatedly stated. And obviously that’s not what was supposed to happen.

    So, Lilith, you said that you keep telling yourself that you’re not going to comment again — that actually sounds like a really good idea to me. Others keep telling you to listen, and it sounds like not everything is getting through. I think that you need to take a step back to see where you’ve gone very wrong here and think about it rather than responding. It will save everyone else here the stress, anger and frustration.

97. *ahem*

    I just wanted to have the 100th comment.

98. Pingback: three rivers fog » What you can’t see

99. Annaham, you win an internet too, because I remember when you said this:

    Again and again, I see comments in several places online that suggest that disabled and other marginalized people, and their experiences, are only good for two things: enabling the “growth and development” of mainstream feminists, and providing abstract (at least to those who have that privilege) discussion fodder that allows various “concerned” fems to do their thing without questioning their own privilege. Both of these have the effect of depoliticizing any radical potential that those who are NOT het white cis upper-middle class able-bodied mentally “healthy” feminists may bring to the table.
    (From this post at Annaham’s blog.)

    We have both going on here with someone just wanting to learn and grow. And gosh all she wanted to do was have a nice abstract hypothetical purely academic discussion.

Comments are currently closed.