Exclusively Inclusive

No word illustrates the general confusion towards people with disabilities better than 'inclusive'.  It's often used to describe its exact opposite.  It isn't always what it seems, and it's worth taking a second look.

"Camp Tidnish is the only barrier-free and fully accessible summer camp for Nova Scotian children, youth, and adults with physical and/or intellectual disabilities.

Camp Tidnish has provided top-quality programs for over 80 years. Each year, we host hundreds of campers from across Nova Scotia. Our programs are designed with inclusion, independence, and the personal development of our campers in mind."

So this camp, which is a segregated establishment, values 'inclusion'.  I think I know what they mean; that they provide a suitable place for those who might not otherwise have the summer camp experience.  A chance to excel and succeed on one's own terms is a good idea, but inclusive it ain't.

Unfortunately this kind of mischaracterization lets the vast majority of similar places off the hook for providing a humane, constructive environment for all of their campers, including those with disabilities – and for seeking to be responsive to their campers’ feelings while working to expand their minds.

That's the downside.  Kids at other camps never meet their peers with disabilities.

The Club Inclusion in Halifax seems to be pretty much for people with disabilities.  A more accurate name might be "Club Success" or "The Friendship Club"

Is Access-a-Bus inclusive transportation?  They very carefully don't use the i-word.  It makes 'transportation' available to people who aren't served by conventional means, but as a service, it's segregated and inferior.

Are inclusive classrooms inclusive education?  Yes in having a wide diversity of students, but not always in optimizing education.  That requires ongoing advocacy, planning, support and commitment.  And really good teachers.  The March 2018 final report of Nova Scotia's Commission on Inclusive Education acknowledges that inclusion sometimes gives way in the pursuit of education.

Sheltered Workshops?  Again, segregated, but inclusive in the sense that participants are among the employed.  But the segregation makes it easy to allow separate rules, like ignoring minimum wage. 

• The whole reason for an organization like Summer Street to exist is to facilitate community inclusion and involvement.  - 40th anniversary report 

Bathrooms.  Not usually inclusive, since there are men's and women's facilities.  Very occasionally there is a unisex bathroom with stalls with floor-to-ceiling doors and a common area for washing up.  More often, there is a family washroom which is inclusive in the sense that anyone can use it, but only one at a time.  The best accessible bathrooms for wheelchair users are big,  have a dressing table and are exclusively for one-at-a-time use. 

Sometimes inclusion is achieved by segregation.  Dalhousie Medical School, which in 150 years has never graduated an African Nova Scotian MD, seeks to correct this:

• Admission prerequisites are required for all applicants. However, applicants who apply under the Affirmative Action Statement are considered on the basis of their qualifications for the study of medicine rather than in relation to other candidates.

This is permitted under the Charter, though it's hard to imagine a more condescending and awkward presentation.

A distinction without a difference you say.  Except when 'Inclusion' is used carelessly it gives the impression that people with disabilities are fully integrated in society.  More often the reverse is true - it's worth paying attention.

My problem or yours?

This is what the Liberal Party promised in their platform before the October election:

• Create a more accessible Nova Scotia for persons with disabilities by appointing an Accessibility Advisory Committee with a mandate and strict timeline to develop accessibility legislation for Nova Scotia.

It's been met with eager anticipation by many, including me.  I've been thinking a lot about what it means to me.  Can I finally take the #5 bus?  Can I be certain that the washroom at the Alexander Graham Bell museum is wheelchair accessible?  Will building inspectors be accountable?

Others have different priorities.  Can I get a job?  Will I get paid the same as the next person?  Can I find a place to live?

We're thinking "Finally!"

But hold on.  Lots of Nova Scotians need jobs.  Lots of Nova Scotians need transportation, particularly in rural areas.  Lots of Nova Scotians get less-than-equal pay.  What about them?

Is this really about me, or is it about Nova Scotia?  By putting in the little phrase highlighted in yellow, the lack of access becomes my issue.  Take it out, and the lack of access, (in the sense of participation), applies to everybody.

This is very subtle, but it's really important.  Is this legislation about me and my problems, or is it about fairness in Nova Scotia?  

We need to be very clear that this legislation is to make Nova Scotia a better place by extending the rights and privileges of civil society to everyone.  Think of it as your gift to Nova Scotia, not the other way around.  

Although a possible name of the legislation - Equal Opportunity for Nova Scotians - came in dead last in our recent poll, it's still my choice.  Nova Scotia has a chance to affirm that everyone can prosper here, including "people with disabilities".

Do it for your sake Nova Scotia, not mine.

Gus Reed

Off The Radar

Using Google Trends one can get a sense of where Nova Scotia fits in awareness of Disability Rights.  Worldwide, New Zealand is the place where it's a hot topic - Kiwis get 100.  The 100 considers the total search traffic for each area and is assigned to the location with the highest likelihood that any search will be for 'disability rights'.  Hovering your mouse over Great Britain shows 67, meaning that any search in GB is two-thirds as likely to be for 'disability rights' as in New Zealand.  It's a measure of relative popularity.   46 in the US, 23 in Canada.

Limiting the area of interest to Canada, we find Ontario with 100, BC with 61 and the rest zero.  So in Canada, the highest likelihood of searching for 'disability rights' is in Ontario, and in BC it's 61% as likely compared to Ontario.

If you look in Nova Scotia alone you get this message:
Not enough search volume to show graphs.
To get a sense of how the topic of disability rights compares with a similar topic in Canada, we can add another term.  'charter rights' is 23 times more likely to be searched than 'disability rights'.  This time, Alberta gets 100 (surprise!) but Nova Scotia has a respectable 59.

Looking for something that truly matters, check out 'hockey' (worldwide, Canada = 100), which has a strong showing in every Province and Territory - Nunavut dominates with 100, Nova Scotia is 67.  By comparison, 'disability rights' creates nary a ripple.
Nothing really surprising here, except confirmation that it's up to us to make ourselves heard.  It's interesting that in a province with a Disabled Persons Commission in a country that signed and ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities there is little interest in the subject.  Disability Rights are not a Google Trend in Canada.

The takeaway here is that language matters.  Everyone has Charter Rights but only people with disabilities have disability rights.  To the degree that the UN Convention allows 'disability rights' to be considered separately, it permits a distinction that is ultimately harmful to the cause.

Finding the right word - re-inventing language

“The British civil rights movement has rejected the term ‘people with disabilities’, as it implies that the disabling effect rests within the individual person rather than from society.”

Patriarchy in the UK:
The Language of Disability
By Laurence Clark and Stephen Marsh: 2002

I was reading the Ontario plan for accessible transportation which includes this definition:

Disability - means a) any degree of physical disability, infirmity, malformation or disfigurement that is caused by bodily injury, birth defect or illness and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, includes diabetes mellitus, epilepsy, a brain injury, any degree of paralysis, amputation, lack of physical co-ordination, blindness or visual impediment, deafness or hearing impediment, muteness or speech impediment, or physical reliance on a guide dog or other animal or on a wheelchair or other remedial appliance or device, b) a condition of mental impairment or a developmental disability.

The definition has a lot of loaded words (highlighted by me). Not to mention circular reasoning. I wonder how the person who wrote this could possibly understand what is needed in terms of accessible transportation. A person who thinks of ‘disabled’ folk as malformed and impaired wouldn’t be likely to be very simpatico. The writer is starting from the wrong premise. It should be

Barrier – means any arbitrary architectural, technological, societal, intellectual (and more) circumstance which prevents people from participating fully in day-to-day activities.

Sometimes "handicapped" parking says ‘accessible parking’. This is exactly the thing – focus on the circumstances and not the person.

I guess we’re conditioned to think in the same way that the Ontario definition demonstrates. This has led to all kinds of bizarre linguistic contortions. Disabled access is kind of oxymoronic – what is really meant is unlimited access. Ditto for handicapped washroom. It should be unobstructed. Or even just washroom, and to be clear about what’s going on sometimes obstructed washroom. Barrier free is a useful term –very neutral, descriptive and inclusive of mothers with strollers and people with artificial hips. But this ain't easy - an otherwse educated woman looked at me like I ad 3 heads when I used "barrier free".

You’re probably thinking this is a distinction without a difference. But sometimes it’s really important. Not The Nova Scotians with Disabilities Act but An Act to Enable all Nova Scotians. Not Handicapped Washroom but Enabled Washroom.

I am so sick of “person with a disability”. Nine syllables which don’t exactly trip off the tongue. As if disability is a little cloud to be carried around that turns good into bad. “Person who faces barriers”. That saves a syllable and puts the problem where it belongs. With the step at the restaurant, the PA system at the Metro Center, the door at the cell phone store, the counter at city hall. We're not the problem!

Where is Stephen Colbert when you need him?

Current language is inadequate for folks who are usually referred to collectively as “disabled. Fortunately, it’s pretty easy to adapt language to suit a particular situation:

• She needs a Braille menu
• I need a room with a wheel-in shower
• He needs written as well as spoken information

But there is the group known as “the disabled” which is convenient shorthand for a complicated and diverse subset of the population. It may be unnecessary, but people will continue to use it for its succinctness. I am looking for a substitute that is sufficiently new to get attention, short to be easily remembered, and obvious enough so that it doesn’t need explaining. It identfies a situation in which some cannot participate fully because planning for the activity did not contemplate their needs. The focus is on the circumstance, not the participant.

This new word wll describe restaurants without Braille menus, elevators too small for strollers, schools with second floor classrooms, dangerous curb cuts, taverns with 30 inch doors. Things are mentioned, never people. Here are some examples:

• Outclusive – The outclusive entrance at the Nova Scotia Legislature is a sad commentary on government.
• Unabled – The Human Rights Commission does not give a hoot about the unabled.
• Hindered
• Thwarted

I would love to have your ideas, comments and suggestions. Please leave them below, or email them to me.

Warren Reed

wcreed@ns.sympatico.ca

Person facing barriers