A Statement About Words

 Greetings,

There is a subject that I have not broached before and I believe it is time, especially with all the talk about Inclusivity being thrown about. I am going to be specific about some words and how I feel about them. In regard to some words I am going to make a statement about how I would prefer to be addressed, in much the same way as a person of a different gender might, but we must discuss this so my intent here is clear.

First, I have no intention of belittling the importance of those of different gender expressing themselves. I believe that every human being has a right to a good and happy life, regardless of their situation. This is regardless of their gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, religion, socio-economic position, or any other way some interest group may decide to divide people. Part of this is expressing themselves and being known in the way that they prefer, appropriate to their situation. 

Second, those individuals who are not progressive enough to accept change in society, who are so dogged they would prefer to hold on to old ideals, old ways of doing things, there are many historical examples that could be cited which resulted in the fall of these societies due to them not changing with the times. We must move with the times and change as they change, accept what cannot be changed, change what can be changed, and be wise enough to know the difference.

Thirdly, in the pursuit of Inclusivity, as I have previously spoken, society has not done the fine job that it has thought it has, because there is a group of individuals who has been left behind. Maybe it is because they were recognised previously, in laws and so forth, but they are still marginalised. I speak of those with disabilities. To call a society "inclusive" means that consideration has been made for the disabled as well, which for the most part aside from some access changes and statements made, it has not. To achieve this the inherent ableism in the system must be removed.

Fourthly, changing the word does not change the situation, it does not soften the situation that the individual is in. Previously people were called "handicapped", then "disabled", now some call such individuals "differently abled", all in some measure to soften the words. To soften them so the people can be pushed aside, as though they have been dealt with, so people can feel better about themselves. No. The term is inaccurate and offensive.

Here is my statement: I do not accept the definition as "differently abled". I refuse to be called such and find such a term offensive in its nature. Has a person suddenly gained some different ability due to their disability? No. The term is inaccurate, the term is offensive. I am disabled, a part of my person does not function as well as it does in a "normal" human being, this is the accurate term.

Fifthly, I will continue to raise these points and complain in this fashion about the use of such words and their inaccuracies until they are fixed, or until the system truly is inclusive as it claims to be.

Lastly, in regards to "identification" I would most prefer to be referred to as a human being first, as it is the most important characteristic I possess. It is a term of unity. I am a #humanbeingfirst. The divisions weaken us, distract us from the unity which we could all have together. I know that I am one voice, mostly unread on this blog raging into the wind, but it is a cry that I will maintain. It is our only hope to survive. #humanbeingfirst

Regards,

Henry Walker

Identifying Feature

Greetings,

People are described to one another using their identifying features. We do not get to choose how we are described to a third party, that is up to the person doing the describing. This post discusses the different identifying features that we may be described by and looks at how they may, or may not, describe who we are. Some descriptions are accurate, some are not, some features used are appropriate, some are not. This question goes to who we are as human beings.

How do you think someone would describe you? What identifying features do you think a person would use to differentiate you from the next person in the crowd? Consider this and you begin to consider how you are perceived by other people. Just think according to this, you are a list of identifying features, at least until you meet and talk with the individual, and then that list may or may not grow.

Consider a police description of an individual that they are seeking. Sex, racial profile, height, hair cut, hair colour, clothing; then there are any distinguishing marks or features, here they are talking about scars, tattoos, whether they were wearing glasses, difference in gait, method of speech, posture and so forth. Here is another list by which an individual can be defined, is this what defines them, is this who they are?

Each individual can be defined by a simple list of characteristics, a list of boxes that can be ticked or not ticked as the case may be. The same process is used for the medical profession to describe a patient and their symptoms, again they are looking for the identifying features of the malady which the individual is suffering from so they can help them, but first there are other details that are required. These details are personal details, more so than the police description. Anyone who has been to see a medical professional has a file about them listing physical characteristics, maybe this is who we are?

Then there are social characteristics and identifying features that can be identified to highlight one person from the other. Have a look at any survey and you will find a list of questions designed to put a person under a list of characteristics for classification. Gender, age, occupation, these are some very basic ones. If we go deeper then there are family questions, brother, sister, daughter, son, orphan. Even more there are cousin, grandchild, each is a defining characteristic. Friend, enemy, nationality, social class, expanding out into the wider world. Do these things define who we are?

How about titles and ranks? These are also identifying features. Doctor, captain, colonel, general, knight, each of these is a title which is linked to something in the wider world. Some of these titles are earned some of theme are bestowed, given by someone else's decree, because you were thought to be worthy. Worthy because something among your characteristics has reached their ears, and allowed them to make a determination that you deserve to be known, separated from others, separated from the "mere" Mr, Mrs, Ms, and Mx. Do these titles define who we are?  

Maybe we are defined by a combination of all these identifying features all coming together and other elements not mentioned. We are more than a person of a particular race, a person of a particular gender, a person of a particular educational level, a person of a particular occupational status, a person of a particular religious status. We are all human beings first and foremost, and this is what people forget the most easily. Beyond all of these "features" there is a core individual; a human being. Should this not be our first identifying feature and our first concern? Should we not be defined by what sort of human being we are to others?

Cheers,

Henry

A Wasted Time?

 Greetings,

Supposedly I wasted years of my life doing a History degree and Honours because it is useless in today's society. It is not worth anything because we have too many historians out there already. The fact that I finished my Degree and Honours in 2002 is beside the point.

First, I could've studied something more suited to "the market" but I decided to study something which aligned with my passion. Something that was my goal in life, rather than something that was "fiscally sensible". Can you claim to have done the same?

Secondly, there is a quote from Winston Churchill and it is certainly as relevant today as it was when it was first said, "Those that fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it." I would prefer to learn from history than repeat it, or at least point it out to people so they understand that we have been here before and we still have not learnt our lesson.

Thirdly, to all the historical reenactors and budding historians, I simply ask you, where do you think all that wonderful information that you are using as "evidence" for your "arguments" came from in the first place? It did not simply pop out of the ground, it was discovered, researched and interrogated by trained historians for its veracity before being placed in the same sources that you use. 

Fourthly, "History offers the best training for those who are to take part in public affairs" from Polybius in his Histories. Evidence can be found for this in many a statesman who studied history, including John F. Kennedy, Joe Biden, and Winston Churchill. I would never put myself among those people, but maybe if more leaders had studied history then they would know where they are going and where not to go.

Fifthly, only through a study of history do you have the tools to interrogate history, to discover what is hidden behind the history, to discover the what, the wherefore, the true meaning of the events. Such can not only be applied to events of the past, but can also be applied to events of the present, with a knowledge of the past. "Not to know what happened before one was born is to remain a child." Cicero: De Oratore XXXIV

With these five points in mind, and likely more that I could raise, no I don't think I did waste my time studying history, and I don't think I waste my time studying history. I believe it gives me a better understanding of the world around me, a better understanding than those who have not studied history, or those who have given it a cursory glance. I believe that my years of training in history puts me ahead of those amateurs who study history, for I already know how to interrogate sources, I already know how to write an argument, I already know how to sort the relevant from the irrelevant when examining my sources, because I was trained to do so.

Cheers,

Henry.

My Safe Place is Gone...

Greetings,

They took away my social safe place, the place where I was safer from the virus. It was washed away by bureaucracy and a lack of thought for those less fortunate than others, once again; a misinterpretation of the statistics could be claimed, but still there was no thought. 

Like many other things in this "brave, new world" we live in those with disabilities and illnesses are left behind.  Like the policies of those who think that "trickle down economics" work for the people of a lower socio-economic level. People with disabilities, including those with chronic illnesses are the forgotten victims of progress, forgotten because they are an inconvenient truth that presents their hypocrisy.  I would claim on this basis that statements about "inclusivity" are window-dressing and nothing more.

The rights have been torn from those with no choice, those with chronic illnesses and who are immunocompromised and given to those who made one i.e., not to vaccinate.

In line with its policies, the SCA (Society for Creative Anachronisms) in Australia reviewed its "SCA Lochac COVID Response Plan" and turned it into little response at all. They removed the requirement that attendees were vaccinated removing that shield that was in place, that safe place to go while all the world is insane. They have removed the last barrier to assist in the prevention of these people who are especially vulnerable from contracting COVID-19 at one of their events. 

There are those who cannot have the vaccine. So other people vaccinate as a barrier around them, so they do not pass the virus on to them. There are those who have tried to vaccinate, but cannot vaccinate. So other people vaccinate as a barrier around them, so they do not pass the virus on to them. These are the people who have medical exemptions, they have had medical advice that says that they cannot vaccinate. They could go to events and be shielded, because people at events were vaccinated.

There are those who are especially vulnerable. Here I speak about those who are immunocompromised, and this can occur for many different reasons. On the same list of vulnerable individuals I place those who have chronic health issues, I place myself here as well. The vaccine helps these individuals to protect them and assist them so they are not affected as much by the virus, some fall into the category above. These people could go to events because others formed that shield to protect them.

The shield that I speak of is vaccination. It does a far better job of preventing people from contracting COVID-19 than the human immune system alone. This has been proven again and again. It has also been proven that the vaccine also reduces the effects of COVID-19 if it is contracted. 

Speaking of the human immune system, those who are especially vulnerable will suffer a lot more than the average person who contracts COVID-19 and this is the reason it is so important that the shield of vaccination is in place. The removal of this shield, requiring attendees to be vaccinated, means that it is now dangerous for people who are vulnerable to attend events.

The COVID Response Plan has turned into a shadow of its former self. It looks like the minimal community standards. This is the claim that is made by some, that it is now "in line with community standards."

Look out into the community, check the numbers of people being infected per day (if you can find it) and tell me how well their "plan" is working. The government's plan is all about ensuring that the economy keeps moving along, is this all we are worried about now the almighty dollar? Don't people's lives matter anymore? Have they not realised that people cause the economy to work? Have they not realised that the economy is in bad shape because people are sick, because people don't want to go out because of COVID? Nope, the mighty dollar must roll regardless of what it does to the people.

While this plan is in effect, you will see people choosing to stay away, because it is to dangerous for their health. Such mass gatherings without the protection in place are tantamount to not having a plan at all. What it will result in is having fewer of these vulnerable individuals at events. If that doesn't matter, well, it shows exactly how well the organisation thinks of its members, and how much the word, "inclusivity" really means.

To be "inclusive" you need to include and give access and opportunity to all those who might  otherwise be marginalised, this includes people with disabilities, and those who are medically vulnerable. This policy, this sham plan, is a disgrace and flies in the face of such a concept. By the allowing of some you exclude others for reasons not of their choosing.

People who have such medical issues would not choose to have them, but they had no choice. People who chose not to vaccinate chose not to vaccinate. This policy takes away the rights of those with no choice and gives it to those who made one and denied access to medically-confirmed, scientifically-tested vaccines. This is what it does. I am disappointed that such a decision could be made of such an organisation with such ideals as it claims.

Regretfully,

Henry. 

P.S. This problem with inclusivity is not restricted to the SCA, it is a much broader problem than that. I have previously spoken about the problems with inclusivity in previous posts. 

When Inclusivity Isn't... (Part 2)

Greetings,

The following is some additional notes following from my previous post about "inclusivity". Many of the same themes are present in this post as in this previous article, hence this one has been named as a "Part 2". There is a closer examination of the concept of "inclusivity" and how it is treated and presented. Further there is a demonstration where there have been distinct failures in inclusivity, especially in its approach.

When the word "inclusivity" comes up, sexuality, race, are the two prime ones that are remembered. Disability rarely gets a thought. It is as though, this problem has been taken care of, and doesn't need any attention anymore, the others require more attention. Well, people with disabilities are not going away.

What is Inclusivity?

To begin with there is an examination of what "inclusivity" actually is, what it concerns, the definition of the term. From here there is a foundation to build on from a perspective of common understanding. To begin with here are some dictionary definitions:

From the Cambridge English Dictionary:

noun, "the fact of including all types of people, things or ideas and treating them all fairly and equally:" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/inclusivity).

A simple definition which is intended to allow the inclusion of all people equally and fairly. A noble concept in its ideas, but not very specific. It is a simple idea that everyone should be treated fairly, regardless, a very human principle really and one which should be at the foundation of all ideas of interaction, but which is sadly lacking.

From the Collins English Dictionary:

noun, "the fact or policy of not excluding members or participants on the grounds of gender, race, class, sexuality, disability, etc" (https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/inclusivity).

This definition brings up the idea of not excluding people on the grounds of various differences that people might have. Here the opposite idea, exclusion is deliberately negated in the definition of inclusion of people, an important point to make, which was missing from the previous. This one also highlights some of the grounds by which a person may be excluded.

From the Oxford English Dictionary:

noun, "The practice or policy of providing equal access to opportunities and resources for people who might otherwise be excluded or marginalized, such as those having physical or intellectual disabilities or belonging to other minority groups." (https://www.lexico.com/definition/inclusivity) 

Like the previous Collins, it specifies groups that might be discriminated against, but this definition imposes the requirement of people providing equal access and opportunity to the marginalised groups. Here, rather than it being a passive thing that should be done, it is an active process that needs to be followed.

The subtle differences in each definition are important as they show the focus of the definition and show a different focus of the group that wrote the definition. The Cambridge definition focuses on fair treatment for all; a very open definition with no discussion of who might be excluded, just that all should be treated fairly. The Collins definition brought the idea of exclusion, and groups of people who might be excluded; a reverse definition "not excluding" people. The Oxford was pro-active even more so than the Cambridge, not only fair treatment, but provision of services. In a way when a person uses the word inclusivity, it depends on which one they mean.

Inclusion

To add to these definitions is the idea of inclusion. According to the Diversity Council of Australia (DCA), inclusion, the result of inclusivity, is defined as follows:

"Inclusion occurs when a diversity of people (e.g. of different ages, cultural backgrounds, genders) feel valued and respected, have access to opportunities and resources, and can contribute their perspectives and talents to improve their organisation." (https://www.dca.org.au/topics/inclusion)

So this idea of inclusion is the goal of inclusivity it would seem, the inclusion of "a diversity of people" into a group and when they feel that they are "valued and respected, have access to opportunities and resources, and can contribute their perspectives and talents to improve their organisation." This is the  goal of inclusivity at least according to the DCA. 

I would say that according to this definition of inclusion we are quite a way off yet in society in general because there are still barriers for those with disabilities to engage, access, and be valued as individuals with worth. People with disabilities are still viewed as their disability first, then as people second. A problem, rather than a potential asset. How far does the inclusivity extend to those with disabilities? Not just physical, but mental disabilities. Not just the visible, but the invisible as well. 

Who is to be included, and how much?

There is often discussions about racial and sexual issues, but very little when it comes to disabilities. People stand proud about being associated with a person with sexual issues, they stand proud when there is some race related issue, even in another country. When it comes to an issue related to disabilities people shrug their shoulders, they think it is all too hard for them.

"Pride Month" happened this year in June, and there were notes of support about being free to express your sexuality and flags waved all over the place. "Disability Pride Month" occurred the month later, nothing.

There have been improvements: ramps, Braille notifications, some improvements in Public Health, but as far as representation goes, the disabled population is lagging behind. In Australia, the NDIS (National Disability Insurance Scheme) has helped some, and left a lot behind, because of the endless paperwork and the seeming policy of instantly rejecting the first claim, regardless of the evidence. Just to get rid of those who are not willing to push their claims through, to go the extra steps to be heard. The NDIS doesn't spend its budget, because the claims get denied.

The Paralympics have helped the profile of disabled people, but they are forgotten, and forgotten in a big way in some instances. Here are two articles to show you how: "David Weir: Disability sports being 'forgotten' between Paralympics" and "Rio 2016: 'A lot of Paralympians are forgotten about'". If you're really interested in this particular topic, I recommend watching "Rising Phoenix" on Netflix about some of the history of the Paralympics and some of the issues that it has been through along with some of the amazing stories of the Paralympians.

Social Group Policies

There are many social and sporting groups which now claim that they are inclusive, that they have "Inclusivity Policies" as a part of the organisational documents of their organisation. So far there has been a lot done for people in regard to accepting people with different sexuality, race, religion, even politics in some instances. When it comes to disabilities, this is the breaking point. So long as the government regulations are followed, they believe that they are covered. But is this really enough, is this really the inclusivity that they claim?

Here's a simple question if you're in a social or sporting group, if a person with a disability approaches your group and wants to join, and fully participate, what is your first response? Is it to consider all the problems, or is it to consider the possible solutions?

If your answer is to instantly claim that there are too many issues for the person with disabilities to engage in the social or sporting group, then I would claim that your claim of inclusivity is "convenient inclusivity" because it does not require any expenditure of energy on your part.

If on the other hand, you are willing to do your best, see exactly what the individual can and cannot do, see if it is possible for them to engage safely with the group, then you are being inclusive. Then it is not inclusivity of convenience. There are activities which people with certain disabilities cannot participate, but you will not find out what they can participate in if you do not try, and that is all people with disabilities want. They want to have a go, they want people to try and help them fit in.

What can you do?

For true inclusivity all the groups must be included in equal measure. Examine the definition of "Inclusion" as defined by the DCA and you will find that in many instances people with disabilities are lagging behind in a big way. This is primarily due to archaic approaches to disabilities, with the approach of seeing what the disabled cannot, rather than what they can do. 

A simple examination of blind sport will show that people with that disability are involved in many different sports including, fencing, archery, cricket, golf, judo and shooting. A simple examination of the wide variety of sports participated in at the Paralympics will show the many different sports individuals with disabilities can play and to what capacity they can involve themselves. 

When it comes to people with disabilities it should not be a question of what they cannot do but what they can do. This is the only way that we will ever get near the lofty ideals of the idea of "inclusivity" and "inclusion" as they are defined. Start looking at the person as a human being, not as their disability, or their sexuality, or their race or any other feature. See what they have in common with you, this is the way forward.

Cheers,

Henry.

Protest or Riot: What's the Difference?

 Greetings,

The protest is a legitimate form of political resistance and statement. It is a legitimate way to make a political issue made known. Let me be first clear about this at the beginning of this discussion. I have no issue with people gathering and marching, or gathering in a public place and making speeches. The issue is where it becomes a criminal activity, and the supposedly blurry line in between, that in fact is not so blurry.

A Protest

The protest march disrupts traffic and the normal flow, this is its purpose. This is the way the individuals involved gain attention for its cause. The amount of people marching, the banners displayed, chanting slogans and statements, often now the use of bullhorns. All of these things are designed to draw the person's eye to the march, to draw the attention to the issue which is being made known.

In some places, these marches are organised with the local law enforcement agencies so roads can be closed so there are no incidences with traffic, and so they can be on-hand to offer assistance, and to provide a measure of prevention of criminal incidences. The ones where they are organised in this fashion with law enforcement notification, with permission to march, these are most often peaceful marches. There are few incidences and little law enforcement involvement as a result.

The presence of law enforcement will increase with the number of protesters, they respond to the number of people in the march. They also respond to the nature of the crowd. This will decide what sort of gear they will bring with them when they arrive at the march. The law enforcement personnel respond to the actions of the protestors, this is an important note that must be remembered as we go along.

Can certain law enforcement agencies be heavy-handed in their treatment of protestors? Yes. Is there a recorded history of law enforcement agencies being heavy handed in their treatment of protestors in certain countries? Yes. These facts are acknowledged. However, it must also be acknowledged that there are some who have violent and criminal intent when they involve themselves in the marches.

The Other Protest

There are other protest marches, where individuals gather with the intention of highlighting a political purpose, however they are also there with criminal intent. They are also there with criminally disruptive intent. There is a difference between this sort of march and the one described above. There are the same banners, marching, slogans and chanting, bullhorns being used. 

However within the crowd there are a group of individuals who are intent on disrupting the march and causing violent activity to occur. These violent activities often occur when marches of different political or social ideals meet. Regardless of ideology, religious or political, there are those who will cause violence and criminal activity, for that is their reason for being there. These individuals are often masked and carry weapons, they have violent intent.

Criminal Activity

A person who strikes another person is guilty of assault, it is a criminal charge, it is as simple as that. It doesn't matter what creed, colour or ideology the other person is, or if they are expressing their political beliefs, the person has just committed assault. A person who strikes a police officer is guilty of the same charge. A person who throws an object through a window, strikes a car with another object, or destroys something is guilty of vandalism at the least, wilful damage at a higher charge, both of which are also criminal charges. The person has just committed a criminal act.

When a group of protestors starts committing the acts described above, or other such criminal acts including assault, looting as a result of breaking windows, they have turned their political gathering into a criminal gathering; they have turned their protest into a riot. It has turned the lawful assembly (the protest) into an unlawful assembly (a riot) and the law enforcement agencies have a responsibility to act to protect the lives and the property of the public. Law-abiding persons should disperse and immediately disassociate themselves from such an assembly.

A law enforcement officer who sees a criminal act in process is duty-bound to attempt to arrest that individual, because they have committed that criminal act. Not because they are a protestor. Not because they are an oppressive part of the system, but because they have committed a criminal act. If the individual had not committed a criminal act the law enforcement officer would not be arresting the individual.

Result

A person can go to a protest and march for their particular cause. They can join like-minded individuals and march through the streets shouting their slogans and singing their songs to bring attention to their cause. The organisers of the march should allow the police to know about the protest, to give legitimacy to the march and the cause, in some places it also legalises the assembly.

So long as the individuals march in a peaceful fashion and do not commit any criminal acts there should be no entanglement with law enforcement. For some causes they believe that any attention they get is good, because it spreads their cause around; this should not be the aim of a protest, a peaceful protest while it does not get much publicity in the media, will not get the people involved branded as criminals either. Think about your true intentions, and choices. Then think about their consequences.

Cheers,

Henry.

When Inclusivity Isn't...

 Greetings,

There has been a lot of talk about "inclusivity" and I am all for it. I believe that everyone should be included, not discriminated against for any difference. The problem is that sometimes "inclusivity" is not inclusive as it could be. There is always a lot of talk regarding "inclusivity" regarding people of different gender, race, and sexuality, however when it comes to people with disability, they tend to fall off the end, forgotten even though they are different.

There was a great noise about "Pride Month", regarding people's different sexuality, a great claim for inclusivity. No mention of those with disability, probably because they would get their chance a little later on...

This month is Disability Pride Month, what has been said? Where are all the announcements? Where are all the people marching in the streets in support of those with disability? Or maybe we aren't that far along yet, or maybe it isn't popular anymore so people don't bother saying anything about it.

Disability Pride Flag

This is the Disability Pride flag, it looks a lot like the flag that was flown for Pride Month last month, however there are some differences that should be noted, note the smaller number of colours, note the black background. Each of these has an important statement to make, a symbolism.

"The Disability Pride Flag was created by Ann Magill, a disabled woman, and each of its elements symbolizes a different part of the disability community.

1. The Black Field: this field represents the disabled people who have lost their lives due not only to their illness, but also to negligence, suicide and eugenics
2. The Colors: Each color on this flag represents a different aspect of disability or impairment

• Red: physical disabilities
• Yellow: cognitive and intellectual disabilities
• White: invisible and undiagnosed disabilities
• Blue: mental illness
• Green: sensory perception disabilities" (https://news.stonybrook.edu/university/july-is-disability-pride-month/)

Unless everyone is included it is not inclusive. If some portion of humanity is not included then it is not inclusive. Just because some portion of the community seems to be the focus of attention at a moment, because they are louder than others doesn't mean that another should be forgotten.

Yes, I have a stake in this one, I am a person who has a disability. I will have a voice, and I will be heard, if only by the few who read these entries.

Update: The Disability Pride Flag was changed because the above design with its lightning bolt design was causing issues for people with epilepsy and other conditions, so the jagged lines were removed. So here is the new design:

The colours remain, it is just the design that was changed. I was happy to have this brought to my attention so I could change the image here.

Cheers,

Henry.