Blaming a Disabled Girl for Her Own Disability
Yes, we are in the 21st century I assure you. We have a Disability Discrimination Act (DDA) (and indeed Equality Act) and everything, but read this:
A disabled 11-year-old girl has been rejected by an academy school because she poses a “health and safety risk” to other children.
Idayah Miller, from Norbury, was told she could not go to the elite Harris Academy in Crystal Palace because her wheelchair would restrict the movement of other children in the crowded corridors.
In a letter to her parents, headteacher Steve Kenning also said the little girl would suffer low self-esteem because her “academic ability is quite low” and Harris is “a high pressure, high performing academy” where she would struggle to keep up with her friends.
This is not what I understand the DDA is supposed to be about. But Kenning goes further:
He said: “She takes up a lot of space, she won’t be able to get out of the building if there is a fire. We take students of all abilities here so that is not an issue, we are just concerned about her safety.
“We are saying to the parents, do you really want your child to be a safety risk to others?”
The head is actually blaming her for her own disability – I’m actually quite shocked to read this. Disabilities legislation puts him in the position that no, he doesn’t have to change the physical features of his school, but this misses the point, as a commentator later in the article points out:
The school I worked in accepted a student who was in a wheelchair. In the event of a fire, a plan was agreed with the parents that the student would go to a place near the stairs and a member of staff would notify the fire brigade of his location.
His presence in the school was of considerable benefit to other students. It encouraged them to be more thoughtful and less selfish.
Would Harris like to suggest where this child should be educated – even special schools would have the same challenge!
One of the worries about academies has always been their ability to shirk their responsibilities, whilst taking the cash. This case demonstrates that the stories are true.
And another commentator adds:
As a former student HCACP I can assure you that the school is capable of providing facilities for disabled students. The only thing it might lack is specialised disabled toilets, but there is disabled access to all floors and all rooms. Whilst corridors are small there is just enough room for flow in both directions with space for wheelchair users to travel in one direction. In fact, HCACP has even implemented a ‘traffic flow’ system to manage corridor congestion, so I don’t see the issue here.
No, nor do I. The school should abide by equalities legislation or face legal action. Quite appalling.
Another Christian Zealot Denied Right to Discriminate
We’ve had marriage registrars, marriage counsellors, and now an anti-gay adoption adviser, who has, following her removal from an adoption panel, after refusing to rule on cases involving same-sex parents, sued for religious discrimination:
She [Dr Sheila Matthews] said: “I understand that legislation permits same sex couples to adopt and they are positively encouraged to apply, but I have professional concerns, based on educational and psychological evidence, of the influences on children growing up in homosexual households and I feel this is not the best possible option for a child.
“I do not consider myself to be homophobic, however I believe that children do best in families with a father and mother playing different roles in a child’s upbringing and committed to each other in a lifelong relationship.”
She added: “My view arose from both a professional one from my reading of the literature, and an historical Christian perspective of relationships, based on the Bible, an authority which our court system still uses today to swear in those giving evidence and juries, based on its authority.”
Of course the homophobia is built in to the second paragraph, but Dr Matthews’ problem, as with the previous instances of Christian soldiers trying to get opt-outs in law to discriminate based entirely on the basis of their crazy belief, is that she was in breach of her contract, as well as of the law. Her view isn’t a medical one (or even a factual one if you want to broaden the argument) which can be substantiated at all, and no doubt she’ll keep insisting it is, but noone has suggested she not be allowed to believe this bigoted garbage – she just can’t act on it in a professional capacity. Although gay and religious rights have clashed here again (and will continue to do so), the reason why her ‘religious rights’ have been placed second is clear:
The employment tribunal, sitting in Leicester, dismissed the claim.
Concluding a two-day hearing, regional employment judge John MacMillan said she had no case against the council.
He said: “The complaints of religious discrimination fail and are dismissed.
“This case fails fairly and squarely on its facts.”
He added: “In our judgment, at least from the time of the pre-hearing review, the continuation of these proceedings was plainly misconceived… they were doomed to fail.
“There is simply no factual basis for the claims.”
Mr MacMillan said there was no evidence that Dr Matthews was treated differently from any other panel member who might request to abstain from voting, or that she was specifically discriminated against on the basis of her Christianity.
He said the issue “transcended the boundaries of all religions” and ruled that Dr Matthews should pay the council’s legal costs.
Message to the legions of Christian soldiers yet to come: your right to practice and believe in your religion do not (in the world of work and service provision) give you the right under the law to discriminate against people for their sexual orientation. So quit it.
To Regulate Homosexuality?
Now I’ve seen absurd commentary like this before by far-right evangelicals before, but never really had the chance to refute it in blog form. So here goes (I’ll comment on his abuse of statistics as I go):
Homosexual/bi-sexual individuals are seven times more likely to contemplate or commit suicide. Oooh, that doesn’t sound very healthy.
It isn’t, and if true would be a serious reflection on self-esteem issues directly resulting from the homophobia of people like…Barton himself. So he takes great delight in setting up homophobic hatred, finding people actually respond to others’ hatred in physical, not just internalised ways, and them blaming them for it. Not only is that not Christian, it’s the textbook definition of abuse. If gay and bi- people really are that much more likely to kill themselves than straight people (I’d love to see where that’s definitively cited), surely as a society we should be asking the question why, rather than condemning people for the self-hatred they feel.
Homosexuals die decades earlier than heterosexuals. That doesn’t sound healthy.
Decades eh? Well that’s probably true in countries like Iran or Saudi Arabia where there’s a legal penalty for loving and having sexual relations with members of the same sex, but I’ll bet Barton would be hard pressed to prove it’s ‘decades’ throughout the developed West. Matthew Shepard of course died decades earlier but he was murdered for being gay. It may have been true in the 80′s/90′s as well, given the HIV/AIDS-related death rate, but with the improvements in combination therapies, and the massive increase in heterosexuals living with the disease, I’ll be shocked if that statement can be backed up by referring to HIV/AIDS. How do we die decades earlier, Barton? Oh maybe like with other evangelicals you’re lying.
Nearly one-half of practicing homosexuals admit to five hundred or more sex partners and nearly one-third admit to a thousand or more sex partners in a lifetime.
Nearly a half of which practising homosexuals? I don’t know anyone who’s anywhere near that number and a) I know a lot of gay men (why isn’t he talking about women, or is he?) and b) I know a few promiscuous gay men. I don’t believe the numbers for a start, but even if either of them is true, I’m confused: what would the essential problem be? I’ve tried throughout the period I’ve been sexually active, to be as considerate and honest to my sexual partners as humanly possible. I’ve never passed on an STI and have had around 100 sexual partners in my life. I don’t know many gay people who’ve had experience anywhere near that amount, nor many who want to. Pretty much all are looking for love at the end of the day.
Homosexuals have an HIV prevalence sixty times higher than the general population.
Homosexuals have Hepatitis B virus five to six times more often and Hepatitis C virus infections about two times more often than the regular population.
Sixty eh? We’ll have to have a look at that number a little later on, but I suspect the number’s more like ten at the most.
Homosexuals are less than three percent of the population but they account for sixty-four percent of the syphilis cases.
I mean, you go through all this stuff, sounds to me like that’s not very healthy. Why don’t we regulate homosexuality?
This is the clearest demonstration of the games these monsters play with statistics. Less than three percent of the population according to extremely flawed polls, for a start, but he then willfully conflates that number with 64%, but 64% of whom? Of the entire population? How could a small proportion of less than 3% of the population then account for 64% of the syphilis cases of the entire population? Answer: they can’t, but Barton’s reaching out to a tabloid mentality, whose participants are unable or unwilling to see through these lies. Having repeatedly cited the Center for Disease Control, in a vain attempt to justify his bigotry, what he really doesn’t want you to read is this:
Stigma and homophobia may have a profound impact on the lives of MSM, especially their mental and sexual health. Internalized homophobia may impact men’s ability to make healthy choices, including decisions around sex and substance use. Stigma and homophobia may limit the willingness of MSM to access HIV prevention and care, isolate them from family and community support, and create cultural barriers that inhibit integration into social networks.
Racism, poverty, and lack of access to health care are barriers to HIV prevention services, particularly for MSM from racial or ethnic minority communities. A recent CDC study found a strong link between socioeconomic status and HIV among MSM: prevalence increased as education and income decreased, and awareness of HIV status was higher among MSM with greater education and income.
And it’s clear why not. The HIV and other STI infection rates for gay people remain depressingly high, but they remain steadfastly that way for clear reasons, and chief amongst those reasons are the hateful views of people like Barton. He wants to blame gay people for the homophobia that they react to, but the truth couldn’t be more compelling: he and his filth are the problem, and one which needs to be addressed urgently. Let me show you how easy it is to play their game of abuse. Just say (because who’s going to check?) 95% of murderers are white men who believe in God. Almost all child abuse is conducted by white heterosexual men with a vehement belief in God. Every war in recent human history has been started by a white man who attended Church on a regular basis. Why don’t we ban religion and keep white men who are prone to belief in superstition under indefinite house arrest? Noone would seek to regulate religion because of such a ridiculous argument against it, and Barton and friends should be universally condemned for theirs against gay people.
Christians: Stop Trying to Discriminate Against Gay People!
Catholic Care has sure been told:
A Roman Catholic adoption charity’s appeal to be allowed to discriminate against gay people wanting it to place children with them has been rejected.
Catholic Care wanted exemption from new anti-discrimination laws so it could limit services provided to homosexual couples on religious grounds.
The Charity Commission said gay people were suitable parents and religious views did not justify discrimination.
The Leeds-based charity said it was “very disappointed”.
Catholic Care – which had been placing children with adoptive parents for more than 100 years – was among a dozen Catholic agencies in England and Wales forced to change their policy towards homosexual people by the equality laws passed in 2007.
I’m sure it was very disappointed – it believed, as the article goes on to say, that the Equality Act went against the Catholic Church’s teachings on marriage and family life. Too bad. Gay people are suitable parents, and belief in the supernatural cannot in this day and age be allowed to justify discrimination against us. No doubt the agency and the church will complain that there are all sorts of disorders we are guilty of, that ‘forcing’ children to be parented by gay people goes against their ‘rights’ to have heterosexual parenting. My argument is that children have the right to good parenting – if the best available happen to be gay in this instance then so be it. The Pope however disagrees:
In a strongly worded letter to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, the pope criticised the then-Labour government for creating “limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs”.
He wrote: “The effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs. In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”
Suggesting that discriminating against gay people on the grounds of belief is somehow justifiable under ‘natural law’ is wrong-minded and a misrepresentation of what equality law is supposed to be about, and Ratzinger was quite rightly roundly condemned for his intervention. It’s a relief that the Charity Commission has decided to rest its decision on the rule of civil, rather than ‘God”s law.
Religions Can’t Avoid Equality
The government has been forced by the European Commission to withdraw its religious exemptions to sexual orientation equality legislation after a complaint by the National Secular Society:
The ruling follows a complaint from the National Secular Society, which argued that the opt-outs went further than was permitted under the directive and had created “illegal discrimination against homosexuals”.
The commission agreed. A “reasoned opinion” by its lawyers informs the government that its “exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive”.
The highly unusual move means that the government now has no choice but to redraft anti-discrimination laws, which is likely to prompt a furore among church groups.
In anticipation of a possible backlash from the commission, the government has already inserted new clauses into its equality bill. But even if the bill is jettisoned, future governments will be bound by the commission’s ruling.
Under the new proposals being drafted by the government, religious organisations will be able to refuse to employ homosexuals only if their job involves actively promoting or practising a religion. A blanket refusal to employ any homosexuals would no longer be possible.
Too right. It’s already quite mad that religious equality legislation has been passed, equating belief with inherent qualities like age, gender and sexual orientation. But to give an opt out to religion from the same equality legislation that affects everyone else is just appeasement – Peter Tatchell is right later in the article. That appeasement is fuelling the demands of all religious zealots in this country, in the belief that when push comes to shove they’ll be able to get away with not treating everyone equally based on who they are. The religious elements which take issue with this will simply have to grow up. The Christian charity, Care said:
“If evangelical churches cannot be sure that they can employ practising evangelicals with respect to sexual ethics, how will they be able to continue?”
They’ll have to join with the rest of the 21st century, in not discriminating against gay people, or they’ll face prosecution. It’s about time.
