During my conversation with the Program Director at Cheshire Services Ethiopia, the topic turned to disability and its particular import to me. I spoke to him about my physical disability (legal blindness) and how it has affected me both as a lawyer and as an individual. We spoke at great length about the lack of official recognition of “low vision” in Ethiopia and the associated ramifications. He informed me that most students who have difficulty with vision in schools are completely ostracized by their teachers who do not understand the concept of low vision and often refuse to provide them with even the minimal level of accommodation. There is this sense of distrust and disbelief. He thought that an official term and designation such as legally blind (which in countries such as Canada attaches when one’s vision score is lower than a certain number) would alleviate many of these problems.
Sadly, this is not an uncommon story – the idea of distrust and malaise towards persons with disabilities. I am not entirely convinced that a formal/legal designation of one’s condition alleviates this troubling state of affairs. Even with the official designation of legally blind, I have often faced inquisitive and doubtful looks from people such as professors, employers and co-workers, questioning whether I truly had vision problems. In fact, one professor told me, “Legally blind? But you can see me just fine – so I have no idea what your problem is/what you are complaining about.” I had to explain my condition further, but it was quite clear that anything I said would be meaningless at that point. What troubles me so much about certain reactions to disability is this notion that people feel comfortable making assumptions about what persons with disabilities can and cannot do and then imposing these assumptions as if they are reality.
In her influential book, My Body Politic: A Memoir, author and activist Simi Linton describes her experiences living with disability and perfectly captures the unwillingness of people to truly accommodate persons with disabilities, instead choosing to make gross assumptions and take unwelcome liberties. Linton aptly captures the failure to provide the requisite accommodations to disabled people in the following terms at page 187 of her book:
The peculiar combination of oversolicitousness and flagrant disregard for the well-being of disabled people had never been more apparent to me than it was that day. People fall all over themselves (and you) to help, but when disabled people state what we need to lead our lives, to live with dignity and comfort, to have a place at the table, we are ignored. The impulse to protect is strong, but not to accommodate.
She shares this invaluable insight in the chapter where she discusses her visit to a fancy Fifth Avenue hotel in New York City and her struggle to find an accessible washroom. When she finally locates the washroom and finds an employee to unlock the door (after making repeated inquiries that went nowhere and were ignored by the staff), she is shocked that the employee who unlocked the door insists on “waiting” for her outside the washroom in case she needed assistance. The employee simply “assumes” that she needs this service. There is no question about asking her about her needs or respecting her assertions of her capability.
Will the new UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities bring about a normative change in understanding and approaches to disability issues? Will this new legal framework engender a spirit of understanding, equality and respect for persons with disabilities? Will it at least raise the profile of these issues and make a disability discourse more prevalent and robust? I am not sure, but I am hopeful.
