Discrimination Against the Disabled.

When I first registered this blog, I didn't know really what I wanted to write in it. I didn't think I would post more politically-charged content on here because I didn't want to attract too many people to it. But this article drove me up the wall and the comments on the original blog--which I won't link to because I refuse to give this poor excuse for a man any pageviews--made my stomach churn.

Basic summary: a very important "film critic" recently went to a movie theater with his family to see the new film "Gravity." While he was in the theater, another family brought their relative who has a developmental disability. During the film he would make a noise "every few minutes." This critic then proceeded to write a letter to the theater which included this lovely passage:

"Unfortunately, your management decided to sell a ticket to a family who rudely chose to bring their Down Syndrome child to the film. He appeared to be significantly impaired in that he would yell out loud every few minutes, thus distracting everyone else in the theater. This is no more different than someone chatting on their cell phone, or texting with a bright LED light, or a group of teenagers showing up to do everything but watch the film at hand. I don’t blame the disabled child in the slightest. That is his unfortunate condition. I believe his parent was an insensitive moron for bringing him to the film so that she could see the film."

A true gentleman this one is. While I understand that this problem happened in the UK, stories of people with developmental disabilities running into problems in public are very common here in the US. Back in January 2013, Ethan Saylor, a young man with Down's Syndrome went to a screening of "Zero Dark Thirty" with his aide. He loved the film so much he wanted to see it again and refused to leave his seat as he waited for the movie to start again. Off-duty police officers who were working as mall security at the time, attempted to physically remove Ethan from the theater. During the scuffle, Ethan was tackled to the ground, where he then died from asphyxiation. His death was ruled a homicide, but a grand jury refused to indict the officers responsible for his death.

I believe that both of these stories, although they have vastly different outcomes and different contexts, are symptoms of a huge problem in society in both the UK and the US. People with intellectual and developmental disabilities are seen as subhuman. They are seen as a burden on society. They are seen as people who consume more resources than they contribute--hence why in the healthcare industry we are moving away from the label of "consumers" and encouraging the use of "individual" or "resident." The fact of the matter is that they are people. Just like anyone else. They have the same rights, emotions, needs, and wants as any "normal" person on this planet.

It was nauseating reading the comments on the critic's site. I shared the news link on my Facebook page and was sadly surprised that one of my friends began to repeat some of the comments that were on the original site. I understand he was merely playing a sort of "devil's advocate" but to me, there is no "other side" of this argument. It's not even an argument.

First of all, if this man was truly that bothered by the sounds the disabled man was making, then he could have very simply gotten up, and asked for a refund or a free ticket to another showing of the film. I'm sure the theater would have been more than understanding and accommodated him and his family. To call the parents of this person "stupid," "moronic," and "inconsiderate," is just as prejudiced as calling the man a "fucking retard." This man's behavior, which he obviously cannot control, was compared to people playing on their cell phone during the film, or someone carrying on a loud conversation, or a child screaming and crying throughout a movie. All of these other "annoyances" can be controlled. A person who has tics cannot fully control them. This critic had a choice to leave the theater, the disabled person doesn't have a choice regarding their disability.

The critic suggested that the theater put in place a very broad, "kick out anyone who disturbs the viewing experience for any reason" policy in place. Again, this is discriminatory. Following this man's way of thinking, let's ban people who may not be able to control themselves. Individuals who have "spastic" outbursts can't go to places like the movies, or museums, or libraries because it might ruin other patrons' experiences. So that excludes people with forms of cerebral palsy, down's syndrome, autism, Tourette's, and retardation. We might as well group up the epileptics too because if one of them has a seizure, that would be mighty disruptive. Know what? Let's include people with who have bipolar disorder or manic depression because something could trigger a deep emotional response and we can't have people sobbing during "Fast 5." That's literally millions of people who cannot enjoy public places for reasons they cannot fully control and this is a dangerous way of thinking. One suggestion was that this disabled individual and his family go see the film during a matinee showing or during one of those special showings some theaters put on where people with young children can go to and noise is tolerated. Again, this is still discriminatory--people with disabilities have the same basic right to go to a movie whenever they can/want to. Maybe this individual can't go during the day because their parents work and he goes to a day hab? You know, where he learns skills to help cope with his disability and to be a productive member of society.

I've worked with the developmentally disabled for several years now. I cannot count how many dirty looks myself and my residents would get when we went out in public to a restaurant or the library or to an animal shelter or museum. A co-worker of mine once told me she brought the residents to a restaurant and the server came up to her and said that some patrons were disgusted by how messily they were eating and if she could "clean them up." Here's a thought: if you don't like what you see, don't fucking look!

Situations such as these are why companies and agencies that focus on the developmentally disabled are so critical to our society. Because not only do they provide vital services to these individuals, but they help spread awareness and increase tolerance in public. I'm hoping that this is a positive trend that continues. Because sometimes I feel that we are moving more towards the attitudes that kept places like Willowbrook operating for decades.