Well done Lawrence Fox!

Because of course Opal disabled people are unable to work, earn their own living or contibute in any way to the economy or life of this country or indeed the world. Have you read a Fucking word of what has been written?
The reason there are people not able to work is not because they have some impairment it is because society refuses to adapt or change to accommodate them. And your attitude shows exactly why that is, because you do not consider them as equals but as some sort of lower level of life that you have to support. It's not only bloody rude. It's bloody wrong. I really thought this was a battle that had been won and most people knew that people with impairment or disability, however they choose to define themselves, are working, are contributing and enriching our society at every level and many of them are cleverer and more valuable than a lot of the posters on GN.

This has been a truly disappointing read
I am appalled by posters actually applauding 'able bodied' people providing enterprise to benefit 'disabled ' people
I have to wonder what Stephen Hawkins would have made of that comment. ..
Shame on you

Whoa, who sprinkled the bitchy dust SW, as someone once said to me, calm down.

Please remember that "able-bodied" people are also the lifeblood of the British economy and provide the ideas, enterprise, funding and manufacturing that permits, protects and enhances the lives of disabled people in this country every f***g day too.

suziewoozie For crying out loud get a life. I truly can’t read anymore of your joy draining claptrap!

FFS Chestnut your post is ableist in the extreme - you should be bloody ashamed of yourself. It’s not a binary choice to care about death threats OR the language used around disability, stop damn well trying to minimise or discount my lived experiences as a disabled person - how bloody dare you. And you could try reading what the posts of people like trisher and myself actually say. It’s nowhere near as simple as what you call a disabled person. Ableism is much more complex than that - and ableism where institutionalised or not restricts, limits, harms disabled people lives in this country every fucking day.

suziewoozie As for the shooting in the face comment, one person saying that as shocking as it is does not have to result in mass shock/horror.
But it isn't one person. These types of death threats are commonplace now and I find them deeply disturbing. They indicate a society which has no soul. The idea that one person would threaten to kill another over a simple disagreement is much more concerning than what you call a disabled person. Previously offensive words are no longer in use and now it's just nit-picking.

Learning difficulties are only used in an educational environment though. It shouldn’t be used to describe a disability. Learning disability (although the term is gradually changing to Intellectual Disability) is something very different and can be very disabling.

Sorry anti-Semitic

I don’t think the word ‘disabled’ needs to be qualified in a general discussion - if provision for disabled people is being discussed in terms of policy development or service provision, then clearly the various types of disabilities need to be addressed. When I posted about disabled people being far too ignored, I meant all disabled people in general. Jura it might be nice to have a thread on disability issues and ableism - i think widening out the discussion following LF’s comments was really important because it does make the point that had he said to a Jewish person, it’s not a I-Semitic there would have been justifiably much outrage. Not sure what would have happened if he’d said to a disabled person that something wasn’t ableist. I think disability issues are still very neglected in the main stream.

It is a very interesting discussion, but really deserves its own thread surely- and not get mixed up with Fox's comments and general perception of racism.

BTW - what does 'normal' mean?

This whole thing gets more confusing when you consider how many types of disability there are. If someone is in a wheelchair, their problem is obvious, but a deaf person is also at a disadvantage which is not immediately obvious.
Therefore the term 'disabled' needs to be qualified.

I hope the term'learning difficulties' is on the way out, as it is totally meaningless. Someone with dyslexia has learning difficulties, yet is perfectly normal otherwise.

I don’t know any disabled people who would say ‘I am impaired’ but if any do, it’s their choice. As for the shooting in the face comment, one person saying that as shocking as it is does not have to result in mass shock/horror.

Taking the discussion onwards - much of the discrimination disabled people face ( I can only talk about mobility related aspects) is not being mocked or shouted at in the street but is based on the ableism that is institutionalised or unthinking. This often means that problems result from the fact that disabled people are not consulted in the planning and provision of services not because they are deliberately ignored but because they are just not on the radar

No. The bit about Finland is what Libby Purves says in her article. She does say "apparently", so I presume she got the information from somewhere.

Oh I see. Thanks for that

Maybe she got confused

Happens to us all

I find the comment about being shot in the face quite shocking Rosina. What a vile and evil thing to say. While some people are bickering about the right words to use others are making violent death threats to innocent people. These are the kind of words which in my opinion are far more damaging to society and should be called out and dealt with.

oopsminty quoted part of my post, the bit about Finland being, apparently, the most tolerant European country:

P describes what happened between Rachel Boyle and Laurence Fox, quoting what each of them said. With regard to Fox saying "we're the most tolerant lovely country in Europe", P says apparently Finland is but we come second.

and then asks:

Is this really what was said?

No. The bit about Finland is what Libby Purves says in her article. She does say "apparently", so I presume she got the information from somewhere.

Thanks suziewoozie
Rosina I don't think most people who oppose racism would say such things, any more than I think most people who may have opposing views would. Extremism is something we all recognise as unacceptable. It should be condemned by all and that condemnation should not be limited to a particular section of society.

Rosina, the abuse since last week's QT has gone both ways - tragically. The young woman who disagreed with Fox has had the most disgusting and foul abuse and threats.

That's just from a paper, trisher.

It's not gospel

It's not the norm

I am disabled.

I am not impaired

I would never want to be seen as impaired

Just because some people say they are impaired, others will prefer disabled.

We're just getting ourselves in knots with all this

Some black/mixed race people don't believe that Meghan was racially abused

Some do

Some white people don't

Some do

It's an endless conversation.

You are never going to make everyone happy

And I'm not sure who has been using the BAME acronym on here but that is insulting to many people who are black/mixed race/Asian

Cross posts trisher.Nice final sentence - the crux of the issue

and I totally respect that.

Same indeed for racism, in many ways.

Chestnut I don’t think trisher actually said that. She was quoting others. The development of the social model of disability in the 1980s away from the individual model of disability was seminal in the history of disability rights. The really important thing is that you do not focus on what is wrong with the person and try to put that right but what is wrong with society that impairs the individual and try and put that right. I share many of pinks frustrations.

Today I read that someone has said Lawrence Fox needs to be shot in the face. It seems if you disagree, and hold a different opinion of events to the screaming brigade who are looking for racism, looking to be insulted, and trying to stir up anything they can to shut up any other opinion, then you need to die. or at the very least to be stifled, after apologising for holding any opinion of your own. What a point we have reached when free speech is only for some sectors of society.

Chestnut if you are interested look up the social model of disability it is now considered more acceptable then the medical model

In response to the traditional medical model of disability, disability activists and scholars have offered a social model of disability [8], which relies on a relatively sharp distinction between impairment and disability. Within the social model, impairment is understood as a state of the body that is non-standard, defined as “lacking part of or all of a limb, or having a defective limb, organ or mechanism of the body” ([8], p. 22). As such, impairment may or may not be met with a negative evaluation by its possessor [9]. People who are blind from birth, for instance, often understand their blindness as a neutral way of being, rather than as a deficit or a problem. Consider Deborah Kent, who reports that “…from my point of view, I wasn’t like a normal child – I was normal. From the beginning I learned to deal with the world as a blind person. I didn’t long for sight any more than I yearned for a pair of wings…I premised my life on the conviction that blindness was a neutral characteristic” ([10], p. 57–58). Similarly, and even in regard to acquired impairment, Oliver notes that “impairment is, in fact, nothing less than a description of the physical body.” ([8], p. 35) Disability, by contrast, is the “disadvantage or restriction of activity caused by a contemporary social organization which takes no or little account of people who have physical impairments and thus excludes them from participation in the mainstream of social activities” ([8], p. 22). The point of making and emphasizing this distinction is to show how much and sometimes all of what is disabling for individuals who have impaired bodies has to do with physical and/or social arrangements and institutional norms that are themselves alterable (e.g., stairs vs. ramps; presentation of data using only auditory means vs. universal design for communication, restrictive definitions of job requirements vs. expansive accommodations for different modes of performing work, etc.). People with impairments of a particular kind may be in a minority [11], but they are typically not thereby rendered incapable of work and social relationships. They need a more inclusive framework in which to participate
It basically means moving away from the idea that someone needs to be fixed and instead adapting society to their needs.

So according to trisher we can use the word 'impaired' but not 'disabled' or 'handicapped'. I always associate the word 'impaired' with weakened or damaged so it's not my choice of word and I find it rather offensive when applied to people.
The word 'disabled' means having a physical or mental condition that limits movements, senses, or activities. That sounds much more respectful to me.