Read on Twitter
So I got a reply from one of the senators I wrote to on #BillC7
L’Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond replied. Nothing specific but they are definitely hearing from us and our concerns which he said he would keep in mind as they work.
So of course you know I replied to his reply. :)
L’Hon. Pierre J. Dalphond replied. Nothing specific but they are definitely hearing from us and our concerns which he said he would keep in mind as they work.
So of course you know I replied to his reply. :)
Here is my reply:
Thank you for replying. Yours was the only reply I received. It is very meaningful to me that you took the time to do so.
So many of us have felt as though our words, concerns and lived expertise, were being ignored entirely.
Thank you for replying. Yours was the only reply I received. It is very meaningful to me that you took the time to do so.
So many of us have felt as though our words, concerns and lived expertise, were being ignored entirely.
And yet, as someone who became a wheelchair user in adulthood, I know how different the lived experience of disabled person is from that of a non-disabled person in Canada. I often say that I moved to an entirely new city without changing my location on a map.
Healthcare professionals too, occupy a place of prominence in my life that is profoundly different from the quality or quantity of the one they do in that of a non-disabled person.
They guide me in how to move, where I may live, what I may eat, and tell me whether I am allowed to do a certain thing. Just the word "allowed" or "permitted" should indicate the nature of the relationship.
But I don't want to rehash points that I am suee have already been made.
What I wanted to say is that I find the nature of the discourse around this so deeply troubling. Policy, in my opinion, should build trust by acknowledging risk.
What I wanted to say is that I find the nature of the discourse around this so deeply troubling. Policy, in my opinion, should build trust by acknowledging risk.
So for example, I felt safe flying on an airplane because of the regulations we have around the maintenance and operation of an airplane. I do not have to defend why this is important. I have never been accused of being a fanatic for wanting these in place.
No one accuses me of smearing the good name of pilots.
I remain unconvinced the risk to disabled people can be eliminated by any means if the "reasonably foreseeable" clause is removed. But perhaps I am wrong. That is the discussion we need to have and should have been having. Not whether there is a risk. The risk exists.
We need to discuss whether it is possible for such a law to be written in a way that it does not lead to the deaths of people who, in a more just society, would desire to live.
If we can't be assured that a life will not be lost as a result of our failure to create a more just society then the law allowing the state to participate in the death of one of its citizens should not exist. Is this not in fact one of the arguments against capital punishment?
That is not the discussion we have been having. Instead the government and certain Members of Parliament, have come dangerously close to accusing disabled of lying and imagining risk that doesn't exist.
We have been presented with policy that ignores the specific discrimination faced by disabled people in this country and the abundance of evidence that it is real and exists is waved off as if a separate issue unrelated to this policy.
In essence, I want policy directed at disabled people in Canada to be written in a way that considers and reflects the reality of being a disabled person in Canada. Rather than demand trust, the government needs to create trust.
Thus far all I have seen them do is erode disabled Canadians trust in this government, and even more widely, in this country and democracy.
I look to you and members of the Senate to do what they have so sorely failed to do, give this bill and the likelihood for it to have grave unintended consequences against some of the country's most marginalized citizens, serious consideration.
Respectfully,
Gabrielle Peters
Gabrielle Peters
