How we see disabilities

Editorial

What do we mean when we say "Never again"? The phrase is a rallying cry against bigotry that emerged from the ashes of the Holocaust, when people began to realize what mighty oaks of genocide can sprout from tiny acorns of prejudice.

Organizations like the Simon Wiesenthal Centre, the Anti-Defamation League and, in Canada, Canadian Jewish Congress and B'nai B'rith, have done much to nip bigotry in the bud wherever it shows its head. CJC, in particular, has adopted a broad interpretation of the phrase "Never again," choosing to take up the cause of victims of discrimination far afield from the strict confines of what one might consider the "Jewish community."

This has garnered them some criticism from people who believe their agenda should be more narrowly focused, but it has gained praise from others, including this newspaper, for appreciating that there is a direct parallel between varieties of hatred, regardless of the target. This is why the exhibit currently on display the Vancouver Holocaust Education Centre has such resonance. Titled Life Unworthy of Life: The Euthanasia Crimes at Hadamar, the exhibit examines the Nazi treatment of mentally and physically disabled people. Of course, the Nazis' definition of these terms cut a very wide swath, but the issues the exhibit raises remain, as much as or moreso than other lessons from the Holocaust, food for thought in today's world.

Decent people of goodwill have now accepted that discrimination based on skin color, religion and other uncontrollable factors is simply wrong. When we say "Never again" it means we will not stand by while others are discriminated against for characteristics received at birth.

Yet, there is one area in which we cannot say we have accepted a common recognition of rights. Our perceptions of the disabled, even in an advanced country like Canada, remain equivocal. We don't, perhaps, always look at discrimination against the disabled in the same way we regard anti-Semitism or bigotry against other races, other religions, women or gays and lesbians. Part of that may come from the mixed messages we receive on the issue.

Canadians have had to face our views on this subject recently in two cases. In the first, Sue Rodriguez, who was severely debilitated by ALS (Lou Gehrig's Disease), chose to end her life before it became completely unbearable. Although she had to engage the assistance of an unnamed physician, she herself made the choice to end her life.

In another case, Saskatchewan father Robert Latimer killed his disabled daughter Tracy in what he viewed as a mission of mercy but which the law viewed as murder.

Extreme cases like these may serve to confuse the issue of our treatment of disabled people and our nonchalance may also illustrate our willingness to devalue the life of a disabled person.

The truth is many of us do not give a lot of thought to the treatment of the disabled. Perhaps we view sidewalk ramps and accessible buses as adequate accommodation to people with disabilities.

But just as a public nonchalance about anti-Semitism helped oil the wheels of the Holocaust, our views of the disabled are perhaps not considered deeply enough nor in the same context as discrimination against other groups.

The Holocaust centre exhibit, which will be explored more deeply in a future issue of the Bulletin, continues until June. It should not be missed. And, though it discusses issues from history, it should be viewed with an eye to the present and future.

^TOP