h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: Disability hate crimes.......the latest new hobby!!??? - A2667549
Author: Deanne147 - U740851

I would appreciate some feedback on how this topic could be developed into an article that would attract media attention.
As both a disabled person & spouse to another disabled person I welcome the government's recent pledge to act upon the new but rapidly growing trend of "disability hate crimes", but their wheels turn even slower than those of the medical profession. I, amongst others, have spent the last 12 years of my life trying to help to educate my local medical professionals in general as well as my old employers, the good old D.H.S.S. and would prefer it if I did not have to spend the next 12 years doing the same for the local government agencies.
Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

Dee

A subject close to my heart, too.

For better or worse, h2g2 isn't much of a medium for attracting wide attention. It can be a good place for refining a message, if you can stir the community's imagination.

People might soon point out alternative forums for Collaborative Writing, though this one (AWW) is potentially more productive. Better attended, anyway.

How to actually convey this message? I've thought about it myself, and even played with doing so a couple of times. Not hate crimes per se, but the unthinking collective discrimination that makes individual outrages possible.

If you want to get people thinking about this, the most effective way to do so will probably be by rationalising the counter-position to your own. Start off talking about why people fear disability in cool, unemotional terms. Talk, perhaps, about the instinct of the pack to abandon its runts and weaklings for the good of the greater group. Talk about censorship and the news media, and other contexts (war footage, perhaps) where it's only right to keep scenes of unimaginable horror from our children's gaze. If you feel able to do so, talk sympathetically about every mother's paralysing fear that the child growing within in her might turn out to be a monster.

Horrible sentiments, aren't they? They can't be rationalised intelligently, and the more coherently they are expressed, the more wrong they become in the mind of the reader. This method of counteradvocacy works for this topic better than most, because there's a well of shame deep inside everyone that you can tap. Discrimination against the disabled isn't like, say, racism. Many racists genuinely believe that their views are just, and that aliens really do constitute an actual threat to them. Nobody thinks that disabled people are a threat - they would rather pretend that disabled people don't exist, that's all.

Coming off that idea - a subtler way of putting the message could be to start off by talking about other (completely different) things that people don't want near them. Imagine someone built a sewage farm next to your house, for example. Once you've conveyed the idea, with suitable ickiness, then you can switch in the idea of a disabled family moving in next door instead. The juxtaposition, done well, would carry your message in one shock punch, rather than the slow, ratcheting of discomfiture of the first approach. If you do go for the shock message, spring it late and cut the piece to a quick end. Don't make the mistake of explaining just what you meant in the following sentences, because you'll dissipate your impact. Leave the (hopefully reeling) reader to gnaw on their own guilt.

You say you are interested to talk about hate crime (by implication, rather than background prejudice). By extension of the ideas above, you might want to keep the hate crime element till late in the piece. I would talk about institutional discrimination first, because you trying to make points that most people find it rather difficult to relate to (for the reasons of squeamishness already given). Give them all the context you can - and most important a reason to believe that they owe you support. Some thug who tips over a wheelchair has nothing to do with your reader, not unless you instil the disturbing idea that the reader's detachment might somehow implicitly condone such behaviour.

It's up to you whether you paint yourself as observer or victim. Think about the distinction, and the differences in presentation it permits.

If you choose victim, don't whine. That never gets anyone on your side. Good victim accounts seldom read as a demand for justice or as a rant. Short sentences are often effective, suggesting that it isn't easy for the writer to relate these experiences. Try to convey feelings as much as, perhaps more than, facts. Don't dwell on them, though. Suggest them, and move on. Minimal and tight, with a tinge of nervousness is good.

If you choose observer, don't be judgemental, but do be graphic. This time it's facts, not feelings. The secret is to make the reader paint the other half of the picture, even when he really rather wouldn't. Think about the effectiveness of switching the context, too. A piece that starts from an observer perspective and switches to victim, maybe going third person to first, could be very powerful in your context. A related point is how and whether to introduce your own disability.

Did you see a recent piece in the UnderGuide about MS? You can search it out under its title "Slippery When Wet". I'm not saying you should copy the style (it's a little obscure as well as slightly off-topic) but as a piece of writing that takes some of these ideas to the next level, it's very well worth reading.

On what you've written here - well, it's not much. You really haven't started yet, except to tell people what you're trying to do. When you do start proper, remember that you have a world-wide audience. Only a tiny subset could possibly have seen that ad. And lose the multiple punctuation - it makes you sound hysterical, and this message is one that needs steady and sober delivery.

And on the final point of how to publicise it, well that's the hardest thing of all. Some friends who wanted to advocate a heartfelt cause succeeded in getting a personal piece into a national newspaper by including a manuscript along with a letter to the editor on the same subject. As they pointed out, even if the editor doesn't like the article, he'll probably be more inclined to publish the letter - which is something for the cause, after all. I stowed the idea away, in case I ever had cause to resort to it. Seems you might.

Good luck. It's never easy writing, and hardest of all when you really care. But you can do it.

Pin

Dee,

If you ask for feedback, be prepared to wear your thick-skin suit. You may get nothing but support on some subjects, and anything but on others. That said, I could probably support the message you are trying to send, but often play the devil's advocate in order to help writers clarify their positions.

As Pin suggested, there's not much here as of yet. Some solid examples would be a start at describing the problem.

You may, for instance, be talking about primarily building and facilities 'access' issues; or perhaps civility in public problems like ridicule, pointing, jokes, etc. You could be talking about people who would trip someone on crutches, but we'd never know from what you wrote.

Writers often have all sorts of things in their mind when they start. Your first job is to realize that nobody else can see all those great and important thoughts until you put them into words.

I cannot think of an instance where ANYBODY claimed that the 'physically and mentally disabled people' have no feelings or fears. That certainly requires elaboration.

But more importantly, on the matter of 'rights', you need to explain what 'rights' are being denied them. Are you talking extra or additional rights because of their handicaps?

Rights tend not to be based on the individual, but on the group. Individual rights stem from the rights of the group. If the group is meant to have access to a government building, then all individuals should be able to enter it freely. If the group has access to public restrooms, they must be designed and built to accomodate any individual capable of getting to them.

Now, if you are talking extra rights, you have a harder case to prove. Some limitations are placed because of safety issues, by which I mean liability issues. You may have to install elevators for wheelchair users, but they don't have a right to insist on using an escalator which would put them and other riders at risk. (Frankly, they shouldn't want to, but some people get weird about any limitations).

Amusement park rides often have signs saying 'You must be THIS TALL to ride'. Little people may want to ride, and they are adult enough to make their own decisions, but some rides are dangerous if you are either too short OR too tall. They cannot all be designed to operate outside the 95% percentile.

An example of an unreasonable demand might be that all newspapers come equipped with optical readers with voice output for the blind. Given the percentage of the blind, it is unreasonable to insist that ALL newspapers be expensively equipped on the chance that a blind person would be the one to get that copy.

The subject matter is worthwhile, but as Ricky Ricardo says 'You got some splainin to do'.

First of all thanks to both of you for your help and advice, I've only ever written one article for publication and it was only for the newsletter circulated by F.M.S.N.I., of which both my husband and I are founder members. I was not given any special treatment, my article was submitted & selected for publication in the usual manner, however I was the only member of our group at that time to have gone against medical advice so that I could have a family.

The over-riding emotions behind my attempts to draw attention to this topic are taken from personal experiences as well as those involved in my attempts to help other disabled people. I had always "worked quietly in the background" until the day my husband was attacked & beaten into temporary paralysis by a neighbour for no apparent reason other than that at the age of 37,we have both been disabled since 1991 and are both now retired from the Civil Service on medical grounds.

However I would like to approach this task on a broader base as these "hate crimes" are, as you have said, not the only means by which alledgedly normal people exercise their opinions of disabilities in general. I was hoping that if I could refine my work with the help of this community that I might stand a better chance of being published in a wider media circle. The idea of sending a letter with any manuscript is a good one and is something I will keep in mind but as I am only a beginner, it will probably be some time before I venture down that path. Your ideas have given me a lot of food for thought and I will be attempting a first draft over the next few weeks.

Again, thank you for your help so far,

Dee

Good luck, Dee
If you post a draft and mention it in this thread, then I'll give what help I can
Pin