The G20 Summit

(ORIGINALLY WRITTEN JUNE 28, 2010)

This was actually the first blog entry I wrote under the "And I Am The One Called Disabled".  Fitting honories for the inaugural "And I Am The One Called Disabled" were the organizers of the 2010 G20 summit. 

First off, downtown Toronto was an extremely poor choice of where to hold it.  As a general rule of thumb, if you want many people to attend an event, you would do it in a central location, with easy access.  If you do not want people attending, maybe you should do it in a more remote location?  It was interesting that when rioting started on Saturday, the police closed the subway lines in downtown.  Why not do it somewhere where there are no subways?

This brings me to a second point.  $19 million for a fake lake?  I have to admit my high school geography is a little rusty, but last time I checked, we had quite a few bodies of water in this country.  So here is a way to cover off both points.  Find a nice resort, next to a lake, in a remote area.  Close it off for the time of the G20 and compensate the owners accordingly.  This would be a lot less disruptive and easier to manage.

Then there are the protestors.  Given that many people protesting the G20 are opposed to big business and capitalism, among other issues, doing the summit in the financial capital of Canada was probably not a good idea.  The only way to have given protestors a better target would have been to hang the CEO of BP by his feet like a giant piniata and let people throw things at him.  Doing it in a remote area would limit the number of people who would come, which also raises the question if the location should be disclosed, or only disclosed to media covering the event.  While I realzie there are those who would say that this violates the principles of transparency and accountability, how much accountability do we really have from the leaders now?  We basically can march, and speak, but do we change or influence anything?

An interesting comment in one article I read about the rioting on Saturday was that there are those that feel they need to protest and make noise in order to be heard by the leaders.  While I do not condone the use of violence, I would suggest this is a sad state of affairs if our elected leaders can only hear us when there are protests.  I believe that perhaps the solution is to have some time at these summits dedicated to interested parties to come and question the leaders.  I am not talking about having President Obama and Prime Minister Harper sitting down with Bono to talk about the environment or aid for Africa, but to have average citizens be given the opportunity to present their concerns...and have their questions answered.  If security is an issue, then perhaps do it over the internet, as a sort of webinar.  Have the leaders on camera and they need to answer questions presented by the people they are elected to represent.

I think my favorite part of the G20 summit is what came out of it.  The G20 countries have agreed to reduce their deficits.  So essentially, all that effort, to come out with a basic economic principle of do not spend more than you bring in.  And it only cost us $19 million for a fake lake, and I do not even know how much in security, and compensation to people who lost business, or had their stores damaged.

Like I said...and I am the one called disabled.

Government sponsored prostitution

(ORIGINALLY WRITTEN JUNE 19, 2010.)

While I was working on a recent article on relationships, and dating for people with disabilities for my column in Exceptional Family magazine, I remembered a documentary I had seen about a program in Denmark, where the government has a program to pay for prostitutes for people with disabilities.  (And Obama thought he was impressive getting his health bill passed.  Let's see him get prostitutes!!)  While a family magazine is not an ideal forum to discuss prostitution, I figured the 'Sex, irrespective of disability' campaign would be a great topic for a first blog.

Now, being male, my first reaction was "Damn...I live in the wrong country."  However, as I stop to think about it, perhaps this program is not as good as it sounds.  Needless to say, the program has created a lot of controversy.  One government opposition official commented that it is wrong to be spending tax money on paying prostitutes for sex with people with disabilities, when so much money is spent on trying to get women off of prostitution.  Putting aside the issue of getting women off of prostitution, what about the person with the disability?  While this may satisfy the physical urge, what about letting the person with a disability experience the emotional connection of a relationship?  As a matter of fact, the documentary I had seen commented on the fact that a problem that arises with this program is that the person with the disability develops an attachment to their sex worker, who of course sees him simply as a client. 

In defending the program, Stig Langvad of Denmark's Disabled Association said the politicians critical of the plan are showing "double standards". He said: "The disabled must have the same possibilities as other people. Politicians can debate whether prostitution should be allowed in general, instead of preventing only the disabled from having access to it."  I can't help but think is having access to prostitutes really the biggest issue people with disabilities face?  Would it not be better to educate people and integrate people with disabilities into society more, so that they could interact and date people in a healthy loving relationship, and experience the joy of an emotional connection?  That would be the way to ensure that people with disabilities can truly be treated equal in the romance game.

When common sense needs to supersede rules

Over the last week, I have heard two stories that definitely proves that sometimes, common sense needs to supersede the rules.

The first one was an incident at a Ontario Minor Hocley Association.  A 16 year old player by the name of Andrew McCullum got into an argument with one of the opposing players.  As they were sitting in the penalty box, they continued arguing and the opposing player called Andrew the N-word.  While the opposing player was initially benched for the racial slur, he later returned to the game.  Upset that the player returned and there was no apology from the player or the opposing coach, Andrew's coach pulled his team off the ice and refused to continue playing.  As a result of this action, Andrew's coach, Greg Walsh, is now not allowed to coach until a hearing is held to determine how long he will be suspended for, because under Hockey Canada rules, any official responsible for having his team leave the ice and not return is subject to a suspension of up to one year. 

What happened to the opposing player and his coaches?  They were each suspended for three games.

Should we not expect coaches to teach their young players good values?  Mr. Walsh took a stand against racism, something which has no business being in our society, let alone in a junior hockey game.  Common sense would dictate the opposing player and coaches should face a stiffer penalty, regardless of what the rule book says.

The next example of when common sense should have been used was an incident on an Ottawa bus.  OC Transpo has a policy to give priority seating to a person with a disability.  That is nice.  The only issue is that the driver decided to kick a woman and her newborn baby off the bus because he could not fit the stroller and wheelchair.  While I agree that accomodations should be made to allow a person with a disability to take public transport, someone else should not be kicked off in order to make room for them, especially someone with a newborn baby.  This is not like a shopping centre where people are asked to give priority on the elevator to people in a wheelchair or carriages.  In a shopping centre, people can take the escalator or stairs.  On a bus, they have to wait for the next one.  If someone is already on the bus, they should not have to get off.  With a little common sense and shuffling, I am sure everyone could have been accomodated.

A little common sense can go a long way...certainly farther then blindly following a rule book.