On Voting

Only a few more days to go until Canadians go to the polls and cast their ballot for the candidate of their choice - the one of whichever party best reflects their own interests and will make decisions on their behalf for the next four years. I however will not be among them. There was a time when I did vote, and it was usually for whatever NDP candidate was in my riding. In fact, I even donated money to the federal NDP and once even actively helped out with one candidates election campaign. And I still think that of all the mainstream parties, they're the ones whose election platform most closely matches my own beliefs. But the federal NDP, if history is any indicator, is unlikely to ever obtain power at the national level. In Canada, it's always been the Liberals and (some incarnation of) the conservatives.

It's been said that you only get out of democracy what you put into it. This is true - to a certain extent.

But I think the people who most often say this and similar cliches think voting is the be-all-and-end-all of the democratic process.

A lot of people have become disillusioned with the political system and for good reason

Here in Canada, we've had abysmal voter turn out at both federal and provincial elections in recent years. I think voter turn out in the last federal election was around 60%. This kind of apathy is all too prevalent. But one of my biggest peeves have come from some people who do vote but harshly criticize others who express cynicism and don't see any point in voting at all. These voters often have a self-righteous, holier-than-thou-attitude towards the cynics and will typically say something like "you should be ashamed...soldiers gave their lives in two world wars to protect your right to vote and if everyone had your attitude, we'd be much worse of...blah...blah...blah...." The irony of it is that it's these self-righteous types are often every bit as responsible for the sad state of democracy. They've somehow got it into their heads that all they have to do is show up at a polling station every four years, put a little 'X' on a ballot and think they've done their democratic duty and their job is done...until next election.

First off, yes it is true that Canadian soldiers (as well as those of from American, Britain and Australia and other allies) gave their lives to protect freedom and democracy - and the various rights that go along with it. Voting is certainly among them. But there are other ones which I would argue are equally valuable. Like the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, the right to not talk to nosey busy-body cops and not have to answer their asinine questions. The fact that cops can't come barging into my place any time they feel like it. Because we don't yet live in a police state. I think we're moving closer in that direction though, but that's neither here nor there.

Ghandi once famously said "be the change you want to see in the world". I agree. There are lots of other alternatives for changing the status quo than by going to the ballot box. For me it's grass roots organizations, particularly at the local level, attending rallies and demonstrations and of course using the written and spoken word to persuade others. These are my preferred methods for helping facilitate change.

I harbour no antipathy to those who do vote and think it's important to do so. I have only two things to say to these people - have no illusions and whoever wins on October 21st, I just hope it's not Andrew Scheer. We're totally fucked if it is.

Ramp Up, Smarten Up

It's always nice to read some good news for a change; as I did when I opened today's Metro (one of Toronto's free dailies) and read of a campaign to increase the number of accessible ramps in buildings, not just in Toronto but across the province.

The Ramp Up 2016 campaign launching Thursday is a new collaboration between the StopGap Foundation and 24 local visual artists. Its main objective is to bring more accessibility to an additional 15 communities throughout the province.

“We continue to raise awareness about barriers in our communities that prevent so many of us from entering spaces we desire,” said the charity’s founder and accessibility advocate Luke Anderson.

The artists volunteered their time to paint different existing ramps, producing different works of art that will be auctioned off to help fund the campaign.

Through his foundation, Anderson has led efforts to create custom-designed ramps that are placed on single or multiple-step storefronts to increase accessibility in the city. These ramps are temporarily deployable, which gives users an option to remove them when they’re not needed.

Since the project launched about five years ago, over 800 ramps have been distributed all over the country – more than half of them in Toronto.

Anderson said the campaign isn’t just about handing out ramps to communities, but especially about educating business owners on the importance of having accessible spaces.

“We show them that without a ramp, they are missing out on a big customer base,” he said.The campaign also aims to show it’s not just people in wheelchairs who may have issues with steps, but also parents pushing strollers, people doing delivery and many others who may need accessible entryway, said Anderson.

“To not allow someone equal access to a space is actually an encroachment on our human rights,” he said.

The Ramp Up 2016 campaign kicks off Thursday at 100 Broadview, 7p.m. 

Anit-Authoritarian as a Virtue

“The only way to deal with an unfree world is to become
so absolutely free that your very existence is an act
of rebellion.”

- Albert Camus

"You know what your problem is, Niall? You have a problem with authority; with someone telling you what to do."

I've been told that on more than one occasion, and by more than one person over the years. Which I guess is why I was mildly amused when I learned that something similar was once said to Albert Einstein by one  of his professors "You have but one fault; no one can tell you anything."

A lot of people have also made the observation that I'm very bright and intelligent. However I think it's fair to say that my IQ still falls short of Einstein's

But about being anti-authority, I admit it's true. But to them, I might make the following observation "You say anti-authority like it's a bad thing." And it IS a bad thing -- for a lot of people. But not
necessarily for the reasons they would have you believe. Our society stigmatizes and ascribes pathology to anti-authoritarians in many ways. A lot of the time this takes the form of labeling and good old fashioned shaming will do. I'm no stranger to this; after all I've experienced it firsthand.

So you can imagine, it was with great interest that I read some of the work of American psychologist, Bruce E. Levine, Ph.D and self-professed anti-authoritarian. He notes that over the course of his career, he has dealt with many people who had been diagnosed by other professionals as having ADHD, ODD, GAD as well as other psychiatric problems.

According to Levine:

"Anti-authoritarians question whether an authority is a legitimate one before taking that authority seriously. Evaluating the legitimacy of authorities includes assessing whether or not authorities actually know what they are talking about, are honest, and care about those people who are respecting their authority. And when anti-authoritarians assess an authority to be illegitimate, they challenge and resist that authority"  1

On the subject of why anti-authoritarians seem so few in number, he proposes the follwing hypothesis:

"One reason could be that many natural anti-authoritarians are now psychopathologized and medicated before they achieve political consciousness of society’s most oppressive authorities."

I remember reading the novel One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest for the first time during my senior year in high school. Randall Patrick McMurphy was the protagonist, though as far as Nurse Ratched and  most of the hospital staff were concerned, he was no hero. He was a threat to the establishment; a threat that needed to be dealt with. And those of you familiar with the story know what ultimately happened to him.

Falling On Deaf Ears, Slapping Them In The Face

By now you've heard about the bogus sign language interpreter at the Nelson Mandela memorial -- the one who just got up there and started signing in gibberesh. Naturally this raises a few questions such as How could this have happened? Who is responsible? Either whoever appointed this guy as interpreter either didn't check his background or said person(s) knew he wasn't qualified and decided it didn't matter because...well...no one would really notice, right?

At least no one of importance would notice.

Braille Fail

Acknowledgement to fellow disability blogger Bad Cripple for source for today's entry; on how Conservative MPs screw up with fake braille

And one of the original articles, as reported in the Toronto Star.


I'll just give a quick executive summary. The Conservative party most recent initiative, which I presume was an attempt to court the vote of the differently abled and their allies, took the form of a mass mailout of a flyer stressing their commitment to ensuring equality of access and full participation in the workforce of Canadians with disabilities.  What the non-braille text of the flyer states:

“Our government has been determined to help remove barriers for those who are excluded from the workforce. Our long-term prosperity depends on an inclusive workforce that utilizes the skills of all citizens.”

Now maybe it's the jaded cynic in me, coupled with an inherent distrust of Harper and the Cons talking when I say that this strikes me as a more polite, tactful way of saying something like "All you  lazy, good-for-nothing fakers who only like to call yourselves disabled when we know you're not need to get of your lazy asses and to stop bilking the government and the taxpayer by feeding from the state trough"

Now some of you read this and say "Oh, Niall. That's very harsh and unfair. Why can't you just give them the benefit of the doubt and take what they say at face value instead of jumping to conclusions?"

I'll tell you why; Because this isn't just an honest mistake. It could easily have been avoided had they taken more care. The stupidity would be laughable if it weren't an insult to so many of us. Braille is supposed to be textured, so whatever is written can be understood by one who can read braille merely by running one's fingertips across it. Otherwise it's just dots on a page.

If there's ANY good side to this fiasco, I would think that at the very least, it should send a message loud and clear to the electorate. That they are all about keeping up appearances

Here's what their next initiative will probably be. They'll start launching a regular podcast to keep deaf and hard of hearing Canadians informed off all the great things they're doing for them. Just imagine the numbers of hearing impaired people will tune in and listen!

It just doesn't get more innovative than that, folks.

Thoughts From a Spiteful, Callous Nitpicker.

This is something I did not particularly WANT to write. It's my criticism of an article about the heartbreaking, gut-wrenching, tragedy of Rehtaeh Parsons, the 17 year old girl from Nova Scotia who was raped by four boys. This crime was photographed and distributed and Parsons endured an unimaginable onslaught of torment, slut-shaming and victim blaming; all of which drove her to take her own life. No human being with any semblance of a conscience could be anything but saddened and enraged by this whole sordid and devastating story.

It's awful enough as it is, which is why I was reticent to criticize an article over at rabble.ca written by Maya Shlayen , a self-identified feminist and journalism student at Ryerson University who was actually taking the time to point out something that often gets overlooked or glossed over in most reports pertaining to this case. That for all the talk about bullying and teen suicide, the horrible events inflicted on Parsons were very much a product of a pervasive misogyny and rape culture. In fact, she sums it up very well in this paragraph (and the last two sentences):

"Unfortunately, all of the discussions about the story so far have focused on "bullying," as if Rehtaeh's story is about playground squabbling; as if what happened to her could have happened to anyone. In reality, her story had a lot to do with being female in a patriarchal society. Rehtaeh was killed by misogyny.  "

But whoa...wait a minute. Let's backtrack for a second and have a look at this sentence again:

"[A]ll of the discussions about the story so far have focused on "bullying," as if Rehtaeh's story is about playground squabbling;"

"Playground squabbling" !?

Maybe my working definition of what this is differs from most people, but when I hear this phrase it makes me think of things like the following: an argument over who takes turns in a game, or whose turn it is to be 'it' in a game of tag, who said what to whom and why and why so-and-so is no longer friends with such person etc, why someone doesn't share their candy, or why they give more to one child than another etc. That's what playground squabbling is to me.

Bullying, on the other hand, refers acts of intimidation, domination - strong preying on the weak. This can vary in it's severity to being somewhat upsetting to acts that are deadly, criminal and can include murder; acts that can have lifelong repercussions. Playground squabbling is something most kids grow out of by junior high school. Bullying persists into high school and can be pretty fucking scary

There's an appreciable difference between the two and Shlayen does a huge disservice to the victims of bullying and its consquences by conflating these two thus minimizing the real and serious negative impacts bullying has.

But it doesn't stop there. She also demonstrates a very cavalier attitude towards male victims of rape and sexual assault. Nowhere is this more clear than when she points out:

"Even when men or boys are raped, they are usually raped by other men;"

For the moment, let's ignore the fact that what IS known about male victims of rape and sexual assault is limited, because rape is an under-reported crime. But let for the moment, let's just focus on Shlayen's assertion - that male rape victims are usually victimized at the hands of another man. My response to this is...SO FUCKING WHAT!?! Rape is a horrible, traumatic crime committed by one human being against another that can leave emotional and psychological scars for life. Does it REALLY make one iota of difference to the victim whether or not their assailant had the same genitalia or not?

She also says that male rape victims are more readily believed and the proof she offers for this assertion is the Roman Catholic Church's scandal in which sexual abuse of children

"Male victims of rape are also more likely to be believed; their injury is more likely to be perceived as a real violation of who they are and what they are worth. The ongoing sexual abuses in the Church, for example, have sparked outrage and brought many of us to act primarily because it is one of the few cases where most of the victims are boys. "

Now maybe I'm wrong about this. Maybe this is a matter of conjecture and opinion. But it was my understanding that the sex abuse scandals of the RCC sparked outrage because they had been covered up for so long, the higher ups in the church and Vatican knew it was going on and went to great lengths to cover it up. And the RCC was for the longest time a revered and trusted institution in many communities and for it to have gone on for so long and kept secret...I thought it was that which caused the outrage. Her argument here is questionable at best, offensive at worst.

I know I may very well catch some flak for writing this article. And I'm prepared to deal with that. Some may say that what happened to Parsons is so terrible and that Shlayen's article was only pointing out a too often ignored reality about the girl's story and countless others like it; and that my criticism of what Shlayen wrote is nitpicking; not to mention petty as well as spiteful and callous.I don't agree and that was not my intent. I wanted to make this crystal clear from the outset. By all means we should take violence against women and girls very seriously - and point out something that needs to be. But it's never OK to throw others under the bus and minimize the suffering of other victims to do so. And it's entirely unnecessary.

Autism and I.T - Some Good News

If you belong on the autism spectrum, or know someone who does, then you'll probably want to read this.

From the article: 

The job hunt is complicated enough for most high school and college graduates and even tougher for the growing number of young people on the autism spectrum. Despite the obstacles that people with autism face trying to find work, there's a natural landing place: the tech industry.

Also from the article:

Dr. Patricia Evans, a neurologist at Children's Medical Center in Dallas, says people on the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum often have an amazing ability to hyper-focus on a task.

A feature of people on the Autism spectrum is that they don't always get along well with others and don't behave according neuro-typical standards of what's "appropriate" in work or social setting. But Dr.Evans says they can thrive in engineering or computer design tasks, since these jobs typical require only minimal contact with people.

However, here are also some unpleasant facts:

Although symptoms and their severity vary widely, the majority of young adults with autism spectrum disorder won't make it to college and won't get a job after they graduate. This year alone, 50,000 adolescents with autism will turn 18.

I don't expect these figures to change much anytime soon. This article is of course based on facts and figures from the U.S. But I'd imagine the stats on this in Canada, Australia, UK and other developed nations would be proportionate and not too different.

I'd be happy to be proven wrong, though.

SlutWalks, Rape Apologism and False Analogies

This is for all you rape apologists out there.

No need to say names, you know who you are. Or at least you should. But even if you don't, there are plenty of us who do, as it's not that hard to identify you. You're the ones who, upon hearing the details of a rape and how he (and let's be honest -- it usually is a guy) did it, you agree that it was bad and wrong for the victim to have to experience that. However you go on to say something like "Well I don't mean to justify what that guy did, but..."

Normally I try not to engage in dialogue with misogynistic assholes like you. Your attitudes and beliefs on the subject of rape make you little more than a relic of the dark ages in my eyes. However today I’m going to make an exception and use this space to try and explain to you why your logic and reasoning on this subject are, as they say  internet land, “full of fail”

Specifically, I’m referring to your specious analogies of comparing rape victims/survivors to people who have been targeted by some less serious crime like theft. Whenever someone calls you on your victim blaming bullshit, tells you that you're basically a rape apologist and an asshole, you vehmently deny this and try to explain your point of view; very often making comparisons to seemingly similar (to you). Which is fine except for the fact that  the parallels and comparisons you make are not analagous. Like this one: you tell us about hypothetical man who drives his Ferrari into a neighbourhood notorious for high crime. He parks it and gets out and is noticed by others to be wearing an Armani suit, and counting huge wads of cash in large bills while walking. He takes a shortcut down a dark alley and is followed, beaten to a pulp and robbed. If he's lucky enough to still be alive, he goes back to his Ferrari only to find it's not there. It's been hotwired and stolen. Or at the very least stripped down to a bare skeleton with all the part probably being sold on craigslist or auctioned on eBay.

Or alternately instead of displaying wealth openly, he draws attention to himself in another way. Maybe he's a white supremacist who dresses up as Hitler or a Klansman who walks into a huge crowd of people of colour, holding a placard saying "All n**gers must die" and shouting white power slogans at the top of his lungs. Well he has a legal right to do that doesn't he? He's just exercising his right to free speech, after all. Sure. But nobody is really surprised when he gets his ass kicked.

Likewise, you explain, a young woman who goes to a fraternity party, wearing a short skirt and a low cut top, flirts with the guys and has let’s say more than ‘a few’ drinks. Some dude sees her intoxicated state and uses this to ‘score some pussy’ and forces himself on her. Even though drunk, she’s aware of what’s happening and says “NO” or “STOP”, but he’s heavier than her and she’s drunk so there’s not much else she can do to stop it. Or she doesn't say anything at all. She doesn't say 'no' due to not fully comprehending her surroundings. Or if she’s actually passed out and unconscious maybe because of the number of drinks she had, or the roofie that was slipedd into one of them some time earlier. Too bad, you say. Or 'she was asking for it' by putting herself in such a situation. Just like the guy walking down a dark alley in a high crime neighbourhood, or stapling $100 bills to his clothes, right?

But explain something to me; Why would anyone stroll through a street in a high crime neighbourhood wearing an expensive suit and openly displaying obvious signs of wealth? Assuming no mental illness or some bizarre and poorly planned experiment, I can't think of a good reason for this. The same with someone who incites racial hatred to an audience comprised entirely of those people he has contempt for. Why would someone do this? Upon the absence of any rational, sensible explanation you realize just how far fetched these scenarios are.

But I think of several reasons why a woman would go to a fraternity, dress alluringly, flirt and imbibe on alcohol or other mind altering substances. This is normal and routine. Maybe she wants to attract someone. Just not you. Maybe she just wants to be admired. Maybe flirt a little; because it's fun y'know. And it doesn't always have to be a prelude to fucking, even though one or both parties involved might secretly acknowledge that the other is sexually attractive. Alcohol is a regular feature at these things. Unlike diamond or suit guy, she's not doing anything out of the ordinary - that scores of other people don't do every day.  Fortunately, as unsettling high as date/acquaintance rape statistics are, I think we can safely surmise that these crimes represent only a small fraction of outcomes. In other words, for every woman who is raped in one of these scenarios, there are probably another 20 that don't end this way. What does that tell us? It tells us that this is a normal ritual. It's a normal part of college life for young people. It's a normal part of being single. So is getting blitzed on occasion. Sure it's not always smart (especially if you plan on getting behind the wheel of a car), but it happens. And at party scenarios sex often happens to and alcohol may or may not be involved

So going to a party, consuming alcohol, dressing alluringly, flirting are neither bizzarre or stupid things to do. They are not on par with the situations you describe. And let's be honest - the fact that you have to come up with these ludicrous, highly unlikely situations only further serves to illustrate you are defending the indefensible.  In short, you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem.  And you're a douchebag to boot.

National Day to eliminate Racism

For those that don't know (I didn't until earlier this week), March 21st, 2013 is the designated date for the elimination of racism.

For people who are regular and active participants in the activism / social justice arena, thinking about racism and white privilege is something that comes up a lot; mostly from people of colour who far too often have to call out their privileged white "allies" who in turn often deny and get defensive when told they have said something insensitive to POC when it comes to. When it comes to unpacking what Peggy McIntosh calls "The Invisible Backpack" of  white privilege (or any other privilege for that matter) if you're a member of the privileged group, this isn't easy at first. For the most part, this is due to denial, misunderstanding and misinterpretation about what's being said. I'll readily admit that admit that I'm one of these white folks who had to do a lot of learning and listening
before I felt comfortable with it. It was the same for all my other privilege cards - male, heterosexual, and cisgender - as well.

But maybe for those of you who don't regularly do such things, maybe today might be a good day for you to try take in a few things about racism. Here's a few tips

1. When someone (especially a person of colour) tells you something you said or did was racist, listen to them. Don't get defensive, deny or get angry. I know this can sometimes be easier said than done. Particularly if you're not used to being confronted. But this is crucial if you want to narrow gaps or build bridges. And don't forget that a sincere apology can go a long way.  I emphasize the word 'sincere' because someone often thinks that intent is all that matters and that if they didn't mean to offend them, then they don't have to apologize. What matters is the effect. Intentions are irrelevant. The same as if you accidentally step on someone's toe. You didn't mean to do it, but that doesn't negate the fact that you still caused that person pain and were responsible for it.

2. This scenario will probably be familiar to many of you; particularly whites. Let's say someone accuses you of being racist and your typical knee jerk reaction is to say "I'm not racist...I have ________ friends!" and you wonder why this doesn't impress them, here's why: statements like these show a lack of understanding how racism works. Racism is a set of ideas about what kind of people POC are. These ideas often operate on a subconscious level

3. When you hear someone else say something racist or offensive and insensitive, call them on it. Let them no, in no ambiguous terms, that you don't agree or appreciate what they just said.

4. Recognize that racism comes in different forms

5. Racism is NOT a feature of human nature. In fact, the whole idea of systemic oppression and inferiority based on a person's skin colour, is a relatively new development in terms of overall human history

On Frustration and Being a Disabled Activist

I came across this excellent two-part piece by Krystalline Kraus, a regular columnist over at rabble.ca. This one's a bit different from most of her writings in that it centers largely around her personal experience as both an activist and a person with a disability. The first part can be read here, the second part here.

The first part details her experience as an activist and the seeming apathy and indifference of her fellow progressives. I'm sure they don't mean any harm, but that still doesn't negate the negative effects and further marginalization and erasure of PWD within the very community which should know better.

Part 2 recounts her experience as a journalist at demonstrations and more specifically, her treatment at the hands of the Toronto Police. Not too surprising. Then again this is the same police force that violated peoples rights and civil liberties at the G20 and also produced a high ranking officer who's advice on how women can avoid being raped is for them to not dress like sluts.

When Push Comes to Shove

As I sat down in front of the computer with a cup of coffee to skim the news,  this article was one the very first one I had the misfortune of reading. The article contains a link to a video, but videos at Yahoo! don't always load and play as they should. So I've linked to the same video at YouTube.

You can see it clearly... three big burly cops, walking alongside each other, in a big swaggering macho fashion taking up much of the space on the sidewalk. A young woman with an obvious physical disability is walking in the opposite direction, trying to navigate around them. The cops can see this well in advance. They make no attempt to move out of her way, even though her mobility is obviously impaired. But that doesn't stop one of them from offering a helping hand - by giving her a big 'ol shove out of his way, and sending her to the ground before continuing on his way with his buddies. A passerby rushes to the woman's aid. I wonder why those cops seemed in such a hurry to get away from the scene Maybe they were in a hurry to to get to the donut shop while the bavarian cream, jelly filled and honey glazed crullers were still plentiful.

I wish I could say I was shocked by this video, but I'm not. Angry and saddened, yes. But not surprised as I've seen too many videos and read too many news stories like this one to the point that when it comes to police misconduct, I don't think there's much that would surprise me any more. But I'm not desensitized to them either. And it's certainly not going to discourage me from speaking my mind about them because people need to be more aware (as more and more are) about the magnitude of the problem of police brutality. Look, I don't hate cops. Hate is a pretty strong word so it's not one I'm going to use indiscriminately. So while I don't necessarily hate them, I think it would be fair to say that I don't trust them. And more people don't these days, and not without good reason. And if you belong to a disadvantaged/marginalized group, that mistrust factor can only increase. People of colour - particularly young men of colour - know this all to well. And I'll bet if you asked people with mental illness or other disabilities, a lot of them could probably recount similar stories as well. I know I certainly had my share of encounters with cops, particularly when I was younger and I'd get stopped by them for no apparent reason and they'd start asking me questions - most likely because of the way I looked and walked. I looked odd spacey or like I was on drugs and being a young male in the 16-25 age group probably had something to do with it as well. And the naive and not very street saavy young dude I was, I answered all their questions. I had nothing to hide after all, so why not? Thankfully I'm a lot smarter now and if I do get stopped by cops now (which is less often than it used to be) I just politely and firmly tell them that I won't be answering their questions.

Look I'm not going to deny that there are good cops out there. Of course there are and I've met some of them. But for a number of reasons, the bad ones are just too many and the whole unspoken code of ethics (or lack thereof) in their departments, commonly known as "the blue wall of silence" - guaranteed to produce a consistent pattern of abuse and misconduct.

So maybe it would be fitting to end here with a quote from the article:

"The officer didn't like the fact that we used the word police brutality - he said things have changed,...[b]ut when you see that video, you know there is a lot of work to be done."

Yeah, no shit. I'd say that's putting it mildly. And I fear the whole institution of police may be past the point of reform anyway.

One way or another, there needs to be a change. Maybe it'll come, maybe not.

In the meantime, I guess cops are going to continue to push people around - literally and figuratively.

I Want YOU To Join us at RoundInSprials

I know the title of this entry would probably be far more effective if I could have used a PhotoShopped picture of that classic U.S army recruiting poster - you know, the one with Uncle Sam pointing right at you; except it would be ME pointing at you instead. That's right...I, along with my fellow members, want YOU to join us in this great grassroots online community experiment! Intrigued? Read on...

If you look at my (as of yet incomplete) blogroll list, you'll see it there. But unlike the others listed, it's not a blog. So what exactly is RoundInSpirals you ask? Well I'll try to be as brief as I can: It's a discussion forum - a grassroots one that has it's origins in the Yahoo! Answers groups. I started frequenting there in October 2008 and was immediately hooked. Mostly I read the Politics, Psychology, Sociology and Gender/Women's Studies sections. I asked a few questions and answered a lot more. I established my own reputation there and also got to know some of the other regular contributors better. These were for the most part very bright, intelligent people - even those whose opinions I didn't always agree with. But of course the Q&A format was very limiting and didn't allow for discussion. So I wondered if I contacted other regulars to see how they felt about setting up a private, membership by invitation only discussion forum. I posted a general question to see how others would feel and the responses were, for the most part, lukewarm at first. But then a few weeks later. A learned that one or two other regulars (whom I didn't know at that point) had the same idea I did. I contacted these two, introduced myself and said I had the same idea. From that point on everything happened so fast. There was a huge buzz of excitement and before we knew it, we sensed we were creating something greater than each one of us; something we know could have huge potential if done right. One of my contacts asked if I would like to help her and join the administration/moderation team, and I immediately accepted. She created a board using proboards software and we discussed who we would like to invite. The reason for this selectivity was because we had a huge concern about the varieties of trolls and other troublemakers from Y!A who we knew could really wreck what we were trying to achieve. And so by New Year's 2009, our new community was born and rapidly growing.

Now almost a year and a half later, we're still around with a good core membership. We've had the usual ups and downs that every discussion forum has. Some members have left, and out of 100+ registered members, there have been only two we've had to ban permanently. So on the whole it has been a modest success. However we've faced one challenge and that is trying to grow as a community. Like any other forum, we've had some attrition, but what we need to make up for that is for new people to join. Unfortunately, since we're a private community which relied on word of mouth for new members, recruiting new blood became increasingly difficult. We tried adding an open discussion forum which, unlike the other sections, was visible to the general public. The idea was that new posters would join in discussion and if they showed a good track record (ie; no trolling attacking others etc.)then we could make them full members. But the only people who took advantage of it were some of the very same destructive trouble makers we wanted to keep out in the first place. It soon became apparent that we had to try something else and closed the open board. That's when two other members came up with an innovative solution. With the use of phbb software, they designed an "offspring" community (and again invited me to help with moderation which I accepted. And specifically designed it so it would be more visible to a broader audience.

And thus RoundInSpirals was born. We're only a few months old and off to a great start. But we could always use more members.

And that, dear readers of bloglandia, is where you come in.

We want you to come join us. If you're reading this right now, chances are that you are a politically and socially conscious person...and likely very intelligent too.(OK I'll stop with the sucking up and boot-licking now!)Just the sort of person we want. While a significant number of our membership could be described as liberal, progressive, politically left-leaning, people of all affiliations are welcome. I mean, it would soon start to sound like an echo chamber and get boring quickly if we all agreed on everything.

So c'mon....stop by and visit us. Join in on the discussion. Sure the internet is full of political, philosophical and social justice forums. But there's always room for one more. And with you're help, we can make it into something even bigger than it is right now. And we would love to have you be a part of it.

That's right...we want YOU!

A PSA on the use of 'retarded'

I know that as of yet, I haven't really introduced myself. Or talked about the nature of my own disabilities. So with this entry, I'm going to try kill two birds with one stone; I'm going to write about the latter while at the same time venting about something related that I've always had a huge bug up my ass about.

If you've been keeping up to date with issues that keep arising in the small but rapidly growing disability issues blogs, then you may have noticed some seem to come up more frequently than others. One is the use of ableist language and the role it plays in perpetuating the oppression of PWD. Certain terms are 'off limit's. And one among these is the word 'retarded'. Why? Because using it as in insult stigmatizes people with this condition and only reinforces a system of privilege and oppression.

But there's another reason I personally dislike the word retarded as pejorative. And that's the fact that many people using it in such a way really haven't the first fucking clue as to what it actually means.

Mental retardation -- according to wikipedia -- is defined as "a generalized disorder, characterized by significantly impaired cognitive functioning and deficits in two or more adaptive behaviors with onset before the age of 18. It has historically been defined as an Intelligence Quotient score under 70." The entry also notes that although at one time the definition "focused almost entirely on cognition, [it] now includes both a component relating to mental functioning and one relating to individuals' functional skills in their environment." So while the definition has broadened a bit as a result of better clinical understanding, it's still a very specific and limited definition. But that hasn't stopped a lot of willfully ignorant fucksticks from throwing the term around casually not only to use it as an insult, but somehow they've also got this notion that it's an appropriate term to assign to someone with ANY kind of disability. Not only have I seen it done to others, I know this all too well from my own personal experience.

I have more than one disability. At the age of three, I was diagnosed as having bengin congenital myopathy (or benign congenital hypotonia). In a nutshell it's a rare condition characterized primarily by weakness of muscles or lack of Type 2 muscle fibers. It's unlike muscular dystrophy in that it doesn't get progressively worse over time, and actually in many cases improves with the onset of puberty (as it did in my case). But it's a permanent and lifelong condition. I also have attention deficit disorder without hyperactivity. And I have also struggled with depression. The cumulative effect of having these conditions is that each one excaberates the other, thus impairing my overall functioning in a way more severely than just one of these conditions would in isolation. This meant I had a myriad of symptoms that manifested themselves. On was my eyelids, which often had a tired, droopy appearance.

"Are you retarded?" was a question I got asked very frequently, usually from my peers, and not in the pejorative sense, but asked as serious inquiry, albeit with undertones of othering, reminding me that there was something visibly different about me. These were invariably the same ones who would subject me to harassment and discrimination.

But it wasn't just me. As a teen, I also knew two other kids with visible disabilities. One had a mild form of cerebal palsy, the other one had a condition I can't remember the name of, but part of his symptomology was protruding eyeballs and some speech difficulties. In the eyes of many other kids, were "retarded". Their indiscriminate use of the word was a lot like their indiscriminate use of the racial slur 'Paki', to describe any person of colour from south Asia or the middle east. And it's not just kids or people who are simply uneducated. I've heard all manner of people using the term in this way.

Sometimes I don't know which is worse...using a legitimate word like retarded in an ableist, derogatory way or using it in earnest without really knowing what the fuck it means in the first place. Either way, to those of you reading whom this applies, I would like to ask a favour...

Stop. Doing. That. Shit - Seriously.

A few words about the banner/logo

I realize some of you might be intrigued and curious about the logo that's part of my banner. And then some of you might not give a rat's ass. But since this blog is my little corner of the internet, I'm gonna talk about it anyway. ;-)

Symbols, emblems, flags are fascinating in that they can evoke feelings of pride, anger, resistance and passion.

People have known this since time immemorial and incorporated them into their movements of resistance. Women have the universal Venus symbol denoting female (sometimes with a raised fist in the middle of the circle.) LGBT people have the pink triangle and the pride flag. And people of colour have had a variety of different emblems denoting their resistance. African-Americans have the fist of black power. First Nations people here in Canada have had various emblems denoting their resistance. And of course, the national flags of many third world countries started out as emblems of resistance against the colonial powers.

In short, they're a great way of saying "fuck you" to kyriarchy and the status quo.

So shouldn't PWD have one of their own? I don't know of one, but I think it's high time we did. So I designed one completely original. I know some of you might like it others might not. Why the wheelchair symbol, you may ask. Some may see that as being a bit too narrow, since that doesn't cover people with invisible disabilities and even for people with physical disabilities, many of them don't need wheelchairs. I thought about this, but in the end I decided the wheelchair was the one to go with because of its universal recognition for disability.

Constructive criticism is welcome.

The Grand Opening

And so this is it...

The debut of my new (and for that matter first) blog. I think the banner along with the title gives you some idea what this blog will mostly be about. I am a PWD. For those that don't know, that's an acronym for 'Person With a Disability, or 'People With Disabilities', if you're referring to the general PWD community.

That's right - 'community'.

If you've found your way here, chances are there's some of you who already identify as a PWD. And many of you probably are just as aware of something I've been for a while now; that compared to other oppressed/marginalized groups like women, people of colour, LGBT people, disability is far too often not acknowledged as a factor that determines one's status in society as a result of discrimination and inequality. I'll be writing a bit more about this in greater detail, but this article by Marta Russell does a good job of explaining what I'm taking about, and the greater implications for the PWD community:

To be fair, I do see small signs of this changing, but there's still a ways to go.

But I expect I'll also be blogging about the other 'isms' racism, sexism, classism, homophobia, transphobia and sizeism, as they naturally concern me as well. Of course, there's the whole issue of intersectionality as well. I'll also be writing about other miscellaneous subjects of interest as they come up. My job is to inform and educate, but I hope I learn more in the process too.