Tracy Latimer, disability rights & the Left (right, and center)
For disability-rights activists, the case of Tracy Latimer, murdered by her Saskatchewan father at the age of twelve, has been a long and painful affair. From the time of her murder in October, 1993 until the Supreme Court earlier this year upheld Robert Latimer's mandatory minimum sentence for second-degree murder, Canadians have been saturated by media coverage about the case. Few disability issues in recent memory have received such significant attention. Unfortunately, with few exceptions, it has consistently presented a biased picture and demonstrated profoundly disturbing attitudes towards people with disabilities. In effect, people with disabilities have been victimized twice: by the initial murder and, again, by the response of much of the community.
It should come as no surprise, then, that polls showed that a huge majority of the public thought that Robert Latimer was both justified in killing his daughter and received an unduly harsh sentence. Hundreds have marched in demonstrations in support of Robert Latimer. In some cases, protesters have carried signs saying "Latimer Did the Right Thing." The case is clearly of tremendous importance to people with disabilities: our very lives are at stake. Given the fact that the disability-rights movement is all but completely ignored by most on the social-movement Left, it is also vitally important that progressives have an adequate understanding of the case and its implications.
First, attention must be drawn to the question of perspective. When children without disabilities are murdered by their parents, such as the two sons of South Carolina mother Susan Smith, most of the media coverage focuses on the victimization of the children. In this case the media and the public immediately identified with Robert Latimer, notwithstanding his criminal acts. Clearly, for many, Tracy Latimer was not seen as a real child simply because she had a disability. For progressives, this should be problematic, as children with disabilities are among the most vulnerable of children and are far more likely to be physically and sexually abused. The very real need for better support services for parents of children with disabilities cannot in any way be used to excuse such abuse. Yet Tracy's perspective has largely been ignored.
Media Ignorance
This is all the more troubling because many Canadians clearly do not have a proper understanding of the basic facts of the case. An examination of public discussion websites such as those operated by CBC Newsworld or the letters to the editor of daily newspapers indicates a huge failure to comprehend the most elementary aspects of Tracy's life and the murder. Hence, we hear a litany of ignorant comments how cerebral palsy is a terminal illness (it is not) or about how much pain she was in (hotly contested). Of course, the average citizen was treated to a very biased media portrayal that constantly focused on Tracy's "severe" disabilities without placing it within the context of the tens of thousands of Canadian children and adults successfully living happy and productive lives with identical or more severe disabilities. In other words, the voices of people with disabilities were rarely heard and instead we were treated to insulting stereotypes.
Ironically, some of the most pro-Tracy coverage has appeared in publications of the Right, such as Alberta Report and B.C. Report, which included the views of disability-rights advocates. While they undoubtedly have their own motivations, it is troubling that progressives have failed to see Tracy's slaying as a conventional murder case. And it calls into question their commitment to equality rights for people with disabilities. In general, progressives who actually understood the facts have raised two further objections: that this was euthanasia or a mercy-killing and that, even if unjustified, Robert Latimer's sentence was far too severe. Let us examine these propositions in turn.
A Case of Mercy Killing?
Euthanasia, at least as it is understood today, is predicated on the notion that an adult gives informed consent after due consideration. The Sue Rodriguez case, itself highly controversial in the disability community because of concerns over the quality of the consent, might be seen as such an example. However, both the media and the public, including many progressives, have wrongly conflated the very different Latimer and Rodriguez situations. More absurdly, some leftists even confuse this with abortion rights even though Tracy was obviously no fetus. And this is without even considering the slippery slope argument: how questionable euthanasia practices in Nazi Germany in the 1930s grew so widespread that it led to the murder of hundreds of thousands of people with disabilities under the direction of medical doctors. While often forgotten, this in fact was the first stage in what would become the Holocaust.
Father Knows Best?
Yet, to return to the present, what is crystal-clear is that Tracy Latimer, a twelve-year-old child, never asked to be killed. Instead, those defending her murderer are presumptuously assuming that her life was not worth living, notwithstanding her attendance at school and her ability to play and enjoy life like any other twelve-year-old. And the fact of the matter is non-disabled parents are not always capable of accurately judging the quality of life of their children. For the Left to accept this dubious proposition is to concede to the most right-wing, "father knows best," family values rhetoric. After all, most progressives would instantly appreciate that many parents cannot understand their gay and lesbian teens. Why should it be any different for youth with disabilities? Similarly, medical and other health professionals have consistently underestimated the quality of life of people with disabilities, the Nazi extermination being only the most extreme example. The wrongful sterilization of many with disabilities in Alberta is another sad and notorious case. Without the consent of the person in question, it is purely reactionary to defend the action of a murderer. The fact that so many on the Left fail to see this suggests a very deep ableism that needs serious reflection.
Sentence Too Harsh?
The second objection raised by some on the Left is that while, yes, what Robert Latimer did was a crime, mandatory minimum sentencing results in an excessively harsh sentence. As anyone who has examined the disastrous American experience with the War on Drugs knows, mandatory minimum sentencing in general is deeply problematic. What may not be as clear to the general public is the fact that Robert Latimer already received considerable lenience in that he could easily have been charged with first-degree murder, a crime which, of course, carries a far lengthier penalty.
Furthermore, the question must be raised regarding the implications of demanding a constitutional exemption, a rarely used principle in Canadian law, when the murder victim had a disability. Given the prejudices in society towards people with disabilities, a shorter sentence could set a chilling precedent. As disability-rights activists have correctly argued, a shorter sentence would make it open season on disabled people. Disability researcher and academic Dick Sobsey has reported findings of a study of law students at the University of Alberta on attitudes towards sentencing that are very revealing. Students were asked to recommend sentences in identical fact situations, except that the victim, a co-worker, in one scenario had an intellectual disability. The students recommended dramatically more lenient sentences where the victim had an intellectual disability.
If one were to apply this logic, then it would seem that progressives should accept calls for shorter sentences where the victim is African-Canadian or is lesbian. Yet no progressive would accept demands for a shorter sentence by a homophobic parent who murdered his lesbian twelve-year-old daughter out of "love" and to save her from a life of sin. The opposition to enforcing the minimum mandatory sentence in a human-rights case only makes sense if one sees Tracy's disability identity as a medical problem that makes her less than human.
And that goes to the heart of the dilemma. Whereas issues of race, gender and sexual orientation are widely accepted by virtually everyone on the Left today, disability discrimination and oppression are still mostly ignored, even though disability rights are protected by the Charter and in the various Human Rights Codes.
Ignoring a Whole Social Movememnt
The notions of disability identity and disability pride are largely unknown among progressives and yet are a living, breathing part of contemporary Canadian society. These notions are founded on the very simple concept that it is the structural and attitudinal barriers of society, not medical impairments, that prevent people with disabilities from achieving their equality rights. In other words, disability is largely a social construct determined by the cost-cutting constraints of an increasingly neoliberal capitalism. An entire social movement is out there fighting discrimination daily, but is ignored by both progressives and the mainstream media.
This is no small problem. In virtually every area of social life, people with disabilities face systemic discrimination from employment to transportation to income levels to education and even in expressing their sexuality. It should give pause that at least with respect to services, the Americans, with a militant, grassroots disability-rights movement and a strong Americans with Disabilities Act in place, have arguably removed physical access barriers more systematically than here in Canada. Whereas transit systems remain inaccessible in many Canadian cities, forcing those with mobility impairments to use underfunded and chronically late segregated paratransit systems, Americans with disabilities enjoy wheelchair-accessible buses. This is, in part, a result of direct-action tactics undertaken by the American disability-rights organization, ADAPT, that has engaged in confrontational in-your-face demonstrations to get their message heard. Universities, colleges and public schools are another area where barriers, both physical and attitudinal, are systemic across Canada. It is not surprising that the unemployment rate for people with disabilities remains enormous, even with a robust economy over the last several years.
A Disability Agenda
What, then, is to be done? Clearly the broad Left needs to pay more attention to disability issues and disability oppression. Disability is arguably the least well-theorized of the "new social movements," yet astonishingly, most activists on the Left, whether they are feminists, Greens or anti-poverty activists, show little or no interest in the topic. Publications on the Left rarely write about it. While even the most sectarian of far-Left organizations have been forced to at least reconsider their approach to race, gender and sexual identity, few on any part of the Left have anything to say about disability politics and disability oppression. On a practical level, progressive meetings, be they about globalization or feminism, the environment or gay rights, are often held at notoriously inaccessible locations, with embarrassed apologies issued after the fact. Material in alternative formats for those with visual impairments is often only available late or not at all.
There is so much work to be done, theoretical and practical, that only the most tentative of projects can be outlined here. However, one crucial item that merits consideration is attendant-care services. In order to function as full and equal citizens, people with disabilities need access to affordable, quality attendant care services that provide assistance with activities of daily living, such as dressing, bathing and eating. There is already an emerging discussion centred around home care. Yet, as the debate is currently framed, the voices of people with disabilities are rarely included. Their needs are often wrongly subsumed under the needs of elderly people or conflated with those providing attendant care services or parents. There is no reason why socialists cannot form a cohesive, long-term alliance with disability-rights organizations to campaign for expanded, generously funded attendant-care service programs, employing well-paid, unionized attendants, that would allow people with disabilities to live independently and with dignity. And that's just a single example of transformations that are needed for disability empowerment.
Thus, social movements of all stripes need to support disability-rights organizations in their day-to-day struggles and systematically incorporate disability oppression analysis into their own agendas. An example in the first category is the campaign by disability-rights activists to enact an Ontarian’s with Disabilities Act, which would, to a modest degree, empower people with disabilities. Whatever the structural limitations of the proposal, progressives need to be actively involved in the struggle before critiquing it. And emulating it across the country, particularly in provinces with NDP governments, would be a great step forward. An example of the second category is explicitly making disability oppression a fundamental part of the growing anti-globalization movement. Feminist and anti-racist militants expect no less and neither should disability-rights activists. A strong disability-rights movement that works in tandem with a revitalized activist Left would be the best possible tribute to the life of Tracy Latimer.
Tracy Latimer, disability rights and the Left
by Ravi Malhotra: Canadian Dimension v35 n3 (May/Jun 2001) 23-25
See Also:
Carers who kill on Background Briefing https://lnkd.in/gR3dUJz
#BCPoli #CdnPoli #Murder #Disability #Carers #RightToLife