Hate Crime: A killing rampage targets disabled people

Like so many in the disability community who have heard this news, we were horrified to begin the July 26th anniversary of the Americans with Disabilities Act by reading of the murder of 19 people with disabilities in a residential institution in Japan. Japan Today reported the following details of the “stabbing rampage”:

The man arrested over a stabbing rampage in which 19 people were killed Tuesday at a residential care facility near Tokyo has told police that he wanted to “save” those with multiple disabilities and feels “no remorse” for what he did, investigative sources said Wednesday.

The sources have also found that Satoshi Uematsu, a 26-year-old former employee of the facility in Sagamihara, Kanagawa Prefecture, sought to buy time by constraining at least two facility workers with binding bands before launching the attack, which also left 26 people injured.

As a result, it took more than 40 minutes for workers at Tsukui Yamayuri En (Tsukui Lily Garden) to make an emergency call to the police after Uematsu entered the facility by breaking a window at around 2 a.m. Tuesday.

Uematsu told investigators that he “tied up” facility staff and made them hand over the keys to the residential areas. The 19 victims—nine men and 10 women ranging in age from 19 to 70—were all found in the residential areas, which are divided into eight sectors, each having self-locking doors.

Most of the victims were stabbed in their necks, with some stab wounds as deep as 10 centimeters. Other wounds were also found on their chests and throats. They were apparently attacked when they were asleep.

Los Angeles Times reports also stated that Uematsu attempted to deliver a three-page letter to Japan Parliament Lower House Speaker Tadamori Oshima’s residence, revealing his views on euthanasia and his murderous plans:

The hand-written letter, which was obtained and released by the Mainichi newspaper, begins abruptly, with the writer saying he “is able to kill 470 disabled people” and a disclaimer that he realizes his threats defy common sense. Uematsu said he reached the conclusion that his plan to kill the disabled should be put “into action” and that “looking at the exhausted faces of the caretakers and the lifeless eyes of the employees of the caretaking facilities makes me feel for Japan and the world.” 

The disabled, he wrote, “live as animals, not humans and many must succumb to a wheelchair for life while often being shunned from their own families.”

He said his goal was a world  “where the severely disabled who cannot manage life at home or be an active member of the society can make the choice of being euthanized with the consent of their guardians. The disabled are only capable of creating unhappiness.”

So far, I’m aware of two disability rights leaders who have written powerful articles in response to this mass killing, the largest in Japan since World War II. Lydia Brown wrote:

We know hate and we know violence, because it is written on our bodies and our souls.

We bear it, heavy, wherever we go. Ableism is the violence in the clinic, in the waiting room, in the social welfare lines, in the classroom, in the recess yard, in the bedroom, in the prisons, in the streets. Ableism is the violence (and threat of violence) we live with each day.

Ableism is the constant apologetics for family members and caregivers who murder their disabled relatives — they must have had it so hard, it must have been such a burden, you musn’t judge unless you’ve walked in their shoes. (In the last few decades, more than 400 disabled people were murdered by relatives or caregivers, and those are only the stories we know about.)

For Lydia’s full article, go here.

Dave Hingsburger wrote:

His statement to the police upon turning himself in that ‘it’s better that disabled people disappear’ isn’t a deranged rant by someone out of control, it’s a calm statement of fact that echos the sentiment of many in society. People with disabilities know this sentiment, we hear it, we experience it and we have come to fear what it will do. Our lives are devalued, are needs seen as special and therefore burdensome, our rights are declared to be gifts rather than guarantees.

But there’s more.

A specific, targeted attack aimed at eradicating a group – a mass murder of a group of people because of who they are, and no where does anyone speak of hate. No mention of this as a hate crime against people with disabilities. No. Where. I have not read every paper of course, but in my searches on the Internet the only time that ‘hate crime’ has been used to describe this event it’s by a disabled writer on a disability blog or on a Facebook post.

For Dave’s whole article, go here.

Yes, the disability community knows violence and hate, alongside other communities whose members face these realities. I hope that we can grieve together and work together for a better world.

 

Paul Gallico, Disability and Love: How and why he changed the ending to “The Snow Goose”

During recent “Me Before You” discussions, some of us wondered if most fictional romances between disabled and nondisabled characters were always cut short. I started thinking about a story I read a long time ago.

I don’t  remember how old I was when I first read The Snow Goose by Paul Gallico. I’m pretty sure that it was between the ages of 10 and 13, because I was already familiar with the story when a made-for-tv version of it aired in 1971.  Here’s a good synopsis of the story from Wikipedia:

The Snow Goose is a simple, short written parable on the regenerative power of friendship and love, set against a backdrop of the horror of war. It documents the growth of a friendship between Philip Rhayader, an artist living a solitary life in an abandoned lighthouse in the marshlands of Essex because of his disabilities, and a young local girl, Fritha. The snow goose, symbolic of both Rhayader (Gallico) and the world itself, wounded by gunshot and many miles from home, is found by Fritha and, as the human friendship blossoms, the bird is nursed back to flight, and revisits the lighthouse in its migration for several years. As Fritha grows up, Rhayader and his small sailboat eventually are lost in the British retreat from Dunkirk, having saved several hundred men. The bird, which was with Rhayader, returns briefly to the grown Fritha on the marshes. She interprets this as Rhayader’s soul taking farewell of her (and realizes she had come to love him). Afterwards, a German pilot destroys Rhayader’s lighthouse and all of his work, except for one portrait Fritha saves after his death: a painting of her as Rhayader first saw her—a child, with the wounded snow goose in her arms.

This is the story that all of us read. It’s the story that’s told in the movie version.

But it’s not the version that Paul Gallico originally wrote.

Many years ago, measured in decades, I read an introduction written by Gallico in the book Three Legends, a collection of 3 of his stories – and The Snow Goose was one of them. In a long introduction, Gallico wrote that the story published in 1941 was not the same story he submitted to the publisher:

“The complaint against the original version of The Snow Goose was that my hero, the deformed painter and the girl Fritha, now grown into woman, had fallen in love and she had come to live with him at his lighthouse before his departure to France, from which he was never to return. At the time I was writing the story it seemed to me a natural thing to happen to these two people and to add poignancy and drama to the final tragedy. The viewpoint of the editors was that their readers would not like to see a man with a deformity united to a healthy girl. The Saturday Evening Post, it must be remembered, was then a family magazine published for Americans and hence subject to all kinds of odd taboos. What was interesting about this particular one was that it was not the living together to which they objected, but the fact that the man was a hunchback.” — From Introduction to Three Legends by Paul Gallico. 1968 paperback edition”(Emphasis added.)

Now, in both versions, Philip Rhayader is lost in the real-life Dunkirk Evacuation – from which many never returned.  But in the first version, Fritha and Philip enjoy a time of loving and living together – and the tragedy is the loss of a great love. The Post editors felt that an unrealized love between the two would be more comfortable for their readers than the idea could actually share love and life.

“Me Before You” and its popularity shows we haven’t moved very far in terms of disability acceptance in the past 70+ years.

Press Release: Disability Advocates Applaud New Mexico Supreme Court Ruling In Assisted Suicide Case

Not Dead Yet, the ResistanceIn a unanimous opinion issued yesterday afternoon, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in the Morris v. Brandenburg case that there is no state constitutional right to assisted suicide.

Not Dead Yet was assisted by disability rights attorney Steve Gold and New Mexico counsel Lara Katz in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. Joining Not Dead Yet in the brief were ADAPT, the Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, the National Council on Independent Living and United Spinal Association, collectively referred to as the “Disability Amici.”

“Our basic position is that when some people get suicide prevention while other people get suicide assistance, and the difference is the person’s age, disability or health status, that’s a problem,” said Not Dead Yet’s president and CEO, Diane Coleman. “It’s a problem of devaluation of people who are being told that others not only agree with their suicide, which is bad enough, but will even help them carry it out. It’s a deadly form of discrimination and, as our brief says, it violates the Americans with Disabilities Act.”

The Supreme Court outlined the reasoning in its 58-page opinion as follows:

“[T]he State has legitimate interests in (1) protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession; (2) protecting vulnerable groups—including the poor, the elderly, and disabled persons—from the risk of subtle coercion and undue influence in end-of-life 
situations, including pressures associated with the substantial financial burden of end-of-life health care costs; and (3) protecting against voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if physician aid in dying is a constitution alright, it must be made 
available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and 
even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication.”

The latter concern is rarely discussed, but is an important consideration in dealing with constitutional rights. So far, consistent with the 1997 U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Washington v.Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill, no state has found a constitutional right to assisted suicide, and New Mexico now joins several other states, including Florida, Montana, Connecticut, California and New York in declining to do so.

Each of the national disability organizations that joined in Not Dead Yet’s friend-of-the-court brief brought a specific perspective to the high court’s attention. For example, the primary mission of ADAPT is to ensure that seniors and people with disabilities are not forced into nursing facilities, but have the choice to receive consumer directed long term care services in their own home. “If the only alternative to death that those in power offer people who require assistance is poverty and segregation in nursing facilities, then it makes no sense to talk about assisted suicide as a ‘choice’”, said Bruce Darling, an ADAPT organizer based in Rochester, New York.

Many people with disabilities acquire them as a result of accidents or trauma, and their prognosis is often uncertain in the early stages. “If assisted suicide had been legal in the past, even if it were supposedly only for those with ‘terminal’ conditions, many of us would not be here today,” said Kelly Buckland, executive director of the National Council on Independent Living. “I might not be here today, and I’m grateful that assisted suicide was not legal back then, and I’m committed to keeping it that way.”

The brief also expressed concerns about the context of health care cost-cutting in which assisted suicide is being advocated. “In an aging society where elder and disability abuse is a growing problem, elders too often face economic or other pressures to get out of the way, whether those pressures come from the health care system or, sadly, from family,” Coleman said.

free subscription to the Not Dead Yet blog is available online.

New Mexico Supreme Court Rules Against Constitutional Right To Assisted Suicide

In a unanimous opinion issued June 30, 2016, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled in the Morris v. Brandenburg case that there is no state constitutional right to assisted suicide.

Not Dead Yet was assisted by disability rights attorney Steve Gold and New Mexico counsel Lara Katz in filing a friend-of-the-court brief in the case. Joining Not Dead Yet in the brief were ADAPT, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, the Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, the National Council on Independent Living and United Spinal Association, collectively referred to as the “Disability Amici.”

According to the Albuquerque Journal in NM Supreme Court rules on aid in dying, workers comp for ag:

Perhaps emulating colleagues on the U.S. Supreme Court who issue a flurry of opinions in June, New Mexico’s highest court on Thursday filed long, detailed opinions on two of the most contentious issues before it – aid in dying and workers compensation for farm and ranch workers.

The New Mexico Supreme Court nixed a district court decision finding a right to have a physician prescribe drugs that a competent, terminally ill patient may self-administer to choose a peaceful means of death.

. . . In the aid in dying case, argued last fall, the court had the example of three other states with either statutes or court opinions allowing the practice, and California joined the list during the pendency of the case.

The Supreme Court outlined the reasoning in its 58-page opinion as follows:

Although the State does not have a 
legitimate interest in preserving a painful and debilitating life that will imminently 
come to an end, the State does have a legitimate interest in providing positive 
protections to ensure that a terminally ill patient’s end-of-life decision is informed, 
independent, and procedurally safe. More specifically, the State has legitimate interests in (1) protecting the integrity and ethics of the medical profession; (2) protecting vulnerable groups—including the poor, the elderly, and disabled persons—from the risk of subtle coercion and undue influence in end-of-life 
situations, including pressures associated with the substantial financial burden of end-of-life health care costs; and (3) protecting against voluntary or involuntary euthanasia because if physician aid in dying is a constitution alright, it must be made 
available to everyone, even when a duly appointed surrogate makes the decision, and 
even when the patient is unable to self-administer the life-ending medication.

The latter concern is rarely discussed, but is an important consideration in dealing with constitutional rights. So far, no state has found a constitutional right to assisted suicide, and New Mexico now joins Florida, Alaska, Montana, Connecticut, California and New York in declining to do so.

VIDEO: The Disability Community Responds to Me Before You movie

There’s a brand new video created by Carrie Ann Lucas celebrating protests of the movie “Me Before You” by the disability community on three continents. Carrie is on the Board of Directors of NDY and one of the leaders of Colorado NDY. Here’s how she describes the video:

The disability community responded to the disability snuff movie, Me Before You, with protests in many countries on three continents. The movie gives audiences the message that if you’re a disabled person, you’re better off dead #LiveBoldly? We already do! #MeBeforeEuthanasia

The musical backdrop for the video is by activist/songwriter/musician/singer Johnny Crescendo, singing “Not Dead Yet,” a song he wrote years ago about our community’s opposition to assisted suicide and euthanasia.  The video is captioned – and here’s info on how to access audio description:

Video described version available at YouDescribe.org at https://youdescribe.org/player.php?v=..

Caution: This video includes rapidly moving images which may induce seizures or other neurological responses in sensitive individuals.