The headline said: "Newallo-Hosein promises better days for disabled...comprehensive approach in housing, transport, employment, education." The story is one of possibilities except for the fact that it mainly addressed physical disabilities.
It was the follow-on headline to Ramping Up Services For The Disabled, on July 5, after T&T ratified the Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), published with a photo highlighting wheelchair users. Intent aside, the story is biased and in the spirit and letter of the CRPD, is incalculably disengaged.
I warned that this slanted conversation could/would skew the disability discourse to only what some recognise, accept, or are comfortable endorsing about disabilities. I wrote that article because I'm aware that an entire school of thought does not consider mental illnesses as disabilities. I appreciate too, that historical stigma and discrimination account for the mentally ill experiencing greater prejudice. And, if according to the July 5 article, "disabled people are an afterthought in this country," those with mental disabilities haven't yet entered T&T's mindscape.
Of course, we get attention. We're mostly mocked in that dreadful equating of genuine pathology to the misconduct and in the denigration of others, as in Selwyn Ryan's last Sunday column, Politics and mental health.
Warily, my May 13 column said: "Historically, when we speak/think of disability, issues such as wheelchairs, paraplegia, blindness, and so on come to mind. For a long time and still in the minds of most people there remains a perception of (and within) the disability community and it often excludes hidden/invisible disabilities."
Our Constitution begins with the reassuring premise of equality and enshrined protection of rights and freedom for all. Then for us, it quickly divides that equality with the disqualification, first, as a member of the Senate then, the House of Representatives, at Section 42.d and 48.c, disallowing from service an "individual who is mentally ill, within the meaning of the Mental Health Act, 1975; No 30 of 1975."
That Act, written in the early 1970s, was dated at proclamation. And being still the law on which our Constitution hinges this antiquated chapter, it continues to give no consideration for how advanced the world is in the definition and classification of mental illness. It ignores the effectual population of mentally ill who live lives worthy of emulation globally.
Notably, in 2012, four British MPs, Charles Walker, Kevan Jones, Dr Sarah Wollaston, and Andrea Leadsom, all spoke of their mental health struggles for the first time in Parliament. The UK was on its way to righting the wrong of discrimination against the mentally ill in revising its Mental Health Act (1983).
In this country, individuals living with physical disabilities serve in our Parliament. Yet, here the mentally ill do not get even one mention in a sweeping interview with a minister of the people and social development, who highlights "improvements" and "proposals."
The Constitution, the law, and the policymaking here perpetuate indirect and direct discrimination, advancing in principle the deep-rooted prejudice of mental illness being abnormal aggression and irresponsible or uncontrollable behaviour. There's no other disability here where in law the State is the source of stigma, prejudice and systemic discrimination.
It's long accepted though, that most people recover fully from mental illness and are able to live productive lives. It's also recognised that we're amongst those least likely to be employed, to be afforded decent housing, and to be accepted socially or to find meaningful intimate relationships. And this situation is exacerbated by the media. "Research has also shown that ignorance, fear and stereotypes presented in the newspapers, on the TV and at the cinema all contribute to negative attitudes towards mental ill health. Most people have little knowledge about mental illness and their opinions are often factually incorrect (mentalhealthcare.org.uk).
So the Constitution is inequitable, hinged on an intolerant law, but you hope that those in consultations seeking the rights of people with disabilities are more au courant with our dilemma. Surely, they (or the media/reporter) must recognise the CRPD is also specific about disability being defined to include all disabilities: physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments!
The article begins: "Making government buildings accessible to service dogs used by the visually impaired and disabled is a welcome move, but many people with disabilities still cannot access buildings such as banks and restaurants because of stairs and the lack of lifts and ramps."
My first thought was, some people with disabilities have no difficulty in accessing the bank but may have difficulty in accessing employment to have reason to go to the bank.
And I delved expectantly, taking note of the topics covered: ramps, stairs, wheelchairs, parking spaces, service dogs, lifts, able-bodied citizens, pavements, user-friendly housing, building codes, restaurant access, parking permits, facilities, frameworks for buildings, visually impaired, physically challenged, ad nauseum.
This week, as the Government celebrates the ratification of the CRPD, my hope is that Ms Akiko Ito, secretariat head for the CRPD at the UN, brings her experience to bear on the correct focus and emphasis which must be placed on the inclusivity of all disabilities under the convention.
ihavewrites@yahoo.com
www.facebook.com/
MHIsUnderstood