Start with job discriminatory laws first.
-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Witnesses at zara say esme's owners were agressive first
- Thread starter makapaaa
- Start date
Start with job discriminatory laws first.
But her being aggressive isnt helping in general right? She's just pissing off people with what she's doing. The people she's pissing off admittedly shouldnt be pissed off in the first place; but a more dignified approach in educating people, I feel, goes a longer way.
I am not disagreeing with you that she should stand up for her rights; but if she wants to get more people to be on her side, it would be wise of her to do it calmly.
This is all in my opinion of course. Feel free to disagree but I think we are in agreement over her rights to shed light on such issues.
Not "ratted"... ratified by non other than your beloved future PM.
http://app.msf.gov.sg/Press-Room/Singapore-ratifies-UN-agreement-granting-equal-rig
This is the same document that NZ and OZ use the legislate laws regarding guide dogs for the disabled.
Attachments
Has she ever tried walking into a nightclub with her guide dog and start arguing with the bouncers?
It has nothing to do with jumping the gun. When a country ratifies a UN document, it does not mean that all the statutes need to be rewritten immediately as some could be vague or do not mention specific aspects of a disability.
What it does mean in this context is that a person with a disability can use the fact that Singapore has ratified the UN document to take to court, any establishment that refuses her entry
The judge will rule accordingly and a precedent is set that all establishments will have to adhere to.
There will be other instances in future where a disabled person is barred from entering a shop on his/her mobility scooter. When the statutes were drafted, nobody in Singapore knew what a mobility scooter is in the first place so it probably isn't mentioned in any rule books.
The same process will take place and the status of mobility scooters will then be passed into law based upon the outcome of the hearing.
Unlikely to happen, unless the Minister is seditious enough to allow this.
Try bringing a guide dog into an Indian Muslim prata shop for your daily breakfast.
There is nothing in the Quran that states that dogs are not allowed on premises that serve muslims.
As far as Islam is concerned, there are only two rules covering muslims and their interaction with dogs.
1. Don't come into contact with dog saliva.
2. Don't touch a wet dog.
3. Don't touch wet of a dog.
agree with the both of you.
rights not withstanding, the fact remains that she's getting negative publicity over her "in your face" type of response to whatever sllght she has felt / faced in getting around. perhaps if being meek and rather muted in her response/s (within reasonable and safety considerations) it may get her more sympathy as the underdog, and the subsequent public uproar would gain better results for her and those with other disabilities more effectively?
Why can't blind people use "clicks" like bats and see their way around using their ears? In the US, got one blind guy who can even cycle using "clicks".
why, in oz there's even one guy cycling on his basikal with no seat, only ramrod.....and the only drawback is in his right eye "clicking"
A silly man you are. If you are boarding a flight and airport security stops you from boarding, should you not attempt to reason with him? Why be meek and miss the flight? So that some stranger on the internet can sympathize with your plight? Surely you have some misplaced priorities.
my response would be similar to what you've described - unless you're silly enough to have airport security stop you boarding your flight for an aviation infringement, in which case you can reason with them till the cows come home, and home is where you'll be headed.
the issue here is whether this blind lady can be more effective in making her point, which seems to be a denial / anger state where she goes around with a chip on her shoulders and without getting the response that she expects for her predicament, up till now.
being meek and rather muted doesn't mean that she has to accept the situation - just that there may be another way to get the public and authorities to respond ala jover chew's incident. nothing misplaced here, except your anal-ogy.
No disenfranchised people or minority ever won their rights by being 'meek'. Not Martin Luther King. Nor Aung San Suu Kyi. Nor Gandhi. Nor Helen Keller. Bullies are never persuaded by meekness or helplessness.
If by being 'meek' you mean just walking away every time an establishment rejects you and your dog, how are you going to make the point that you're being unfairly treated? All the internet sympathy will not be of any use; you're simply allowing the injustice to be perpetuated, much like voting PAP in every 5 years for 50 years.
You don't have to shout, or resort to coarse language or violence, but you have to stand your ground. Explain your rights. Stand firm. That way you educate the ignorant and bigoted, and win respect and, eventually, support for your cause.
Remember, the blind in Singapore number a few. Many have only a rudimentary education (the PAP has never invested in education for the handicapped); Cassandra is one of the rare ones with the financial means to pursue an education abroad in a blind-friendly uni. She's not just standing up for herself, but for all blind and handicapped people as well every time she challenges discriminatory practices in public.
If one is to walk away every time and complain to some higher authority after the fact, you are giving the perception that you have accepted the resolution of those situations but you are unhappy with the outcome. Are you telling me you would meekly wait for the colombrium to be completed beside your block to signal your displeasure at the authorities? A little too late, don't you think?
Tell me how you can be more effective in making your point if you are a resident of Fernvale. You wait for the building to be completed and the spirits move in? Of course you tell the authorities their information has been misleading and the situation unacceptable before the colombrium is built.
Similarly for Cassandra, don't you think all establishments and their staff are now more informed and aware of guide dogs being a notable exception to their own rules? Had she waited and then complained to her mp, do you think society and business will respond as quickly, if any?
With your line of reasoning it is no wonder sinkies look mildly retarded! For some of you, your foreign boss and co-workers discriminate against you for missing 3 weeks of work every year at reservist, and then you wait until you are retrenched before you sound out about being singled out at work. A bit too slow don't you think? What can you expect the government to do?
What did the security guard stop?
What was her point?
1) That (private) shop has no right to stop her from entering the shop.
2) That (private) shop has no right to stop her guide dog from entering the shop.
1, 2 or both 1&2
With the signing of the UN accord on rights of the disabled, establishments and businesses in Singapore can no longer discriminate against the disabled in any manner or form and that includes right of access.
The blind are dependent on their guide dogs for their mobility. Barring a guide dog from entering any premises is therefore barring access to a blind person who depends on the dog to get around.
Establishments are therefore not allowed to ban guide dogs from their premises. If they do they could included legal action if the disabled person chooses to pursue the issue.
