Thursday, October 14, 2010

How Old Do You Have To Be To Get A Bar Piercing

A specter is haunting Germany save a new implicit debate on the issue of disability

A specter is haunting Germany, and it is this time not in the "Communist Manifesto" was published, but it is - as with Karl Marx - to financial matters.

How www.taubenschlag.de the site few days ago, reports that a youth office feels the district administrative office in the Baden-Wuerttemberg Rastatt now impelled, a family with deaf parents to custody for breach of parental deprivation duty of care to threaten, if the parents use their child no cochlear implant (CI).

What is it? For money, what else?

The family has dared to ask the welfare office of the council services for Gebärdenprachdolmetschung. Now the welfare office believes, however - and it is in Germany no longer alone, the author of several other cases including well known in the area of inclusive schooling - if the child with a CI would be used, one could eventually permanently save costs while by the repair action on hearing but the integration is alive in society significantly more feasible.

Are we now back to the point that people with disabilities only be considered for cost considerations?

The trend is clearly in that direction. When should we read recently hampered by political spokesmen of the government coalition, the workshops for disabled people are increasingly reduced in favor of employment in the primary labor market, that sounds in the ears of the disability self-help movement initially as Schallmeienklang. If you read, however, the - dürfitge - justification of the statements by a little more intense, makes you quickly realized that here - as often in political discourse as well as device makers - namely the vocabulary of the disability movement is used, the underlying moment but is not such that the claims could be enough to equal participation. It is the protagonists of both the social welfare authorities and the political establishment to one and only one point, namely that - in their view, far too expensive - "stifle" integration assistance financially.

basically requires the district of Rastatt, the parents that their child they "fix" social conformity can. Here one must ask the question well, what then of the Basic Law Article 3, paragraph 3, sentence 2, no one should be discriminated against because of his disability, actually still has a predictive value? This is human life - and that we had before sixty-five, seventy, seventy-five all before - on his "value" towards declared.

added Why the disability movement for decades argued about to be recognized as socially equivalent if now is not a general social outcry, that a standing in the middle of the company group of people in danger of being discriminated against heavily by financial factors?

It is a tiny step from the civilized people of the cultural breakdown. We need a clearly offensive and open "Integrate" discussion about the extent to which disabled people in society need or not the Company is subject to an obligation to be as accessible and antidiscriminatory embody that as a disabled person not afraid again so must have, only because of his disability as sheer play ground are treated in public life.

"Nothing about us without us"? It is to be rather the principle that is to negotiate with us, and not over our heads.

Where is the outcry about societal empathy, what threatens to be as we now politically and administratively pressed by the administration wanted?

0 comments:

Post a Comment