Read on Twitter
Some abled people are so loud on the #BillC7 debate rn they are shouting over #ActuallyDisabled people. One retweeted this obvs without reading the rest of my thread. BillC7 will help me access MAID when I need it. The issue of lack of support is intertwined but different. https://twitter.com/arianek/status/1333883467386392576
Since the petition organiser blocked me and excluded me from the discussion when I asked about this, I still am not sure if I’ve missed something, but I don’t know why my access to MAID via #BillC7 is being thrown under the bus as leverage for better care and resources.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but that *is* what is happening even though nobody is saying it, right? I’m not clear why this essentially sacrificing some disabled people (putting them through unnecessary suffering) to minimise the suffering of other ones is the chosen path.
Shouldn’t the goal be minimising suffering for all disabled people? Both those who have slowly degenerative or very unbearable but less deadly diseases, and all those who deserve better care and quality of live while living? Why is this being pitted as an either or when it isn’t?
(Sorry had to delete and repost some of that to fix the threading, this Twitter threading never works on my phone!)
The fact that the petition organiser (someone until a couple days ago I respected a lot and interacted with regularly) is blocking and bullying other disabled people who have questions or different experiences/opinions relating to #BillC7 really doesn’t sit well with me.
Since when is it ethical to dismiss and exclude people from the same affected group, just because they want to understand the issue better? It’s extremely complicated and the petition + noise around it seems to be using #BillC7 as leverage + taking away from its actual intent.
It doesn’t help that so many well meaning abled people are trying to help by shouting about this. But you’re shouting over disabled people who #BillC7 deeply affects.
I’m sure I’m not the only disabled person scared of asking questions or accidentally saying anything “wrong”. Is that how this whole being part of a “community” thing is supposed to work? I don’t think so. Talking over and shutting down others is not right. #BillC7
And for the record, after I posted about this yesterday, I had multiple people reply and DM me that they too have been blocked and cut out of the discussion by the petition organiser. I know, it’s Twitter. We block people who bother us. But know: what looks like consensus isn’t.
Also for the record: I am not 100% for or against #BillC7! Parts of it I agree with, parts not. What I do 100% agree with is support for disabled Canadians is EXTREMELY INADEQUATE. The intent of the petition is good, the way it’s being used against some disabled Canadians is not.
Whatever happens with #BillC7 + the petition against it, the behaviour I’ve seen in the “disabled community” + by some members’ abled supporters has been eye opening. We’re not a monolith, remember that. We have the right to ask questions, + form + express our opinions ourselves.
And if anyone bullies or chastises you for wanting to understand and discuss such an important issue before taking a stance, that might be an indication to take a beat. You deserve your own understanding and your own voice. And if they don’t think so, there is something wrong.
ps. ICYMI #BillC7 exists because disabled people took the issue to court: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/medically-assisted-dying-law-overturned-quebec-1.5280702 Before you go saying this is all about abled people trying to kill us. I get that, but it’s also not the whole story.
ps. If #BillC7 does pass as is, and if it is albeit indirectly worsening the MAID laws’ threat to the rights of disabled people to quality of life, couldn’t the amended MAID laws actually provide more effective leverage for demanding improved care/support for disabled Canadians?
(Or is that too much of a horse before the cart thing? Is that the whole point of the petition? It doesn’t actually clearly say so if that’s the case. People can’t be expected to read *that* between the lines, or ignore that not removing “foreseeable death” would impact so many.)
