Strasbourg Disability Freedom Drive 2011
Anita Murphy
Any future protests/actions need to be bigger than CIL. I think it will require more people and involve all disability groups and representatives. For each is striving for the same fundamental human rights, to receive the same opportunities as able bodied people, for example, education and work opportunities to name but a few.
Initially, I felt the protest was not very effective as it was not organised and as there were too many chiefs, no one really knew what was happening. The protesters were informed that the police were coming and we had to move aside to the grassy verge. People with disabilities experience this kind of marginalisation and exclusion on a daily basis. I felt that the protest was the time to change this mindset; we were not going to comply here in Strasbourg and beyond. We were going to fight for our rights and get them. I think we should have changed the status quo in terms of protesting, we should have been in the forecourt of the building blocking the entrance. If we had done this for just an hour it would have made a huge impact and would of generated greater media attention. With media attention equals political pressure to change and act, due to a mass outrage as unsavoury facts come to light.
On mature reflection, I realised that maybe I was looking in the wrong direction and that the issue of protesting was almost like a self made divide and conquer. The CIL movement was not to blame in retrospect as we should not have been in Strasbourg, the rights we were protesting for should be automatic. MEPs’ are the crux of the problem; it is un-doubtfully a political issue!
First of all, the room in which the meeting with the Irish MEPs’ took place was unsuitable as it was not accessible by any stretch of the imagination. It was appalling to hold a meeting about disability issues in such a room; it showed the lack of understanding of their physical as well as safety needs in terms of access and egress.
Some of the MEPs’ were only interested in speaking to the people from their own constituency; they were only interested in votes and not the individual to whom they were speaking to. They seemed to be far more preoccupied with small chit-chat about the weather, sports etc. They did not ask why we had to come out to France to change the situation at home. None of them gave a timeline as to when the changes would be implemented and they offered no strategies. Some had the audacity to tell us that they could not attend for long or would be dipping in and out as they had “other commitments/important meetings”. Again, they were oblivious to the fact that people travelled all the way to see them and so they should have been given their full undivided attention. These are the people they are supposed to represent at the European level. It was clear to see that we were more of an inconvenience that a top priority.
I felt that the MEPs’ were extremely patronising as they reiterated what the panel had said but did not really offer any concrete solutions. One MEP in particular had the audacity to claim that she did not know that funding was an issue and that she had not been made aware that funding was required by CIL members in order to attend. It was obvious to all present that funding was critical as people needed to attend these meetings.
None of the MEPs’ were present at the second meeting with the exception of one and she was extremely late. In relation to this particular meeting, we were instructed to enter the building through the back door. Again, I think the old cliché of “out of sight, out of mind” reared its ugly head. It was as if we were not worthy of crossing the threshold of the parliament building.
We were only allocated an hour and a half for the meeting. This was an utter disgrace, it was an opportunity for people to come together and raise the issues with the members of parliament from across the EU. There was simply no way this could be achieved in such a short window of time. The excuse of the recession was tossed around and used at every available opportunity. I was under the impression that this meeting would be a debate and that questions could be posed to the individual MEPs or as a collective. There were no answers given and no commitment to future action.
The recommendations I would make are based on what I had witnessed over the duration of the Freedom Drive. I think regardless of the organisation and ethos we need to stick together as we are all fighting the same battles and struggles to get equality within society. The Freedom Drive presented a golden opportunity to network with the other members of CIL at a national and international level. We should share what works and the policies etc that could do with improvements. This way we are not all losing precious time making the same mistakes.
It will not be an easy task. Minority groups are automatically at a disadvantage. It is not the popular issue of the day; financial reasons will have a large part to play in the form of excuses and in some cases further cuts. So we must fight fire with fire and show the monetary savings that would be made by ratifying the agreement.
We have to highlight that we are not asking for any luxuries or special treatment. We are seeking equality and the right to make our own choices. No one is unaffected by disabilities, everyone is affected in some way, shape, or form. Therefore, it is high time we make a strong political statement and we must do it now!
