On Monday the UN Committee on the Rights of People with Disabilities released a report of what is generally regarded as the UK government's grave violation of the convention on the rights of people with disabilities. What the report really represents is a political stunt that shows the prejudices that exist towards people with impairments by the UN.
The report was produced at the request of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), a left-wing organisation involved in civil disobedience. Their actions have included a failed attempt to storm the House of Commons, which would have been regarded as an act of terrorism if any other group had done the same. This group fundamentally believes most people with impairments should be paid a basic income and thrown on the scrapheap, mirroring the bigotry that existed in 1930s Germany.
The UN did not disappoint DPAC as it delivered exactly what they wanted word for word. Since the request was made almost two years ago, this so-called investigation come dictation has been held in secret with evidence only coming from DPAC's vast pro-exclusion propaganda machine, with the British government simply forced to justify including people with impairments into society from those who prefer eugenics as the final solution.
The report is surprisingly thin at just 30 pages with no publicly accountable evidence to justify any of its findings. I am sure the committee knew it was unwise to release many of the hate speech documents provided by DPAC full of lies and conspiracies. To justify their bigotry towards people with impairments in the name of rights, there had to make their short statement without evidence, knowing the anti-inclusion movement will ensure no one challenges them.
The report only focused on welfare reforms and changes to social care for people with physical impairments primarily as that is the only issues DPAC cares about. The report assumes every person with an impairment is the same that fits into the new assumption that the only 'disabled person' that matters is the fictitious Daniel Blake, where the non-welfare issues of people with significant impairments no longer matter. One leading human rights activist, who defended this undefendable report in the Guardian, implied to me I had to take responsibility to ensure Daniel Blake got his benefits regardless of what he needed before I could be allowed to have my needs met because this activist did not like seeing his idea of poverty.
The most offensive and telling part of the report was that it had found fit for work in quotation marks, This means like the dinner table activists in the UK, a bunch of nameless faceless bureaucrats felt they had the right to overrule a legal assessment to judge people they had never met on whether they were fit for society, or whether they belonged unsupported on the scrapheap in the name of rights. This is like suggesting black people have the right to be slaves but offering them freedom is a grave violation of their rights, as they are inferior beings.
But when most activists and so-called representatives of people with impairments do actually believe we are naturally inferior beings who belong on the scrapheap, of course this piece of hate speech masked as a report is being hailed as a victory, another step forward towards the final eugenic solution to end having to see poverty once and for all.Suggest a correction