Earlier this year, a protest was arranged in the heart of Dublin, with “Junk the Green Paper” serving as the clarion call for disability advocates, caregivers, supportive spectators, and politicians involved in the event. Though this wasn’t the first demonstration over this subject, there was an observable resurgence in passion and optimism among the attendees. Just prior, the care referendum – which had been robustly lobbied against by many impaired individuals and their caregivers – had collapsed. The sense that the voices of the disabled were at last gaining traction was growing.
The Green Paper on Disability Reform is what was under dispute. This initial draft, released by the Department of Social Protection with the intent of revamping the welfare system for the disabled, is crucial to understand from the start for what it is: a catalyst for dialogue, not enforceable law.
In this situation, the Government acknowledged the inadequacies of the current welfare system for the disabled. Disabled individuals in Ireland are doubly likely to experience poverty compared to the non-disabled and have less than half the chance of employment. With the draft of the Green Paper, the government intended to put forth a reform proposition.
The draft, nonetheless, was deemed by many to be objectionable. The suggested amendments would classify recipients by disability degree. Some would have been compelled to avail of employment services or risk forfeiting their disability aid. The document exhibited a simplistic view of disability while suggesting policy alterations that could harm the disabled community significantly.
Upon wrapping up the demonstration, Maryam Madani, among the founding members of “Junk the Green Paper Coalition” and the inaugural chair of Disability Power Ireland, held the spotlight. With palpable enthusiasm and glittery makeup adorning her eyes, she proudly held aloft a roll of green toilet paper, inciting the crowds to chant: “The Green Paper is toilet paper.”
In the following weeks, the suggested amendments were scrapped, leading to jubilations within the disabled community. The Green Paper was officially dismissed – the community refused to tolerate demeaning legislation.
My fervour led me to outline potential amendments in the newspaper, however, the effort proved futile when the Green Paper met its demise. This entire process offered a sense of irony that was rather inescapable.
As someone afflicted by a persistent illness, any additional activities can have a profound impact. These efforts can unquestionably disrupt my fragile equilibrium and cause a decline in my health, which was evident in this instance. I was out of commission for almost a month, missing both a crucial surgery and a family nuptial.
The intriguing part was that throughout the creation of the feature, government representatives steadfastly reiterated that the Green Paper was merely a “conversational piece,” with no definitive decisions yet made. Its sole purpose was to stimulate discussion.
Nevertheless, what the department failed to comprehend or recognise, was that the document’s contents instigated the conversation from a point of trepidation.
In her exemplary Substack newsletter, Legs missing in Dublin, artist and journalist Louise Bruton recently discussed about her time at Flour Mill Artists’ Campus at the former Odlum’s factory in Dublin Port. Invited as a disabled artist, she participated in an initiative led by the Arts Council and Grafton Architects, aimed at making the space accessible for artist with disabilities. Here, disability was given priority and not considered as a reactive measure only when someone with a disability endured negative consequences. This discourse included the voice of disabled people right from the beginning.
It often appears that for disabled people, every achievement requires a struggle and each victory is painstakingly won. Now, imagine if the Government, in this situation, encouraged a conversation that fostered hope rather than inciting fear. Think if the government genuinely strove to engage disabled people and their organisations in developing a conscious document that acknowledges and respects the character of disability, not a fearful one that needed urgent revision.
Consider the number of disabled people including me, who strained their health to fight for their wellbeing against a potentially harmful legislative amendment.
How many came down with sickness while advocating for favourable amendments?
And how many, like me, are still facing consequences in terms of their health?
We ought to recognise and applaud those who ceaselessly championed for the rights and wellbeing of individuals with disabilities in the context of this Green Paper. It’s praiseworthy that the government took their apprehensions into account and dismissed the paper. Yet, an overdue discussion about revamping the welfare system for the disabled is still much needed. Could we perhaps approach it differently next time?