Deeply Furious Linkspam

[davidgillon]

Sarah Campbell is a long time friend of mine, she's also the principal author of the Spartacus Report, which had so much influence when it launched tin 2012 that it means she was largely responsible for inflicting the first defeat on the ConDems in the last parliament (they subsequently weaseled their way out of it by declaring the Welfare Reforrm Bill was a 'Money Bill', which was unprecedented for any bill other than the budget, but meant the Lords couldn't stop it). So imagine my horror when I see her posting that someone has been attacking her as a 'traitor' to disabled people, because she happens to have done the Spartacus stuff in conjunction with Sue Marsh, who has since gone over to the Dark Side. I've heard similar things from a couple of other people.  Apparently any of us who ever had anything to do with Sue are traitors to the cause.

This is all in response to the idea of setting up an umbrella group to give disabled people a national organisation that isn't in the pocket of government, which was always going to be slightly controversial, but we were actively trying to set it up to accomodate a range of opinions. But apparently that isn't acceptable to some people and they're resorting to personal attacks. There are persistent rumours this is coming out of one of the major campaigning groups, and I just hope it's not coming out of their leadership. Unfortunately I have also heard this week that some of their representatives openly stated that only on-street protest counted when speaking at the TUC Disability conference. Seeing as most of the Spartacus-related campaigning was done by people who aren't well enough to campaign on the street (and that they're also my friends) that's disturbing on multiple levels,

Anyway, here's Sarah's piece:

An Unfond Farewell to Disability Activism

Deeply, deeply angry over this.

Comments

[alexseanchai]

only on-street protest counted

That makes no sense. In context of disability activism it makes negative sense!

[davidgillon]

Absolutely!

[heliopausa]

That series of events stinks. I'm sorry.

on another tack: "only on-street protests counted" - counted for (or as) what? Did they mean only those were effective? or proved someone to be a "true" activist? or what?

[davidgillon]

AIUI, any other form of activism was non-valid - among the people they were telling this to was the Equity (actor's union) rep Mik Scarlett, who's one of the most charismatic disabled people out there and not just an activist but an occasional TV presenter/guest and who the week before had made a Tory MP look like an obnoxious buffoon on national morning TV. Mik was talking about the need to get more of our stories into the media so that non-disabled people get to understand the impact, but apparently that's not activism.

*HEADDESK*

[rmc28]

WHAT. I mean WHAT. *complete boggle* Does this person not understand anything about effecting political change?

[davidgillon]

The organization this is coming out of once issued an official policy that they would refuse to have anything to do with any disability group that even talked to government...

How the Hell do you change government policy if you won't talk to them?

[merrythebard]

Oh, grargh! That is... beyond ridiculous. And spectacularly disablist and rage-inducing.

[davidgillon]

I know, it's just so *Headdesk*, and that it's coming from disabled people just makes it worse.

[rmc28]

How utterly awful. No wonder you are angry.

(I find myself sympathising greatly with Sue Marsh for making the move that she did: it's always a risk to think you can actually make a difference on the inside, but I can absolutely empathise with the desire to try. (perhaps that makes me a traitor too))

[davidgillon]

I told Sue on the day she announced she was taking the Maximus position that I agreed it needed one of us in the role, but that I thought she was over-optimistic in thinking she would be able to change them if they decided to go another way. I also told her that she was the wrong person for the position because it neutralized one of our most powerful voices in the run up to the election - which may well have been the intention. It was politically a very clever move by Maximus as pretty much whichever way it went they came out ahead.

[kaberett]

waiiiiiiiiiiiiit I missed all of this

[davidgillon]

Think it was September/October-ish last year, when I was up in Durham and unable to post stuff on DW, but able to get through to FB to see and respond to Sue.

[merrythebard]

Argh, I'm so sorry to hear this. :-( Deeply distressing and angering, and I hope that Sarah recovers as swiftly as possible from the distress.

(It sounds to me like Sue Marsh has taken the wrong decision, but from sound motives. Maximus have been horribly clever. :-/ )

[davidgillon]

Yeah, there's the outside chance Sue will have an influence, but it totally destroyed her as an activist voice. Given Maximus's record of outright fraud in the States,and that they happily opened up shop in the old inaccessible Atos buildings, then protested we had to give them a chance, I'm not really inclined to think that doing the right thing was high up in their motives.

There are books out there telling corporations how to beat activist movements, and appropriating their leading voices is right at the top of the playbook.