sorry baby...  lady luck didn't go your way this time.  tuff nuggies for you.  you lose.  

you're long winded email (with a reactionary slant) will do you no good.

> Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2008 06:06:38 -0500
> From: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Robbing (able-bodied) Petra to pay (disabled) Paula
> To: [log in to unmask]
> 
> http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=238201
> 
> Article rank  
> DARREN STONE / CANWEST NEWS SERVICE 
>  
> Joanne Neubauer 
> Robbing (able-bodied) Petra
> to pay (disabled) Paula
> KAREN SELICK
> National Post [log in to unmask] 
> Joanne Neubauer of Victoria must be happy today. She's the wheelchair user whose
> complaint to the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) resulted in last week's
> decision requiring the airlines to give her a second seat, without charge, for
> her travelling attendant.
> 
> 
> "It means we have the same rights as everyone else," Neubauer said. "I've always
> wanted to go to the Maritimes myself. I've seen pictures but I've never been,
> because I haven't been able to afford [two seats]."
> 
> 
> In my view, Neubauer's satisfaction with this ruling is extremely short-sighted.
> Ultimately, the erroneous thinking that gave rise to this ruling threatens the
> security of able-bodied and disabled individuals alike.
> 
> 
> The CTA probably had no choice but to rule as it did, given the content of the
> governing legislation and case precedents. However, Neubauer's conclusion that
> she was given the "same rights" as everyone else is incorrect.
> 
> 
> The right that able-bodied passengers have is to consume whatever services an
> airline willingly provides at a particular price - in other words, the right to
> engage in voluntary trade. The disabled now have something different - the legal
> power to consume services in excess of what an airline willingly provides at
> that price. They have the power to coerce others into parting with their
> property, against their will.
> 
> 
> This power is clearly a privilege, not a right. If it were a right, everyone
> would have it - universality is what distinguishes rights from privileges. But
> if everyone had it, Canadian society would rapidly disintegrate into the chaos,
> brutality and destitution that characterizes societies where private property is
> not secure but can be seized against the owner's will by whoever comes along
> with superior power.
> 
> 
> The philosophical error underlying this ruling is the widely held notion that
> justice consists in our following Lady Luck around and trying to undo what we
> perceive to be her injustices. Neither Air Canada nor WestJet (the defendants in
> this case) had anything to do with causing Neubauer's rheumatoid arthritis. Most
> likely, nobody did. Neubauer was simply unlucky in falling victim to this
> crippling condition.
> 
> 
> No matter how we may seethe against the seeming unfairness of her situation, we
> must accept that there is no element of morality or justice involved. Lady Luck
> is not an entity - merely a metaphor. But morality and justice are concepts that
> apply only in judging the deliberate actions of conscious entities. We don't
> call a tree immoral or unjust if it falls and kills someone. Trees aren't
> conscious and their falling is not deliberate.
> 
> 
> The fact that Neubauer became disabled through sheer bad luck is morally
> neutral. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the CTA's decision to shift
> the burden of Neubauer's disability to others. In concert with the lawmakers who
> passed the Canada Transportation Act and the judiciary that has interpreted
> those laws, the CTA has taken deliberate steps to harm others who are innocent
> of any wrongdoing. If the airlines raise fares for other passengers, then it is
> other blameless travellers who will be victimized by this decision. If the
> airlines absorb the costs themselves, then it will be their shareholders who are
> victimized.
> 
> 
> Surely, we must acknowledge that deliberately harming innocent bystanders is not
> an act of justice - that it is morally wrong no matter how sympathetic or
> appealing the intended beneficiary may be. Otherwise, the thug who steals your
> wallet in a dark alley and gives the money to his ailing grandmother should be
> lauded as an agent of justice rather than punished as a criminal.
> 
> 
> Nor does it help that the state's decision to redistribute wealth has been made
> using the democratic process. If democracy remedied this injustice, then two
> thugs in the dark alley could justify taking your wallet simply by letting you
> vote with them on it, and outvoting you two to one.
> 
> 
> The moral course of action for people to take if they wish to help the disabled
> is to donate their own resources, not to commandeer someone else's for that
> purpose. Charities like Canadian Guide Dogs for the Blind, for example, convert
> voluntary donations into invaluable assistance to blind people. Neubauer would
> have done a genuine service, rather than a disservice, to the country if she had
> organized a similar voluntary organization to fund travel expenses for the
> disabled.
> 
> 
> As for that trip to the Maritimes, I' ll bet there are many able-bodied people
> in Victoria who can't afford it either. The proper course of action in such
> circumstances is to save up until you can. Neubauer apparently expects to be
> able to save enough for one ticket. She should simply save twice as long and buy
> two.
> 
> 
> Karen Selick is a lawyer in Belleville. (ONTARIO, CANADA
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> -----------------------
> 
> To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:
> 
> http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy
> 

-----------------------

To change your mail settings or leave the C-PALSY list, go here:

http://listserv.icors.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ICORS.EXE?SUBED1=c-palsy