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
|
