Drivers Education for the Blind

[Japher]

pulling the wool over their... uh... nope, not that one either

[Wezil]

Found the hunter case...

Rogers v. Newfoundland
(Department of Culture, Recreation and Youth) (Nfld. S.C.T.D.) - 1991

Government policy required that in order to be eligible to participate in the "draw" system for the issuance of a big game licence, an applicant must first pass a "hunter capability test", comprising both a written and practical, shooting test. The appellant, who was blind from birth, challenged the policy on the basis that it was discriminatory contrary to section 7 of the Newfoundland Human Rights Code. An Ad Hoc Commission found that by reason of his disability the appellant could not meaningfully participate in the practical, shooting test, and was thus excluded by reason of his disability from access to a "service" provided by government, contrary to section 7(1). The Commission however, concluded that the discrimination was based on a bona fide qualification imposed "in the interest of promoting the adequate performance of the act of hunting in a reasonable and safe manner", and therefore it was permitted under section 7(2). The Commission's recommendation was accepted by the Minister and the appellant appealed.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. The Code applied to discrimination created both under government policy and under express statutory authority. Accordingly the saving provisions of the Code applied in the present case even though the alleged discrimination was by policy. The requirement to take and pass the practical, shooting test constituted a bona fide qualification. In the circumstances of this case, to impose on the government a "duty to accommodate" would amount to undue hardship.

Mr. Rogers didn't finish there...

Rogers v. Newfoundland (Department of Culture, Recreation and
Youth) - 1994 Appeal

The appellant was legally blind since birth. He appealed the decision of a judge upholding the decision of Commissioner appointed under the Human Rights Act denying his eligibility for a hunting licence. The appellant was not seeking a licence to participate in a hunt but to gain access to the fruits of it by having someone else shoot the animal for him. The main issue, therefore, was whether there was a duty on the Crown to reasonably accommodate the appellant under section 7 of the Human Rights Code. The judge had concluded that, given the objective and philosophy of the policy, accommodation of the system to the degree advocated would create an undue hardship which the government was not under a duty to accept.

HELD: Appeal dismissed. The judge correctly held that the Crown had established that the proposed change would affect the whole thrust and intention of the licensing policy in that it would convert it into a system of clear and intentional licensing of possession of the fruits of the hunt. The courts could not, in the exercise of the power conferred on them by Human Rights legislation, change the very purpose of otherwise neutral rules and policies. If the appellant's aim to change the law so that disabled persons would be able to apply and get a licence to gain access to the fruits of the hunt by means of another hunter was to be realized, he must look to either the legislature or to executive action or both sources. It could not be effectuated under the guise of claiming reasonable accommodation.

End result was proper.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by germanos
what's next?

A Mozart intruductionary course for the deaf?

Yeah, next thing you know, theyll be claiming hearing impaired people can compose classical music.

Or that people who use wheelchairs can ski.


As for tasteless, thats largely what this thread is.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil
End result was proper.

I don't agree.

When game is being used for basic food, the person's rights are being infringed by public policy.

[notyoueither]

... or maybe not.

If it's like a draw for tags, common here, not everybody who is able to shoot gets a crack at it anyway.

But then again, he is being denied the opportunity to get the food.

Would have been interesting if it had gone before our 'ready and willing to redefine law' SC.

[Jaguar]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yeah, next thing you know, theyll be claiming hearing impaired people can compose classical music.

Oh, and DaShi's quip was quite excellent as well.

[lord of the mark]

a moving story

http://www.newyorkmetro.com/nymetro/news/people/columns/intelligencer/9956/

[Sava]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


Yeah, next thing you know, theyll be claiming hearing impaired people can compose classical music.

if I may attempt to make a serious post

Beethoven lost his hearing. He wasn't born deaf. There's a difference between someone who was born deaf and someone who had the ability to hear and lost it. Beethoven knew sound and undoubtedly was able to remember the tones and notes long after he lost the ability to hear them. Also, composing music requires eyesight as well... not to mention, IMO, a very brilliant and mathematical mind...

And even if Beethoven was born deaf (and blind) and still managed to compose all his great works. It still could not be compared to driving a 3,000 pound vehicle... in any way. Which, is almost exclusively a visually-oriented task.

so while this thread may be tasteless... your post, if you will forgive the pun, was senseless

[Sava]

hey

and while we are on the topic of senses

why is it called "common sense" if so few people have it?

[mrmitchell]

Also, composing music requires eyesight as well...

Our church organist is blind, and the stuff they say about other senses making up for it is absolutely true. He hears stuff no one else can, he can recognize people just from hearing them say "Hi" or "peace", and he's super smart. I mean, I know being blind practically all your life (he lost his eyesight when his age was measured in months) makes you find ways to do without, but he's gone to Yale all on his own, now lives in his own apartment downtown...

If he wanted to compose music, there would be nothing stopping him.

[snoopy369]

Okay ... one question.

Why are they requiring Driver's Ed at all? Not everyone drives a car, ever. Most, but not all; it's certainly not mandatory, and some can never afford one.

I'd posit that they're not requiring everyone to learn HOW to drive (no driving portion of the class, note!), but to learn the rules of the road.

Those rules are important for pedestrians as well (and even in some cases for passengers in cars, particularly seatbelt and open container laws). Perhaps they should retitle the class from "driver's ed" to "road safety" - but I think it's quite important to learn the rules of the road, whether you can drive or not; and perhaps even more so for the blind.

Just my two cents... Well, one cent. The other cent is that I nearly laughed out loud when I saw that this issue made the front page of BOTH major Chicago papers today ...

[Vince278]

Originally posted by rah
I hear they do this so they can take advantage of the braille on the drive through ATMs.

I wondered about that.

[CerberusIV]

Curiously enough there is a recognised world speed record for blind drivers. The current holder set it a couple of years ago at Elvington airfield in Yorkshire (I saw it on the local news). IIRC it was something over 150mph.

[Provost Harrison]

Well isn't it obvious that it is disability discrimination of the worst order not to allow blind people to drive! It's a human right!

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Well isn't it obvious that it is disability discrimination of the worst order not to allow blind people to drive! It's a human right!

In the State of Pennsylvania drivers manual it says it's a privilige to drive, not a right.