[blindlaw] rift over law suit

[Chris Danielsen]

Rod,

The problem with your argument here is that sometimes, as in this case, one 
organization will do something that the other organization perceives as 
counterproductive to the best interests of blind people.  Putting aside your 
views on this particular issue, are you saying that the NFB should avoid 
disagreeing with the ACB, no matter how ridiculous and counterproductive to 
the welfare of blind people the position the ACB takes?  While we are both 
fighting for the rights of the blind, we sometimes disagree philosophically 
on what battles to fight and the effect that fighting those battles will 
have.  We have a real philosophical disagreement with the ACB on this issue. 
Are you saying we should shut up about it just for the sake of doing so?  If 
an organization purporting to speak for the blind said it would be better 
for blind people to be institutionalized for our own safety and well being, 
and even if they won a court battle to that effect, I certainly wouldn't 
acquiesce in that point of view and I would make sure the world knew that I 
didn't agree.  That's an extreme example, and maybe this particular fight 
isn't important enough in your eyes to make the disagreement public, but 
let's please get away from this argument that we should avoid disagreeing 
just for the sake of avoiding disagreeing.

Chris

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rod Alcidonis " <roddj12 at hotmail.com>
To: "'NFBnet Blind Law Mailing List'" <blindlaw at nfbnet.org>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 7:24 PM
Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit


> Ronza, then if it is really two organizations with two differing view
> points, why can't we stop fighting with each other and fight with the 
> world,
> instead. In your references to other organizations, I don't believe that 
> any
> one of them would go to court and oppose the other's litigation when they
> should be fighting for the same thing.
>
>    My frustration is not that there are two organizations with differing
> point of views, as your message seems to indicate, rather, it is at the 
> fact
> that we are fighting with ourselves, not with the misconceptions that are
> present in society. Here, one organization went to court and obtained a
> result, it makes absolutely no sense for another organization that is
> fighting for similar causes under a different philosophy to step in with 
> the
> intention of negating the other's achievement. This is counter productive.
>
> If you read Sarah's point in a previous message, you'll see what she wrote
> makes sense. We have two choices: if our goal is to fight with one 
> another,
> then let's not do it in the public, and certainly not in the courtroom. In
> the eyes of the general public we look as a group of "confused" indecisive
> community. Our second choice is that, let us invoke our own philosophy and
> stay out of each other's business as much as possible, and especially in 
> the
> courtroom.
>
> Rod
>
>
> -----
> From: blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org [mailto:blindlaw-bounces at nfbnet.org] On
> Behalf Of AZNOR99 at aol.com
> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 6:30 PM
> To: blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> Subject: Re: [blindlaw] rift over law suit
>
> Hi Rod and All,
>
> I understand your frustration at the situation, but I think you're being a
> little unfair to all the parties involved.  When the split occurred, it is
> certainly true that the majority of us were absent.  However, each group
> felt
> that it was in the best interest of the populous to move away from the
> other.
> Now, whether we like it or not, each organization holds a different
> philosophy, works toward different goals, and generates different 
> policies.
>
> Nonetheless, each organization has a common cause -- promoting  the rights
> of blind
> people.  There are hundreds of civil rights  organizations in the country.
> I can
> think of five that focus on the rights  of incarcerated prisoners off the
> top
> of my head.  I've worked for three  that emphasize the rights of battered
> women.  Each has different  philosophies, but each was organized around
> acheving
> freedom, or justice, or  safety, or whatever primary goal, for that
> particular
> population.  I, for  one, choose the NFB because I believe in its
> philosophy.
> I believe that  each blind person should be afforded equality, 
> opportunity,
>
> and security.   I also believe that we should receive respect and seek our
> own
> independence.  In my opinion, asking a court to require the government to
> change the shape of money conveys to the public, and to myself, that I am
> incapable of functioning in the world.  I believe I should utilize tools
> that
> adapt my surroundings to make them accessible for me; I vehemently oppose
> anything that requires the world to adapt to me because it reenforces
> misconceptions about blindness.  It is like shooting a fly with a missile
> when it would be
> more efficient and functional to just use a fly swatter.   But those are 
> my
> views, and I chose the organization that most closely shares  them.  I 
> don't
>
> perpetuate a rift between the ACB and the NFB by choosing  one 
> organization
> over
> another.  I don't necessarily oppose the work of  Amnesty International by
> supporting some of the overlapping work done by the  ACLU, do I?  I bet 
> each
> of
> us is a member of more than one Bar  Association.  Many of them started 
> out
> as
> a result of rifts or breaks from  other bar associations.  We choose the
> ones
> that suit us best, and  sometimes we choose not to join others.
>
> My final thought, as I stand on my soapbox, is that I don't necessarily
> agree with your prison analogy.  Many of us would certainly refuse to 
> leave
>
> prison early if it meant we were going to be classified as incompetent or
> transferred to an institution serving the criminally insane.  Some of us
> would rather
> finish out our stint in prison then agree to labels we believe are  false,
> harmful, and even abhorrent.
>
> Regards,
> Ronza
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> blindlaw mailing list
> blindlaw at nfbnet.org
> http://www.nfbnet.org/mailman/listinfo/blindlaw