This site now acts as an archive only. For the latest news, opinion, blogs and listings on disability arts and culture visit disabilityarts.online.

Disability Arts Online

Crippen gives a heads up about the appearance of Liz Crow on the Trafalgar Square plinth / 4 August 2009

Our Disabled sister and fellow artist Liz Crow appeared on the Anthony Gormley plinth in Trafalgar Square on Saturday 8th August at 2200 hrs. And as promised, she presented a dignified but powerful statement against extreme right wing politics in its worse manifestation.

Initially clad in a cream coloured blanket that covered her from head to foot, Liz sat quietly in her wheelchair for the first 10 minutes before pulling it away to reveal herself wearing the uniform of the war time Nazi party.

Again she sat quietly as the voice of DAN activist Clair Lewis could be heard singing at the base of the column. Then pulling a collapsable pole from beneath her chair Liz unfurled a red flag which read 'Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me - Resistence'

A further 10 minutes elapsed and Liz began to shed the uniform, throwing it down in disgust at her feet. All of the time she kept the flag flying high above her head ...

At one stage a message was shouted up to Liz from her supporters on the ground: "It's alright Liz, they all get it!" Meaning that the general public, who had been watching understood what her protest had been about.

The general public in the area joined in the cheers and applause as Liz was eventually lifted from the plinth after her hour was up and she was able to join the other Danners, friends and supporters at the base. 

A powerful performance by a strong and courageous woman.

Keywords: disability art,disabled people's movement,politics,visual art,nazi party atrocities towards Disabled people

Comments

Crippen

/
26 August 2009

All contributions to this site are subject to DAO's Editorial Policy and can be edited by the site Editor Colin Hambrook

Ex-Danner

/
26 August 2009

I've suddenly noticed my original comments have been edited, and so have the comments from Danner. I'd rather my comments were removed completely than edited, as it removes the context of the discussion danner and I were having. Also, it doesn't say on the site that DAO has the right to remove text within comments (in other words, edit comments).

DANNER

/
13 August 2009

It is a disgrace that women are expected to take the blame for allowing or asking doctors to commit these eugenic killings because they are told it's the socially responsible thing to do.

DANNER

/
13 August 2009

Do you realise EVERY pregnant woman in this country is tested now for impaired babies as standard, and offered terminations as standard if impairment is found in the baby... that is not the same as people screening for specific conditions in families which have those (who make up a miniscule proportion of those tested).

Do you realise that all disabled babies may be terminated up until birth? Including for impairments which are repairable such as cleft palate.

Do you realise that if blood tests mean the woman is at a higher likelihood of a disabled baby, they follow up as standard with an amniocentisis test which kills more non disabled babies than it identifies disabled ones (by around two-fold).

Don't you mind that instead of welcoming and making space for disabled babies, we choose to kill? It is not the same as choosing a non impaired baby. There is no non-impaired baby there, only a disabled one. It's choosing not to have a baby, after the date anyone else may do it, for eugenic reasons.

It's a eugenic screening and termination programme. Nearly all the disabled foetuses found are killed. Most of them at dates which are illegal in any other circumstance. Some of them at gestations at which they would survive unaided if born.

It is a disgrace that women are expected to commit these eugenic killings because they are told it's the socially responsible thing to do.

They should have a right to choose and right now their choice is fear of hardship or eugenics.

Women deserve a real choice, including the choice to have all their children welcomed into this society.

Ex-Danner

/
6 August 2009

Genetic testing, if done with sensitive genetic counselling and through clear guidance from the HFEA, can be an incredibly useful way for people to ensure that their life-threatening disorders aren't passed on to their children. For example, those who have had previous babies die painful deaths from genetic disorders and want to avoid repeating this with future children through the use of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. No one gets killed, it's just that they have the option of choosing an embryo without that disorder. My point is that it should be an OPTION. If people don't want it, then don't choose it - that's fine. But I don't want to live in a state that tells me i can't have that choice because hysterical people equate it with murder.

DANNER

/
6 August 2009

‘What is the difference between that and taking folic acid or giving your babies immunisation from terrible diseases like meningitis?’ The answer is that genetic testing leads to murder, which is massively different.

Just don't ask for help via policies which will lead to co-operative euthanasia for less privileged people with less fight.

Am I the only one who's noticed that every person seen in the press fighting for this is white and middle class? Co-incidence?

Sanda Aronson

/
5 August 2009

Brava. A pal in England told me about the plinth. I'm here in NYC and say hello from another DAN - I started the Disabled Artists' Network in April,1985, a small pen-network of professional artists who are disabled. It is still ongoing, by post, not online due most of the group are postal users (the computer folks, sadly, died). I've only been online for less than two years. I found this website via NotDeadYet at http://www.notdeadyet.org

Ex-DAN member

/
5 August 2009

I would like to choose when I die if my impairment becomes too unbearable for me to continue, and without fear of my husband being prosecuted if he helped me.

I also believe that people should be able to choose genetic testing if they don't want to pass on their genetic disorders to their children. What is the difference between that and taking folic acid or giving your babies immunisation from terrible diseases like meningitis?

So despite my respect for Liz as a filmmaker and my sympathy for anti-genetics views, I won't be attending. Because if I did and shared my views, I can guarantee I would be accused of being a traitor, self-hating crip etc.

/
5 August 2009

The law currently makes it a criminal offence to assist another person to commit suicide. There has been a stream of media stories about British people travelling to Dignitas in Switzerland to be killed because they wish to end their lives. These are all very tragic stories. However, it is important to note that in recent years no-one in Britain has been prosecuted for taking their relatives to Switzerland to die, nor in respect of other cases of assisted suicide in the U.K.

But to decriminalise assisted suicide would - as many commentators have observed - make many elderly people vulnerable to relatives who may have ulterior motives for wishing them to die early.

The law as it is acts as a deterrent to those wishing to assist a relative to die early. There is therefore a very strong case NOT to change the law, despite the increasing clamour in some quarters for assisted suicide to be made legal.

To petition the Prime Minister to retain the law that makes it a criminal offence to assist another person to commit suicide, please add your details to the following list at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/notolegalsuicide/