discrimination – Terence Eden’s Blog

I feel hopeless, rejected, and a burden on society - one week of empathy training

@edent — Tue, 30 Jul 2019 07:08:43 +0000

I've spent a week cosplaying as a disabled user. And I hate it.

A couple of months ago, I attended a private talk given by a disabled colleague of mine. "Everyone should believe disabled people's stories about accessibility problems," she said. "But, given that people don't, here's what I want you to do. Spend one week pretending to be disabled. Pick a disability and try to interact with services as though you have that impairment. Build up some empathy."

So I did.

For a week, I pretended that I was in a wheelchair. I didn't go the full way and buy a cheap chair and try and commute in it. Instead, whenever I was invited to speak at an event, or go to a meeting, I asked if the venue was accessible. To my delight, all of them were. A couple of people told me they'd arrange ramps to the stage, or that they'd need to adjust a podium height if I wanted.

Except one. I turned up to find the talk had been moved to the 3rd floor of a building with no lift. I'd specifically asked the organisers if the room was wheelchair friendly. They'd had more people turn up than expected, so moved to a bigger room. At no point did the organisers contact me.

I turned up (without a chair) and briefly considered leaving. Instead I sent a sternly worded email.

The week left me feeling fairly hopeful. OK, it wasn't a full test - and there was a failure - but in my little bubble of society, people are (mostly) welcoming to wheelchair users.

Then it all went wrong.

The next week, I tried something different. Approximately 10% of people in the UK have a speech disorder. In the USA, approximately 7.5 million people have trouble using their voices.

So, I tried to spend a week without using the phone to contact companies. It was a fucking disaster.

I wanted to upgrade my Internet access to a faster speed. Virgin Media provide a web chat - and after a few hours of waiting (seriously!) I had this frustrating exchange (edited for clarity - typos left intact):

John: If you wish to avail of this deal . I advise you to call our Customer Care Team.
Terence: I can't use the phone due to my disability. Can I chat online to do it?
John: To reach our customer care. You can just download the app and quickly chat with the team there;
Terence: I've tried using the app - but no one answers. Please can you help me. I've been a customer for 6 years.
John: We appreciate your loyalty Terence, but we are are only limited to regular upgrade transacations.
Terence: So disabled customers can't upgrade via chat?
John: For persons with diabilities, there are options at "Contact Us"
Terence: I tried that - and it redirected me here. Is there anyone who can help?
John: I'm so sorry ternce but transactiosn like this can only be arranged by calling Custome care team.

So I asked to cancel my account.

Terence: If I want to cancel my account (without using the phone) what can I do?
John: the only option though is by calling . Call 150 from your Virgin Media phone or mobile, or call 0345 454 1111 * from any other phone Monday to Friday, 8am until 9pm Saturday, 8am until 8pm and Sunday 8am until 6pm For our text relay service call us free on 18001 0800 052 2164 You can also contact us through a sign language interpreter. Open 7 days a week, 8am until midnight. *For call costs to our team from a Virgin Media home phone, visit our Call costs page. Calls from other networks and mobile may vary.
Terence: This is discrimination. I don't know sign language and I don't have text relay. I can't use my voice. I want to contact someone to cancel my account.
John: If the voice is the issue, i advise you ask someone to call in your behalf.
Terence: I am perfectly capable of managing my affairs - and I don't want to give my password to someone else.

And so it went on. I spent hours chatting with different people, and with managers. None of them could help me with an upgrade, or with a cancellation.

Virgin accessibility police says:

2.1 We are committed to ensuring both vulnerable and disabled customers get fair and appropriate treatment. 2.2 To ensure we meet the needs of current and prospective customers, our sales and support teams are trained to identify and support the accessibility and vulnerability needs people may have. https://www.virginmedia.com/corporate/media-centre/public-policy-statements/accessibility-and-vulnerability-policy

As far as I can see, that's a load of bunkum. If you don't have a voice, you're locked out of Virgin's upgrade and cancellation routes.

I raised a complaint, and got back this fairly generic and dismissive response:

Please accept my apologies for this experience, , this is not the experience we want for our customers. We have fed your comments back to the relevant team, this will help us to highlight certain training needs and form coaching. There are areas where improvements can always be made, and as a customer-orientated organisation we are always endeavouring to improve both how we deal with customers and the range and quality of the services we offer.

No actual resolution. It made me feel like a burden for even asking for help. I can't go through the "normal" channels - I have to rely on the good graces of a complaints team. It was frustrating and demoralising.

The same thing happened with Thames Water. If you want to move your account, they ask you to fill in a form online. Hurrah! Until you get to one bit of it, where it tells you to ring a phone number.

I had a frustrating chat on Twitter with Thames Water. They admitted the phone number was wrong, and struggled to provide me with contact details.

I tried to use their complaints process, but that requires a 10 digit account number. But Thames have upgraded me to a 12 digit number - so their own form doesn't work!

So now I'm stuck in limbo. Waiting for someone to get back to me. I've told them not to call - but I bet you they try to ring me.

My bank had similar issues. UK banking is great for most online users. I was able to set up new payees, order a new card, cancel Direct Debit - all without using my voice. And then I tried to buy a house...

I needed to transfer a large sum of money in order to put a deposit down on my new place. It was larger than the standard transfer limit. And the only solution was to call them up.

They do have an online messaging service, but from experience it's slow to answer - and I needed to transfer the money immediately (the home buying process in England is dysfunctional). If I truly had no voice, I'd have lost the house I was trying to buy.

I appreciate the need for security. And for double-checking transactions. And all that good stuff. But I was trapped. So I caved in and called.

I have no mouth and I must scream

You should believe your disabled friends and colleagues when they tell you how crap the world can be.

You should also try empathy building exercises. Here are some examples, please add your own in the comments:

Go a couple of weeks without using the phone. Which services are closed off to you?
Tell people you need an accessible venue for your meetings. How do they respond?
Turn off images in your browser. Is there enough alt-text for you to navigate the web?
Switch on subtitles and mute your favourite shows. Do they even have subtitles? What do you miss?
Hire or buy a wheelchair for a week. How easy is your office to navigate? (Please don't block the accessible loos though!)
Buy a pair of arthritis simulating gloves. What does the world feel like with limited mobility?

But, most of all, record how it makes you feel. After a few fruitless hours pleading with my ISP, I was ready to kick something. Now imagine that every day.

Whether you work in tech or not - it is your duty to make sure that no one feels demoralised or rejected because of the systems you build.

Councillor Carl Thomson's Deleted Tweets

@edent — Wed, 18 Jul 2012 09:59:22 +0000

Regular readers will know that I think Woking Council's subsidy of curchgoers is ridiculous, illegal, and unfair. It's an issue I've raised with local councillor Carl Thomson in writing and on Twitter.

A few days ago I entered into a discussion with him online about the issue. He has since deleted the tweets. But, as we know, the Internet has a long memory - so here they are. I've reordered a few to make our conversation clearer. None of my tweets have been deleted.

It started when I saw him talking about Lords reform.

As far as I am aware, local councillors have very little impact on the subject. Of greater concern to this resident is the religious discrimination promoted by him and the Tory council. I asked about it, and got a very curt reply.

Suddenly, Carl sent this rather passive aggressive tweet. (NB due to GMT/BST this next tweet was sent 15 minutes after the previous one.)

https://twitter.com/CllrCarlThomson/status/224968730021593089

I couldn't see anyone accusing him of corruption, certainly not me. I can't even imagine why he bought it up.

And that's the sum of it. It baffles me why he has deleted the tweets. Sure, he was slightly rude to start with - but given the late hour it's not the worst of crimes. I'm no Paxman, so I can't imagine my questions taxed him - although, like Paxo, I never received an adequate reply.

In the meantime, Woking continues pouring away money to religious groups who neither need nor want subsidising. But that's a subject for another blog post...

And THE LORD sayeth "Thou Shalt Give Free Parking To The Faithful"

@edent — Fri, 15 Jun 2012 13:20:15 +0000

My local council, Woking, have found themselves in a spot of bother recently. It has emerged that they are subsidising parking charges for specific Christians churches. If you belong to a different church, worship a different god, or just want to go shopping, you have to pay for parking.

The total subsidy was at least £55,864 between 2009 and 2011, and is still rising.

The National Secular Society took issue with this and, unsurprisingly, complained that this was blatant discrimination.

Not everyone agrees; Carl Thomson, one of my local councillors, rather missed the point when he talked about secular intolerance.

I was always disappointed that the threat of legal action had been made and think most people would see that as bullying and intolerant. The council gives concessions and grants to a range of organisations. The National Secular Society are crying discrimination where none exists.

Secularism means different things to different people. To me it has a simple meaning: the government has no business imposing religious beliefs on its citizens, nor should it restrict the religious beliefs, and no one religion should get special favours.

As a non-religious person, I really don't care how you spend your Sundays (or whichever day is special to you). I shouldn't be able to push my non-belief on you, and you shouldn't try to push your belief on me. We'll then get along fabulously!

But why should Christians get free parking? The assorted Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Mormons, Scientologists, Pastafarians, and Buddhists receive no such special dispensation for parking. Nor do the non-religious.

How We Got In This Mess

This situation has a fairly simple history. I recommend reading the whole report, but here are the highlights.

Car parking in Woking used to be free on a Sunday.
The council decided to charge for Sunday parking (Around 2001).
Churches near the town centre asked the council to subsidise their worshippers (2003).
The council did so.
A Freedom of Information request was made which uncovered the subsidy (July / August 2011).
The National Secular Society raised an official complaint (September 2011).

It seems to me that this is blatant discrimination. No other religions receive special subsidies for car parking.

As well as annoying the non-religious, it's also not a very good solution - especially for disabled church-goers.

The report states:

The EqIA has found that the current practice of allowing worshippers to park free on Sunday’s was implemented as a reactive practice, and did not consider the needs of the wider community. The practice does not impact positively on all churchgoers as it has a negative impact on disabled Woking residents within the faith community who are excluded from its benefits, and on the wider community of residents, including disabled people who are also excluded from its benefits.

What's even more astonishing is that this subsidy isn't needed!

... the vast majority of worshippers stated during the EqIA consultation that a reintroduction of charges would not prevent them from attending the Sunday church service

Even if "vast majority" just means just 51%, that would be a huge reduction in the bill to tax-payers.

At which point, perhaps it would be low enough for the church - or its members - to subsidise the member of its community who cannot afford the parking.

I'm not religious, and I understand why the faithful would think that it's disrespectful of me to compare "free parking for shopping" to "free parking for worship". But not all faiths choose Sunday as their day of observance.

The Muslim members of the Mosque on Portugal Road, close to the Town Centre, pay for on street parking from 12.00noon to 2.30pm on a Friday which is their day of religious observance.

Now, as far as I can tell, there has always been a charge for parking in the week - so this isn't a new form of discrimination against Muslims.

Local Councillor Carl Thomson, quoted in getSurrey said:

The religious community bring so much to Woking and it’s nice for the council to do something for worshippers.

But at no point, as far as I can tell, did Woking Council ever consider subsidising non-Christians - even though it would have an equally beneficial impact on those worshippers.

To quote the full report once again:

At the same time, it was seen as unfair in a multi-cultural society if similar concessions or relaxation of the rules were not also made for faith groups whose day of religious observance was not a Sunday. This is vividly illustrated by the fact that Christ Church, one of the churches that benefits from the free Sunday parking practice is approximately 150 yards from the Portugal Road Mosque. [emphasis added]

Recommendations

The report's recommendations are fairly straightforward:

It is recommended that:
1. WBC addresses the current arrangements in relation to disabled people and Sunday parking as a matter of urgency by taking up the issue in relation to the on-street parking bays as a matter of urgency.
2. That WBC continue with the practice of allowing worshippers to park free if the Council is able to determine that it is a 'proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim' and having had proper regard to all of the issues raised in this EqIA.
Or
3. WBC rescind Sunday car parking charges for all visitors to the Town Centre between the hours of 7.00am and 1.00pm.
Or
4. WBC rescind Sunday parking charges for all visitors to Woking town centre on Sundays.

I think that they are missing another, more practical, option. Keep charging for Sunday parking for everyone.

My Thoughts

At best, this policy was a well intentioned way to provide financial relief to those unable to pay for car parking. In practice, however, this is a divisive and discriminatory practice which leaves no one particularly satisfied.

I would hope that everyone can agree that preventing disabled people from parking (whether religious or not) is an issue which needs tackling.

So, finally we come to the heart of the matter: is it discrimination to give free parking to a select group of Christians?

As a secularist, I would argue that, yes, it is discrimination.

This can't be solved by giving all other religious people a free car parking pass on their day of worship. On a mercenary level, it would be financially crippling for the tax payers of Woking. On a practical level, how do you prevent people from saying they're worshipping when really they're doing the weekly shop?

Returning to the status quo of free Sunday parking would be a universal benefit - church-goers can worship if they want to, while the rest of us can go shopping, see a play or movie, or use the leisure centre.

But this could be seen to be indirect discrimination. Muslims worship on a Friday and Jews worship on a Saturday - so they are excluded from this benefit.

It would appear, from the report that the introduction of Sunday parking charges had "no impact on the footfall within the Town Centre".

The choice, to me, seems obvious. Sunday charging should remain. If religious institutions (of any flavour) want their worshippers to park for free, they should provide the subsidies themselves.

That way no one religion is favoured and the non-religious aren't subsidising those who don't need the money.

The Councillor's Reaction

I emailed Carl Thomson my concerns and, with his permission, present his reply in full:

Dear Terence,

Thank you for your email and your messages on Twitter about parking concessions for churchgoers.

I don't believe the current policy is discriminatory since it is not targeted at any particular religion. The legal advice we have received confirms that it is a legitimate aim for the council to support the religious and churchgoing community, in a similar manner to other social, religious and community groups who receive assistance through the award of grants and financial support.

Using your line of thinking, it could be argued that the council is discriminating against young people by giving financial support to the Marjorie Richardson Centre, that assistance to Outline discriminates against those who are not gay or lesbian, that allowing Street Angels to use council facilities discriminates against those who do not go out drinking on a Friday and Saturday night , and that giving a grant to the Pakistani Muslim Welfare Association discriminates against people who are neither Pakistani, Muslim, nor in need of assistance.

The reality is that we all benefit from the rich diversity of communities that exist in Woking and I would see the policy on free town centre parking for churchgoers as part of the broader range of support that the council provides to different people and organisations. I don't believe it causes resentment. Apart from the person who made the original complaint, you are the first person to raise the issue directly with me.

Regarding the National Secular Society, I have no problem with them campaigning to make sure the state does not interfere in matters of conscious or religion. What I take issue with is the threat of legal action to challenge any recognition or support for religious communities. In my view, the actions of the NSS are aimed not at ensuring protection from the state for people of all religions or none, but at removing any assistance given to Christians by local authorities - and it does appear to be mainly Christians that they target. As far as I am concerned, the NSS falls on the wrong side of the divide between legitimate campaigning and bullying.

I hope that answers your questions, although I suspect we may have to agree to disagree, but please feel free to publish this email on your blog.

Kind regards,

Carl

I completely agree that a diverse community is great for Woking. And I have no issue with supporting specific groups (monetarily or otherwise).

Refusing to fund a group because they were gay would be discrimination. Similarly only offering support to gay groups would also be discrimination. That's what we're seeing here - Woking Council are offering a specific benefit to one group of church-goers and denying it to those of other religions (or none). There is obviously a demand for it and - whether intentional or not - Woking are discriminating.

I'd like to take issue with four of the points which Carl makes.

"I don't believe the current policy is discriminatory since it is not targeted at any particular religion."
Well, this is simply not the case. Only Christians of a specific denomination can get free carparking on a Sunday.
"I don't believe it causes resentment."
The report clearly states
... it was seen as unfair in a multi-cultural society if similar concessions or relaxation of the rules were not also made for faith groups whose day of religious observance was not a Sunday.
and, later,
some residents have expressed their frustration at the practice of allowing Sunday worshippers to park free of charge whatever their income level, whilst other non church going residents, including those who fall within groups with other protected characteristics, cannot benefit from free parking, and are paying substantially increased charges across the board. This is seen as tantamount to being discriminated against on the grounds of having no belief or organised religious belief.
"What I take issue with is the threat of legal action to challenge any recognition or support for religious communities."
The NSS are concerned that the support is illegal - a view broadly supported by the report. What else can someone do to compel an organisation to follow the law other than threaten legal action? To just say "we think you're breaking the law, but we don't intend to do anything about it," is tantamount to condoning the law breaking.
"the actions of the NSS are aimed [...] at removing any assistance given to Christians by local authorities - and it does appear to be mainly Christians that they target. "
Christianity is the established religion in this country - naturally they will be the largest target for anyone involved in the cause of disestablishment. But it doesn't take more that a few seconds to see examples of the NSS highlighting the cause of persecuted Christians, sticking up for a Bishop's right to free speech, and siding with Christian bloggers. That's before you get to them taking a stance against ritual slaughter, or forced marriage, or Sharia law.

Last Word

The Church is going through a painful transition. Its waning influence on UK society and deep internal divisions on equal marriage are causing it to rupture.

Despite this, the Church of England is an incredibly rich institution - with an investment fund of around £5.3 billion. The Government cannot subsidise people to go to a specific church; so the church should divert a small fraction of its global investments towards local car parking for poor parishioners.

The Full Report

Sunday Parking Charges: Report to Woking Borough Council

Update

The proposed plan from Woking Borough Council - as reported via getSurrey looks like it just compounds the problem.