Well said John McNicoll, you sum up my position perfectly, but have difficulty putting across
This is an interesting and much-needed discussion/debate and personally I have been unable to decide which side of the argument to agree with. I would take issue with part of John's recent post though, namely...
Quote:There are no circumstances in the real world under which any event can be held to ransom by a single over demanding disabled entrant.
Let's use the Winter Festival in Edinburgh Chess Club as an example as it has been mentioned before and offers some fairly unique 'problems' regarding disabled access. Please correct me if I'm wrong in any part of what follows.
The organisers want to run a FIDE-rated event alongside the closed event. A wheelchair-user enters, rejects the (fairly humiliating to most) option of being carried up the stairs, and also rejects the alternative option of playing in Mathers along the street (as would I were I asked to play there against the disabled entrant or anyone else). No suitable alternative can be found. FIDE rules state that the event cannot be FIDE-rated, so the organisers cancel the event because the vast majority of entrants are only playing because it is a FIDE-rated event.
In a different scenario, the organisers of the Winter Festival decide to hold the supplementary event as non-FIDE-rated, under CS rules incorporating the new 'disability rules' in place after Steve's motion is carried at the AGM. The same entrant, with the same access problem, again rejects the alternative venue. The organisers say they've attempted to follow the new 'guidelines' as best they can, the entrant disagrees and raises a civil action against the organisers. What happens now?
Now this may seem far-fetched at the moment - as many people have stated already, no such problems have arisen so far to the best of our knowledge - but it would only require one disgruntled person for this to cause serious problems.
On the other hand, what is there currently to stop someone in a similar situation invoking discrimination laws against organisers who can't meet certain access criteria?
As an able-bodied person, I am willing to go to great lengths personally to accommodate disabled opponents - dictaphones/braille sets/separate rooms/unusual noises from certain players/guide dogs etc. are quite distracting to me, but in the grand scheme of things a person with a disability who wants to participate is more important to me than my own slight discomfort at these things.
However, legislating for such things in a small, financially-poor sport/game/hobby organisation is a serious business and concerns such as Ian's and others should not be dismissed so easily.
I have no axe to grind on this matter. So those on both sides of this debate please take note! I pointed out that the guys of the RAFA club lost their club, through legislation (the law of the land). However, could they not simply have relocated? Not at that time for their membership had dwindled to less than 100 and they did not have the financial strength to relocate, and still have what they were used to.
Week after week I stood on those steps and watched as their aging membership arrived. Many struggled to get up those steps. Some had simply stopped going to their club because they could no longer bound up those steps as they once had, and others of course, could only manage this sporadically, on special occasions. Oftentimes I wondered, if access were easier, would they still have a lot more members?
Disability is something one can be born with, or as a result of a trauma, or simply through years of wear and tear. Who can say that tomorrow I will still be able bodied?
Already, the law in the UK, is heavily in favour of anti-discriminatory laws with regard to the disabled. Similarly FIDE, and yes, it is going to hurt some as things change. The guys at the RAFA club lost their club, but what if some 20 years prior to that they had relocated to an access friendlier place?
I suppose what I am saying is that people should recognize when a hurricane is blowing, as opposed to a mere gust of wind. Disability rights are here to stay, embrace that reality, or I fear you will get blown away.
There is a cost, always, in change. However there are also opportunities. Some will adopt and embrace, some will fight against it, ultimately this motion, or one like it, will be passed. If not this time, then next time, or the next,....
I am no longer in Scotland, but I still care deeply about the struggle you guys have. Whether you vote for or against this, I wish each and every one of you well.
God Bless
John
Shall we address the spectre of court cases being raised?
The guidelines will not lead to a court case as they are not being adopted by the Scottish government as law. The guidelines have an ultimate punishment of the games not being graded.
Anything else would require the actual laws being used.
The tournament organiser will not, unless they own the venue, be the target of this mythical disabled
chess-playing crusader, the sights will be set on the owners of the building and the law used will be the existing disability act covering access.
This has been in place now for at least ten years and yet no court cases have been raised against anyone holding a chess tournament.
I would suggest then that the introduction of the guidelines will not lead to an increased risk of court cases. Any attempt to link them does seem to be spurious at best.
As to an insistence on a tournament organisers part on using unsuitable premises, according to FIDE, leading to a cancellation, that would seem to be a good example of cutting your nose of to spite your face, to coin a phrase.
JMcNicoll Wrote:Shall we address the spectre of court cases being raised?
The guidelines will not lead to a court case as they are not being adopted by the Scottish government as law. The guidelines have an ultimate punishment of the games not being graded.
Anything else would require the actual laws being used.
The tournament organiser will not, unless they own the venue, be the target of this mythical disabled
chess-playing crusader, the sights will be set on the owners of the building and the law used will be the existing disability act covering access.
This has been in place now for at least ten years and yet no court cases have been raised against anyone holding a chess tournament.
I would suggest then that the introduction of the guidelines will not lead to an increased risk of court cases. Any attempt to link them does seem to be spurious at best.
As to an insistence on a tournament organisers part on using unsuitable premises, according to FIDE, leading to a cancellation, that would seem to be a good example of cutting your nose of to spite your face, to coin a phrase.
Ok John, that seems fairly clear on the legal aspects, although Edinburgh Chess Club do own their premises don't they? Not sure on that one actually but someone will no doubt clarify.
As to your final paragraph, the Winter Festival for example ('insisting' on playing at Alva Street despite being unsuitable for some players with some types of disability) would be unlikely to go ahead elsewhere I imagine - 9 days over New Year in Edinburgh at full market rates!? It only works because Alva Street is a chess club and recognises that with its rates to organisers.
It would appear, then, that Edinburgh CC simply can't be used for FIDE-rated events (even if there are no disabled entrants!) which would be a major blow for Scottish Chess :-s
I think it would be very useful to the debate for some organisers to come to the forum and give their views.
I have had restricted internet access over the past week but was able to read the thread daily.
It does surprise me that nobody has commented upon the 2nd paragraph.
2. No one has the right to refuse to meet a disabled player against whom he has been correctly paired.
I suggest amending that to read.
2. No one has the right to refuse to meet a player against whom he has been correctly paired.
The first version version could be interpreted to imply that a refusal to play an opponent could be acceptable in the case of an able bodied player.
It would appear, then, that Edinburgh CC simply can't be used for FIDE-rated events (even if there are no disabled entrants!) which would be a major blow for Scottish Chess :-s
I think it would be very useful to the debate for some organisers to come to the forum and give their views.
andyburnett
Andy,
I don't think you are right in saying the above, if there are no disabled there is no problem. The onus is on the potential disabled entrant to notify the organisers of a FIDE rated event in advance of his/her requirements, in order to give the organiser the maximum amount of time possible to make arrangements for that player(s) needs. If other countries can do this, why can't Scotland? If there is no disabled entrant there is no problem as far as I can see.
I do agree that organisers views are welcome
StevieHilton Wrote:If other countries can do this, why can't Scotland? If there is no disabled entrant there is no problem as far as I can see.
The above seems to imply that there is a
problem if a disabled player enters such an event, which is surely not your intention? Besides, I thought the guidelines had just been introduced recently? If so, how do we know other countries can do this without repercussions for many well established tournaments? As already stated, nobody is disputing whether or not we should promote the inclusion of disabled players. Obviously we should do everything we can to make it more inclusive to everyone. But saying we can't continue running Fide-rated events in the Edinburgh Chess Club anymore IF a disabled player decides to enter and has a problem ascending the stairs is not going to make anything more inclusive. The ECC - I would argue - are (for a number of reasons) unlikely to decide to host some of these events elsewhere on the possibility that a wheelchair-bound player might enter. The more likely outcome would be that the Fide-rated events wouldn't run, or - defeating the purpose of the events in the first place - wouldn't be Fide rated. That seems... very inclusive. /
Unfortunately, whether intended or otherwise, this is how the motion is worded for other tournaments in Scotland as well (if adopted). In my view it's not enough to say "yea well it's just formalising what already happens", because it isn't; or "but that won't happen anyway", because that's not the point. If you want a formal document to promote inclusion of disabled players then it needs to be smarter and clearer than the way the motion is currently written.
StevieHilton Wrote:It would appear, then, that Edinburgh CC simply can't be used for FIDE-rated events (even if there are no disabled entrants!) which would be a major blow for Scottish Chess :-s
I think it would be very useful to the debate for some organisers to come to the forum and give their views.
andyburnett
Andy,
I don't think you are right in saying the above, if there are no disabled there is no problem. The onus is on the potential disabled entrant to notify the organisers of a FIDE rated event in advance of his/her requirements, in order to give the organiser the maximum amount of time possible to make arrangements for that player(s) needs. If other countries can do this, why can't Scotland? If there is no disabled entrant there is no problem as far as I can see.
I do agree that organisers views are welcome
The problem here is that organisers often plan up to a year in advance Stevie. Players tend to enter about a day in advance!
Let's say the Winter Festival advertises 6 months in advance that their tournament in Alva Street will run as a FIDE-rated event. 3 weeks before the event a disabled player enters who cannot access Edinburgh CC. Where do they play if not in Alva Street?
Organisers therefore have to plan as though there would be 1 or more disabled entrants whose requirements must be met (within reason) in order for the event to be FIDE-rated. And if this can't be done satisfactorily? What then?
Andrew McHarg Wrote:Unfortunately, whether intended or otherwise, this is how the motion is worded for other tournaments in Scotland as well (if adopted). In my view it's not enough to say "yea well it's just formalising what already happens", because it isn't; or "but that won't happen anyway", because that's not the point. If you want a formal document to promote inclusion of disabled players then it needs to be smarter and clearer than the way the motion is currently written.
exactly the point I am trying to make Andrew, I've more than said my piece and as I've said I now have a clear view on the matter and have decided on the motion...