2) How do these rules and regulations fit in with the law (which supersedes them). In other words, are they even legally enforceable (I suspect not in its current form). There are laws against disability discrimination, but having an event in the upstairs part of a lift-less building because that was the only feasible option is not - in my view - discrimination against the disabled. That's why laws on such things are usually accompanied by "wherever reasonable/proportionate/appropriate" etc - which this motion omits.
You are wrong Andrew in that the motion, the onus is on the disabled player to inform the organiser to inform them of their needs, thus giving the organiser time to find appropriate accommodation for the disabled player if required
The quote from you Andrew above, can be challenged legally, I would that one up to the lawyers.
All this motion is doing to formalise a lot of what already happens in tournaments
StevieHilton Wrote:You are wrong Andrew in that the motion, the onus is on the disabled player to inform the organiser to inform them of their needs, thus giving the organiser time to find appropriate accommodation for the disabled player if required
This is what I mean though with regard to clarity. When would a disabled player need to have informed the organiser? If that isn't declared beforehand then it's simply open to personal opinion as to what is considered a fair and acceptable amount of time to find an appropriate alternative for the disabled player. With such ambiguity, how has anything been "formalised"?
But that aside; as you've already alluded to, disabled players are well catered for by tournament organisers in Scotland, who do everything they can on the whole to ensure disabled players can play and enjoy events. So we really don't need a document like this to formalise how we treat disabled players, do we? I'd support genuine guidelines on how tournaments can cater for the needs of disabled players. To me, this isn't that.
JMcNicoll Wrote:Now I don't think that's too much to ask, especially as it's something we already do, this just formalises a procedure to be gone through to accommodate them.
^This ^
^
I really don't understand why people are making this out to be any more than that.
Steve
Quote:I do know that a lot of tournament organisers do their best for disabled players, but the point is there is no legislation in writing to cover this. This motion seeks to cover this.
John
Quote:Now I don't think that's too much to ask, especially as it's something we already do, this just formalises a procedure to be gone through to accommodate them.
If you agree that organisers do their best and its something we already do (both points I agree with) then WHY do we need legislation??????
David Deary Wrote:I really don't understand why people are making this out to be any more than that.
agreed I think these guidelines are an opportunity to improve what we already have and as long we continue to communicate and contribute, it can't be a bad thing. We're all here to promote chess and I think we're not doing too bad a job. As has already been stated , these are merely guidelines that we can follow and amend as and when required. I do think however there is ample scope for improvement in different areas not just the disability question. thankfully we mostly have the talent in place to do just that
I f I were an organiser in premises that were unable to facillitate players with particular disablities then i would not wish to run the risk of said players entering my tournament.
Options, dont run the tournament, find more suitable premises or run a disclaimer on entry form that some players cannot play??
then this quote comes into play "If a disabled player wants to play and are refused, the owner of the premises can be prosecuted"
solutions are going to be hard to come by.
there is a certain naivety about this too, there appears to the assumption that players with disabilities are a homogeneous lot with no human frailties or failings.
There will be a player(s) with disabilities who will insist on their rights or perceived rights being upheld, reasonable or otherwise no matter the cost to a tournament or organiser.
There have been examples of demands being made (wrongly as it turned out) by disabled player(s) that caused major rifts between individuals and clubs.
there are also examples of disabled player(s) making do with whatever the organiser can do for them (e.g less than 3 metres between tables) and harmony apparently existing.
I feel that Steve is using a sledgehammer to crack a nut and that these guidelines are unnecessary and potentially damaging.
Steve Hilton wrote
"I do know that a lot of tournament organisers do their best for disabled players, but the point is there is no legislation in writing to cover this. This motion seeks to cover this."
I don't see how this motion is necessary given that most tournaments in Scotland are not fide rated. I get the impression that a FIDE guideline is being imposed on non FIDE rated events. The local authorities have enough regulations and bye-laws concerning this and therefore they have the legal responsibilities regarding discrimination. If chess Scotland want to adopt the legal responsibility they will also inherit the legal culpability. There is a marked difference between refusing an entrant on health and safety as opposed to refusing to play an opponent on discrimitrary grounds. Be careful what you ask for - you may get it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improving and enhancing the playing experience for everyone. It's just that I feel our efforts should maybe be focused elsewhere
Quote:There is a marked difference between refusing an entrant on health and safety as opposed to refusing to play an opponent on discrimitrary grounds.
of course Ian, logical and obvious, it covers a lot of fears I have should this motion be adopted.
Why don't we simply add to our constitution (if not there and clear already) something along the lines of...
ChessScotland are an inclusive organisation and at all our organised events we will strive to actively positively support all participants irrespective of age, gender, sexual orientation or disability.