Disabled access – dog edition

One of my American friends was denied access to a restaurant yesterday. The excuse for this was that he couldn’t bring his service dog. When he asked, “Why not?”, they answered that some people might be allergic. Not only is this a lame (pun intended) excuse, especially since nobody else was in the establishment, it is also illegal to deny service animals’ entry into places that service the public under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act).

He is a wheelchair user like me; additionally he relies on his service dog for his daily living. Therefore it is only natural that this dog should be allowed entry into this place. I suffered from the illusion that these dogs naturally were allowed entry wherever their owner went. It is clearly a civil rights violation to deny these dogs entry – not to the dog – but to the owner who rely on them.

In my country the service dog concept is fairly new. However, using guide dogs for the blind is an old tradition, so I was fairly sure that there were specific laws not just allowing these types of dogs in public places along with their owners, but demanding their access. But I was sorely wrong, not to mention disappointed.

There is no provision in my country saying that service dogs automatically have access wherever their owner goes. The only legislation I can find on the subject is a law concerning food handling whereby the proprietor is allowed to let them in if he pleases. This in turn means that he might as well deny them access. Apparently it is totally up to the owner to decide whether the dog – and therefore the disabled person – is welcome in their establishment. So, even if service dogs are allowed in all publicly owned and run places, those places run by private people or corporations are exempt from this rule.

This sort of treatment is clearly discriminatory. Service dogs are essential for many disabled people. If these people didn’t have their dogs they would be in need of human aides. And as far as I know there is no place barring human aides from following the disabled person anywhere (then again, with my level of ignorance in this field I might be equally wrong about this).

I am already severely shameful of my country and its treatment of certain people (e.g. foreigners). This sort of wishy-washy legislation is just another sign of the spineless way our government is treating those who look, act or seem different. It doesn’t take much imagination to see how my friend could have been denied access at a Danish restaurant – even if it was perfectly accessible physically (which would have almost been a miracle to begin with). And I am truly glad to see how American law (at least on paper) does not allow this sort of differential treatment of the disabled. Even though my friend and his dog were denied access to this place illegally the ADA clearly states:

“Under the ADA, State and local governments, businesses, and nonprofit organizations that serve the public generally must allow service animals to accompany people with disabilities in all areas of the facility where the public is normally allowed to go.”

Which brings us to one of my (many) pet peeves. Why is it that these discriminatory practices are utilized over and over again despite being clearly illegal?

And the simple answer to that is retribution – or lack thereof. The laws concerning human rights and equal treatment of disabled might be reasonably good in many countries I know of. But unless there is a system of justice with reasonable punitive action in place very few people and/or businesses feel the need to do what is necessary to allow equal treatment – why should businesses spend the money or energy on compliance if their lack of action is only shrugged at by the authorities?

To me, it’s pretty simple. If my friend is denied access to this place – either because they truly don’t know the law under which they are doing business, or if they just don’t feel like letting in cripples for whatever reason – then the penalty is too lenient! If the retribution was fair (a.k.a.severe enough) they simply would follow the law.

I am usually not amongst those who believe in severe punishment for criminals. In fact, I am pretty lenient and I strongly believe in re-socializing most criminals. But I have a strong belief in the deterrent effect of reasonable punishment for differential treatment of fellow human beings. I don’t really care if it be monetary or otherwise as long as it’s going to make a difference for the individual doing the discrimination. And I actually believe that is the only way forward if we truly want to make our societies open for all, not just physically but most importantly mentally and emotionally.

Advertisements