17-08-2014, 10:50 PM
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...
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.
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.