AGM

[StevieHilton]

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.

Then why are you objecting to the motion as it stands as it backs up in writing what you have said in the quote.
It is not enough to make such a statement

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.

Pat,
I repeat this motion is formalising what is already happening. What is your objection?
Where is your evidence that this is damaging? The motion state in regards to the 3m the word should not must that makes a difference

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.

I am disappointed in this attitude Pat
In the motion the onus is on the disabled player to inform the tournament organisers as early as possible, so that the appropriate help can be provided to the disabled player. What is your objection to this Pat?

Ian
Gens Una Sumus, we are one family. The disabled are part of that family. They should be a priority just like everyone else.

The fact is that the motion is FIDE Policy and as a member of FIDE CS has to abide by it. In regards to CS events, If people wish to suggest changes they have a right to do so, but the changes must be to benefit of all players.

[George Murphy]

Motion 1 appears to be based on the Chapter in the FIDE Handbook dated 25 February 2013 entitled: Guidelines on treatment of disabled chess players. C. 14 of this document states: It is strongly recommended that all organisers of chess events adopt these guidelines. ‘Recommended’ - so not compulsory but rather an ideal or aspiration. Moreover, the ‘requirement’ for all chess venues to be accessible, or for an acceptable alternative venue to be made available with full supervision etc., etc. is predicated on the understanding/condition that ‘all competitors are known’ before a circular is sent out, containing an entry form etc. and asking whether ‘any potential competitor has an impairment that will require special circumstances’. The onus is then on such a competitor to inform the organisers about these special circumstances at least 20 days before the start of the event’. Obviously, any organiser here in Scotland would have booked his venue much sooner than this!

So, these terms/conditions - as stated - seem more appropriate to a closed event than an open congress wherein numbers and identities are not known beforehand? Even so, I see nothing wrong with the spirit of Motion 1. I can’t speak for organisers, but I think John has put his finger on the button: the practice(s) are already implemented by most (all?) organisers/congresses/tournaments. All that Motion 1 does is to formalise existing custom/practice. (Why didn’t I go the whole hog and risk eightpence on John!)

As for League chess, I’m not at all sure that Motion 1 applies. At any rate, it seems to me that C.12 of the FIDE Handbook Chapter quoted from above is geared towards Team events at a different plane/level/status - such as 4NCL perhaps? Or, Glynis’ National League? But, not club chess - through of course it goes without saying that they, too, need no prompting to encourage disabled chess players to participate - but without the paraphernalia associated with, or advocated for formal FIDE Tournaments as per the Handbook.

As for Chess Scotland’s role, it too is covered by the FIDE Handbook. Chapter 02 - Membership: Member Federations spells it out. C.2.1 defines Members of FIDE as ‘national chess federations which have principal authority over chess activities in their own countries …’ Note, ‘principal’ - not exclusive or complete - authority. FIDE Laws are intended to provide management guidance. They do not supersede national laws etc and it is these that bind chess players here in Scotland. No chess player or organiser in his right mind is going to transgress the national law in respect of disabled players.

So, where does all this leave us? First, Motion 1 proposes a Code of Conduct (or similar) - not legislation that entails punishment for failure to observe/apply. Second, are we quite sure that ‘it’s the law of the land; if a disabled player wants to play and is refused, the owner of the premises can be prosecuted’? That strikes me as (i) extreme and (ii) unjust. The poor owner probably knows very little about how any exclusion ever came about. And would it, really? That outcome seems fanciful to me. If the organiser has done his best to accommodate the disabled player, why should anyone be punished? Motion 1 as good as states this: ‘The less advance notice given to the organiser, the less the competitor can expect co-operation.’ (Actually, this form of words does not appear in the relevant section of the FIDE Handbook!) Third, at least some of these details should be negotiable. For example, the statement that ‘the space between rows of tables should be 3m’ is too precise/dogmatic. Not every disabled player will require wheelchair access; three metres may be too generous given the hall/venue used.

All told, Motion 1 exhibits the right spirit and can usefully articulate and endorse what is largely existing practice. It should not be intended or regarded as a big stick! Note what FIDE Tournament Rules (Handbook Chapter 05) C.1 states: ‘Where an event has a problem not covered by internal rules, these Rules (i.e. Chapter 05) shall be considered to be definitive.’ So, the local Federation (i.e. Chess Scotland) does have some discretion.


PS I’m sorry if some of this has been overtaken by comments submitted while I was researching/drafting.)

[David Deary]

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.

Robin, a point of procedure. If you check the constitution you still require an SGM to change it (section 14). Go get your 10 signatures and £100 and you're all set...

I really don't see the issue with formalising something that is actually done already - that's all this motion does. Enough of the scare mongering please... these are guidelines not legislation.

Read George and John's posts as that is the reality. As opposed to banning clubs and venues that don't have disabled access which is fantasy.

[robin moore]

David,

I want to support a motion of this nature that may enhance the standing of CS but there is ambiguity and a lack of clarity within it that prevents me from doing so.

I am happy to be persuaded otherwise.

[Ianbrownlee]

totally agree with most of the sentiments especially George's Nice to see a full debate on this although I strongly feel the guidelines (and there are only guidelines) need to be reworded and rethought if they are to be effective. I'm sure everyone involved realises the reality of the situation. Most business venues already have to comply with existing legislation I'm quite sure any organiser I know is capable of extracting the most from any venue and any new legislation will not help unless it is used as a guideline.

BTW- everyone posting here is providing a full and constructive contribution

Steve , care to translate that latin phrase?

[hamish olson]

We are one people (or something along that line). Fide motto.

[Patrick McGovern]

Where is your evidence that this is damaging?

Steve, there were several serious incidents in Ayrshire chess due to a dispute over conditions for a disabled player, one of which involved physical violence on a disabled player by another, would you not consider this damaging?

[Patrick McGovern]

In the motion the onus is on the disabled player to inform the tournament organisers as early as possible, so that the appropriate help can be provided to the disabled player.

and what if the help cannot be provided Steve?

[Patrick McGovern]

George I agree with your comments but an unreasonable player could make demands on an organiser that simply could not be met. In Ayrshire it was demanded of a home club to provide a helper for an away , disabled player. When this demand could not be met all sorts of nasty comments emanated from sources who should have known better.

[Ianbrownlee]

Hi Pat
you don't have to be disabled in order to make unreasonable demands but I take your point. I am shocked at the scenario you described. How can any team be expected to provide a qualified and experienced carer is beyond me. I thought anyone requiring a carer would be expected to provide one themselves.

As for the physical violence part there is no excuse for one person to hit another whether disabled or not. in that instance the solution is clear- call the police