On whether the Disabled are "inherently progressive", "inherently reactionary" or neither

One of your cadre responded to my remark, that disabled community that regards the killing of Tracy Latimer to be an act of violent bigotry, the disabled people "aren't inherently progressive" and talking about the reactionary and racist high school I went to (I think that he was implying that they were "inherently reactionary"). The high school I went to was for people with disabilities. One thing about my high school is it was a private school making it only available to the rich. Another point, is that the administration/board-of-directors didn't provide ESL services at the high school as well as having an entrance exam where fluency in the English language is required (these things would prevent immigrants and minorities from entering the school). This meant that Fraser Academy, my high school, was a fertile ground for reactionaries including white supremacist. The administration, I believe, shared in this racism and the administration were not disabled. Very few disabled people from minority ethnic backgrounds or from blue-collar or plebeian backgrounds went to Fraser.

In terms of whether the disabled are "inherently progressive" or "inherently reactionary" I would argue neither. The disabled community like any minority community is divided into classes. There is the Proletariat who's objective interests are in abolishing private property and class society. There is the Bourgeoisie who's interests are in maintaining this decaying order. Then you have the Petty-Bourgeoisie and the Lumpenproletariat who can go either way in class-struggle.

Even if people with disabilities were "inherently reactionary" I think it would criminal not to defend them from oppression. The Lumpenproletariat have a reputation for social backwardness. Does that mean they should be defended from state terror. Islam and Sikhism (like all religions including Christianity and Judaism) seek to chain the working class to their exploiters. Does that mean the workers movement shouldn't oppose the oppression of Sikhs and Muslims.

In terms of the argument that Tracy Latimer was in "continual agony" and needed to be "relieved of pain". This is the typical hackneyed rhetoric of ableist bigots who promote the killing and oppression of the disabled including eugenicists and outright fascists (like the Third Reich). When Hitler had the disabled "mercy killed" (only the first victims of the Nazi by the way) he described them as "live unworthy of life" and their lives as "lives not worth living". It has been commonly argued by ableist bigots that the disabled are in "hopeless pain" and need to be "put out of their misery".

It has been argued by some that because Robert Latimer didn't personally say "I am for violence against the disabled" that what he did was not an act of terror. By the that logic the cops don't commit acts of terror, because in their press conferences, when they are interviewed by the press or on their websites they don't talk about killing minorities or terrorizing the oppressed. They instead talk about "law and order", "fighting crime" and "getting tough on criminals". You could also logically argue that suit-and-tie fascists aren't racist or fascist because they say they want to kill, terrorize and exterminate minorities but instead that they are "white separatist", that they are for "civil rights for white people", "self-determination for white people" etc. There is even a white-supremacist group out there called the "National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP)" a sick parody of the National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People (NAACP).

Comradely,

M.G.