Should Persons with Disabilities be Allowed to Demonstrate?
The man in the video was visibly not a child, so it is his constitutional right to demonstrate (if at all he was demonstrating). Two, the fact that he is an adult means he does not in any way need to seek permission on whether to or not to demonstrate.
A police officer (Iwaria)
This question came up recently when a video circulated online showed a man with a physical disability being manhandled by a group of police officers.
The man in the video was visibly not a child, so it is his constitutional right to demonstrate (if at all he was demonstrating). Two, the fact that he is an adult means he does not in any way need to seek permission on whether to or not to demonstrate.
Some people commented on the social media saying that the man had brought it upon himself by going out to demonstrate despite having a disability. This perspective exposes the biases and discrimination that society holds against persons with disabilities.
Let us unpack this;
-
1
1. Disability Does Not Not Limit Civic Rights
Article 27 of the Constitution of Kenya guarantees every person equality before the law. Article 37 gives every person the right, peaceably and unarmed, to assemble, demonstrate, picket, and present petitions to public authorities. Article 54 further obligates the State to ensure persons with disabilities can access all places, public transport, and information, and to live with the dignity and respect that citizenship demands.
Nowhere in the Constitution does citizenship come with a disclaimer. A person with a disability does not become “half a citizen” or “a citizen with conditions attached.” When we ask “should he be allowed to demonstrate,” we are quietly implying that his rights are conditional on his disability and that his citizenship needs a chaperone.
We have a demonstration culture, protest is how ordinary people have pushed for police reform, relief from high cost of living, and government accountability. If persons with disabilities are expected to sit out this civic life, it’s like they are being told, in effect, that they should not participate in public affairs. This is exclusion dressed up as concern.
-
2
Disability Rights Does Not Exist in Safe Spaces Only
There is a comfortable version of disability inclusion that many people accept: ramps at conferences (disability inclusion involves a lot more by the way), inclusive classrooms, disability desks at hospitals, Sign Language interpreters at national events. These matter and we should keep demanding them. But there is another, harder test of inclusion on whether persons with disabilities are allowed into contested, often unscripted and sometimes dangerous public spaces on the same basis as everyone else.
A demonstration is not a safe space. It can involve tear gas, running crowds, barricades, and confrontation with police. That is precisely why the right to demonstrate matters, it is exercised where power is being challenged, not where it is comfortable to challenge it.
When society says persons with disabilities should stick to inclusion in schools or conferences but stay away from protests, it is drawing an invisible line: you may participate in citizenship, but only in the parts we have made convenient for you.
Inclusion means persons with disabilities can walk into a polling station and to a protest and be met with the same rights and the same protections as anyone else, not the safer version of citizenship reserved for controlled environments.
-
3
The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations
The comments defending the officers, or blaming the man for “exposing himself to danger,” rarely sound hostile. They sound protective and this is exactly where the problem is.
“He should have stayed at home.” “People with disabilities shouldn’t expose themselves to danger.” These statements shift the blame from the police whose conduct is to be questioned to the man who has a right to demonstrate.
This is a soft bigotry of low expectations. A misplaced kindness that denies a person full agency. It is the same instinct that praises a someone with a disability for simply attending university as though it were a superhuman feat rather than a basic entitlement. It flatters itself as sympathy while quietly deciding, on the person’s behalf, what spaces they are fit for.
The honest question is never “should he have been there?” It is “why did officers use force against a demonstrator?"
Disability does not disqualify a person from public life, from taking risks or from seeking justice. The real questions we should be asking are, “Why did a group of almost ten police officers manhandle a demonstrator just to arrest him?” “Why were they arresting him?” “Why were they mocking him to stand up without his assistive devices?”
Article by: Maryanne Emomeri