"Inclusion" is an

"in" thing right now. You know what I mean don't you? We can't leave anyone out - or can we?

Some years ago there was a major upset in a small rural community because the tin shed the footballers used to change in was not "accessible". The football club was told it had to be "upgraded" so that it was accessible. It would cost something to "meet the required standards" - money they did not have.

It was a very basic building. It was the sort of building which has been put up in many rural areas over the years. It didn't meet any sort of "occupational health and safety" standards. Nobody had even thought of such things when the shed was put up. It was just a place for the players to change out of muddy gear before going home. They couldn't all fit in the shed at the same time but it worked. The shelter did what it was intended to do.

And then somebody, who didn't belong to the club and was new to the district, decided that this was not good enough. Things had to change. The building had to meet the standards. The cost didn't matter. The money would be found.  It made no difference that nobody in a wheelchair was likely to want to use the building. If someone in a wheelchair had wanted to get in then his or her mates would simply have helped them over the little step if they couldn't manage it themselves. It was that sort of community. 

 At about that time one of the local lads crashed his car - speeding under the influence. He survived but he ended up in a wheelchair. The agitator became even more determined. The community wanted to raise money to help their local mate but by now the authorities were involved. Any money raised had to be spent on upgrading the "footy shed".  Access to the shed was more important than the young man's access to his home. 

In the end the footy shed got substandard access - only to be destroyed by fire the following summer. The local men got together to build ramps and make other alterations so the young man could return home. The agitator views this as a "win for commonsense". He boasts about it even now.

But is it really a win for commonsense? I am all too aware of the many, many buildings which are not accessible and which actually need to be accessible. A friend of mine always has to phone for help to enter a building in the city. Someone on the staff will always come out to help. They have been waiting years for a ramp but the building is heritage listed and working out how to do it has been problematic. It is by no means the only problem of which I am aware. A friend of mine got stuck at the end of a railway line once. There was no accessible exit. The railway staff were unaware of her plight and, at that time, the trains only ran once every two hours. There was nothing she could do but wait for two hours in the heat. (This was before mobile phones were common and she had no other means of making contact with anyone.) 

Compared with these sorts of problems something like access to the footy shed seems less important. Yes, it is nice to think that anyone could get in unaided if they needed to do so but what is more important? 

There has been a lot in the media recently about all sorts of inclusion and how some groups are not being included. There are demands for inclusion, for "equality" and more but I wonder what people really mean. Shouldn't we be demanding "dignity" first?