"We can bring a menu outside to you, and you can wait and we'll bring your meal out to you." That's what a taco place in a trendy shopping district told me on a chilly fall day. Other people were going inside where it was warm and enjoying their meal there. My only option was to wait outside and eat my tacos in the cold. I declined. Nobody wants to sit out on the sidewalk in the cold eating their taco. It's not that I was dressed inappropriately or smelled bad. I wasn't drunk or unruly. It wasn't even the service dog quietly sitting beside me. The reason I couldn't go in was that there was a single small step in front of the door and no way my power wheelchair could get up it. A portable ramp would have easily mitigated the situation, but the restaurant wasn't required to have one so they didn't. If any member of another marginalized community was told they needed to stay outside, there would be protests and people would be up in arms. But here it's seen as completely acceptable when it comes to people with disabilities. There's hundreds, maybe thousands, of buildings like this in our city that are off limits to people like me. This week our Alberta government voted on accessibility legislation that coulda have changed that by making reasonable attempts to remove barriers a requirement, like in this case, having a portable ramp. The entire UCP party voted no. Instead of voting yes to making our province more accessible, they voted to continue segregating people with disabilities when there are reasonable alternatives to include them. This legislation wouldn't have meant small businesses needed to spend mass amounts of money to completely rebuild their locations. Not every place can become completely barrier free. Legislation would have meant making efforts to do feasible things to remove barriers and have staff trained on how to provide accommodations. Things like a portable ramp, or a large print paper menu at the coffee shop whose menu is written on a chalkboard that could be difficult for some people to see. It might mean the next time the lines in a parking lot are repainted, the accessible stalls need to be brought up to current standard. Most people have no idea how inaccessible many things are until one day they become disabled and suddenly even accessing essentials becomes a huge challenge. It would have taken decades, but this legislation would have started the ball rolling to address a lot of these issues. This isn't just about not being able to get tacos though, it also means job opportunities. Up to 70% of the built environment has major barriers. In these places you will find accountants, insurance agents, small retail shops, and a variety of other businesses and services. Sure, the Human Rights Act says there is a duty to accommodate to the point of undue hardship, but that means instead of having a plan in place and offering accomodations, people with disabilities are left to ask, plead, or beg. When told no, the only recourse is a Human Rights Complaint which can take over a year before they even advise if they accept your complaint, and likely another year or so before it's addressed. Because of this, most times it's easier to just go without than trying to negotiate for that accommodation. At some point everyone becomes disabled, even temporarily. That shouldn't mean that you suddenly become a second class citizen. But this week our government re-iterated that it's more acceptable to have a disabled person left outside than it is to require a business to get an inexpensive threshold ramp. I really try hard to be independent and be productive, but it's really freaking hard. I suspect the majority of those that voted against this bill wouldn't have the resiliency to cope with a significant disability if it hit them. But enough said. This second class citizen has dogs to train and obedience trials to get ready for because despite being disabled, I'm dedicated, talented and good at this. -Admin