You would have to have been living under a rock to not have heard about the Oscar Pistorius Case making headlines all around the world at the moment. The shocking shooting death of his girlfriend, model Reeva Steenkamp.
Oscar Pistorius is, of course famous for being a world Paralympic sprinter, and for famously being the first double-amputee to compete at the Summer Olympics in London last year {I guess you'd call them the Able-Bodied Olympics, to differentiate?}. So it's fair to say that Pistorius is known to the public because of his disability.
Obviously, this is an incredibly high profile story. There is a media circus happening right now, with speculation and confusion. At this point, there are few known, confirmed facts. We know that Oscar shot Reeva 4 times through a locked bathroom door. We know that there was a cricket bat with blood stains found at the scene. We know that Pistorius is claiming horrible accident, that he believed there was an intruder. We know that the prosecution is claiming premeditated murder. That is all we know for sure. As far as I've read, everything else is speculation.
Now, as Pistorius is famous, the profile of this case was always going to be high. That a young woman, with an established career, and seemingly the world at her feet, of course this is also going to make the case even more notorious.
But I read this morning an article written by Stella Young, a staunch advocate of the section of the population with disabilities {and their carers}. Ms Young so often speaks about disability services and rights, as well as the way that people with disabilities are treated. About looking past a disability and seeing the person for other things, not related to what perhaps they can't do. I often love to read what Stella writes, her insights and perspective are important in our landscape.
Which I guess was why I was so disappointed to read the way that she approached this case. She wrote on ABC's The Drum that we are all "we are ill-prepared to cope with the idea of a disabled man charged with murder
She writes that Pistorius is placed upon a pedestal and that we need to believe him to be an inspirational, flawless person. And of course, no matter the inspiration found in his career, to believe him flawless {whether guilty or innocent of this crime} is ridiculous and unfair.
Pistorius was repeatedly held as a role model in media and civic discussion. We love "against the odds" stories; narratives like that of Helen Keller are lapped up by a culture hungry for "inspiration".And that's the problem with role models; they are very rarely what we think.If Pistorius is found guilty of murder, he will have committed two crimes. The first is clear. The second is failing to live up to the impossible ideal of a disabled role model.In recent days, allegations of Pistorius' complex character have emerged. And, again, I can hear a sharp intake of breath. In a world that barely accepts the idea of a disabled man who would protest a victory on the track, we are ill-prepared to cope with the idea of a disabled man charged with murder.
Stella speaks as though his disability propels him to hero status that other {not disabled} people would not reach. That the world is shocked by this because he was an 'inspirational' athlete, because of his disablility.
I could not disagree more. And I find it so odd that Stella has chosen to view it this way. In no way have I ever thought of this case in terms of his disability. While I agree, some portions of the media have done so, for me it isn't remotely relevant in this case.
My shock is a man (any man or woman) at basically the pinnacle of his career (any career), with so much to live for, now having his entire life in the balance, probably over. A young woman with so much to live for, also at the top of her career, being shot down in her prime.
I'm fascinated by the case, intrigued as to what on earth went wrong. Horrified at the suddenness and the horror. But I have not, at a single point thought of it in terms of a disability.
Ms Young so often writes about wanting us to see past a disability. So I'm really disappointed that that is the angleshe has chosen to use in this article. I feel as though it is simply perpetuating the very thing she {rightly} rails against.
I felt annoyance that she seemed to tar everyone with the same brush. I feel that most people observing this case are managing to do so without for a moment feeling his disability (and to be honest, I think the fact that he is an incredibly strong, fit, virile man kind of makes one forget the disability except in the context of his races) is important to the case.
I've not (in my own mind) deemed his guilty or innocent of a premeditated murder. I fear that steroid use (as I've read there were some found in his home) will play a role in this tragedy - as it so often does in cases such as these, with athletes killing themselves or their families. But again, this is simply speculation. Unconfirmed. And a bit of a stereotype (though usually, these are such for a reason and it would not be the first time that terrible violence has taken place as a result of these types of drugs}.
What do you think? Do you feel less likely to believe him guilty because of his disability? More likely? Do you think it bears any relevance at all into this case?
