CSI and Disabilities

It’s funny how you see something once, see it again, and then when you see it a third time notice something entirely new. It happened to me last week, while watching the show CSI: Crime Scene Investigation, when I noticed how the show subtly includes people with disabilities as characters.

Those of you who are familiar with the show undoubtedly know the subplot that’s been developing throughout the season: Gil Grissom, the show’s main character, has been slowly growing deaf and struggling to conceal this development from his colleagues. Ok, so that’s not so subtle. But that was only the first sign. The second sign was the coroner in the show, Dr. Robbins, whom I hadn’t noticed had crutches until last week. The final sign was a passing scene in last week’s show, where one of the characters interacted with a fellow officer in a wheelchair. It continued this week, with a prosecutor who was also a paraplegic, due to a crime that wove itself into the episode.

I’d be interested to know how intentional the show’s producers and writers are acting to include positive role models for people with disabilities in the show. Is it part of a master plan, possibly a technique being used to reinforce the main “Grissom is going deaf” subplot? Or is it something else, perhaps evidence of a personal history of dealing with disabilities on the part of one of the production team?

As it turns out, the acting playing the coroner actually is disabled. He lost both his legs after being hit by a drunk driver and sustaining burns over 65% of his body. So the inclusion of disabilities, beyond the main Grissom subplot, could just be coincidence. Any hardcore CSI fans out there know for sure?

Gay is the New Black

Nearly fifty years ago, on May 17, 1954, the US Supreme Court ruled in the case of Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, unanimously declaring that racial segregation violated the 14th amendment of the US Constitution. Fifty years later, we’re only finally getting around to applying the same kind of logic to homosexuals and same-sex marriage.

Though it was Trudeau who stated in 1967 that “the state has no place has in the bedrooms of the nation”, it appears that most people took him literally, limiting the equality of homosexuals to the bedroom – at least until last week. Last week, an Ontario court ruled that the definition of marriage should be changed. A parliamentary committee recommended, in a nail-bitingly close 9-8 vote, that Ottawa not challenge the ruling. Yet this ruling, and the government’s decision not to appeal, has caused much hand-wringing.

Looking back on the Brown v. Board of Education, fifty years of time has given us the perspective to realize the wisdom of the ruling, and perhaps laugh a little at ourselves. What the heck were we thinking, segregating schools? We always seem to find something to build into a monster, something new to demonize. If it’s not minorities, it’s Commies. If not the Commies, then it’s the terrorists. Humanity has an amazing ability to turn nothing into something to worry about.

Let’s re-examine the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom for a sec, shall we? Picking, at random, section 15, subsection 1:

“Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.”

It’s pretty simple: what part of “every individual is equal before and under the law” don’t people understand? Does the Charter need to speak slower and e-nun-ci-ate?

Seriously, what’s the problem with gay marriages? Oh my god, two people want to commit to each other in a loving relationship that falls within the legal framework of the land! Those magnificent bastards! Next thing you know, they’ll be buying houses together! Renovating! Wanting to adopt children so that they can raise them in a loving, tolerant home! We’ve got to stop this before it’s too late!

Yes, gay is the new black. Just as with segregation, we’ll undoubtedly be looking back fifty years hence, shaking our heads and wondering again what the heck we were thinking. However, I hope it’ll happen sooner than that.

Meanwhile, some people are still holding out, fighting to ban children’s books, books that promote tolerance of same-sex relationships, from schools in Surrey. You know Surrey, right? The largest expatriate Sikh population outside India. Excuse me if I find it ironic that a community composed largely of visible minorities, one which is struggling even today to battle derogatory stereotypes and racism, is acting against another minority group. Wouldn’t want to promote tolerance, now would we? After all, that’s not what Canada is all about at all!

Sheesh.