#LBBill – what ‘we’ means
I promised to write something next about what might happen with #LBBill after the ballot for Private Members Bills in June 2015 – but before I do, I realised I was using the term ‘we’ a lot in my posts and I needed to explain what I mean by ‘we’ in this context (typical lawyer, feeling it necessary to define two letter words).
The ‘we’ I’m referring to when I write about #LBBill is ‘people who think it would be a good idea to change the law to bring disabled people’s right to live in the community closer to reality’. A large number of these people have come together around the Justice for LB campaign and I hope many more will join the work on the Bill along the way.
In particular and from my point of view:
- Justice for LB is not an organisation with members – it’s a social movement catalysed by the outrageous death of LB and the way in which so many other dudes like him are mistreated at present. Everyone can get involved.
- #LBBill is not a project with managers, budgets and an agenda – it’s an idea, or more accurately a number of ideas about the way the law could be improved, most if not all of which have a long history. Again, everyone can get involved and have their say about how the Bill should be developed, what words it should contain and what difference it should make. In my view this is a very exciting way to try to make law.
To paraphrase Zoe Thompson’s comment on my last post, changing the law ain’t easy. In my view it only stands any chance of happening if the entire disability community wants to work together on a Bill. I hope that’s what ‘we’ all decide to do.