Yesterday was Holocaust Memorial Day. I'm afraid we're heading that way again.

[garlicblocks]

"It is estimated that close to 250,000 disabled people were murdered under the Nazi regime. Persecution of people with disabilities began in 1933, but mass murder commenced in 1939.

"The organised killing of disabled children began in August 1939 ... All children under the age of three who were suffering from conditions such as Down?s syndrome, hydrocephaly, cerebral palsy or ?suspected idiocy?, were targeted. A panel of medical experts were required to give their approval for the ?euthanasia? of each child. In the first few months of the program this was usually achieved either by lethal injection or by starving the child to death. Many parents were unaware of the fate of their children, instead being told that they were being sent for improved care.

"The first experimental gassings took place at the killing centre in Brandenberg and thousands of disabled patients were killed in gas chambers disguised as shower rooms. Now that a fast and effective method of mass-murder had been developed it could of course be used to exterminate gays, Gypsies, political opponents and of course over six million Jews.

"Worryingly, in 2012 in Great Britain, Geoffrey Clark, a local government candidate for the UK Independence Party in a by-election in Gravesham, Kent posted this on his website:

"Consider compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, Spina Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, will render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family."

"Although UKIP suspended Clark?s party membership when this hit the news, it was too late to cancel his candidacy. He came second to the conservatives with almost 27% of the vote."

What can we do about escalating persecution of the disabled and otherwise 'unproductive' people in the UK? Are we heading back towards forced sterilisation and murder?

I do see one significant difference: nobody in Germany was denying that these people were legitimately disabled. They weren't seen as cheating the system, but merely burdening it. Today's rhetoric is more about malingering and gaming the system by people who could work if they wanted to.

There's less rhetoric about the burden of people seen as genuinely unable to support themselves, which is the case with elderly people with dementia. There's a little bit of talk about the stresses of an aging population, but not really any demonizing, aside from comments by ethicists.

Government figures state that fraud for DLA is 0.4%.
It's hardly the majority malingering and gaming the system.

Oh, and DLA is not an out of work benefit.

Most charity research about DLA also suggest that it's massively under claimed anyway, so in fact rather than people claiming it when they shouldn't, there are thousands not claiming it who are entitled to it.

In changing DLA to PIP it's also making it easier to defraud....DLA requires someone other than the claimant to sign a statement about their care needs, for medical professionals involved to give their professional opinion about the claimants care needs, proof was required of any aids or paid interventions and if it was warranted an assesment would also be carried out.

PIP just requires somebody to convince an unqualified assessor that they're disabled on one day.

Dawn I am not saying that anybody is malingering and gaming the system. That's the demonized stereotype.

Katy there's a continuum though.

A while back, a MNer was attacked by a stranger in a cafe when she had a minor epileptic episode (hope she won't mind me mentioning this again.)

The stranger abused her using terms like "scrounger" and saying she shouldn't have had kids.

That stranger knew nothing about the MNer's finances, whether she received any benefits, could care for her DC, worked, etc. All she knew was that the MNer was visibly ill. But for her, being "legitimately disabled" and being a scrounger were the same thing.

The stranger may have been thick. But so are an awful lot of people.

I agree, btw, that this is not the same as the state shooting people because they've acknowledged they're disabled. We're not there yet.

But we are at a stage where people found not fit to work even by the govt's own, very narrow test, are being labelled as simply unemployed (BBC article yesterday). And the govt is in the process of implementing indefinite, mandatory work-for-welfare for these same people it says are not fit to work.

Baby, the issue is about similarities between the campaigns to 'other', blame or demonise certain sectors in society, gradually disenfranchising them, in pre-WW2 Germany and in Britain today (as well as other places.) You perhaps haven't read the many posts highlighting and detailing these similarities.

As just one example, the black triangle applied to sick & disabled concentration camp inmates was labelled "workshy" rather than the truth, which was 'unwell'. You may have noticed a greatly increased propensity of Britons, led by the government, to label sick & disabled people workshy (on this thread, as elsewhere.)

Most of the thread has focused on things that were happening in Germany well before concentration camps were even invented. By the time Germans realised how bad things were going to get, it was too late. We always say we remember the Holocaust so no such thing could happen again - not precisely the same thing; the same kind of passivity & manipulation, which dehumanised large numbers of people thus making their escalating abuse seem acceptable.

How may we learn if we refuse to consider?

This thread is all over the shop. On the original point, there's no need for mandatory abortion for those conditions - not that there ever would or should be - because most people screened for testing make that decision anyway. If you think that's wrong, fight for conditions to be imposed on abortion availability.

On the broader disability issue, it is a fact that more people are claiming as disabled over time, despite a healthier population overall. I don't presume to draw conclusions but I think it's safe to say more disabled people would seek work if there was no safety net.

No, you haven't read the thread ...

Yep, "workshy" already being used:

"Fines for workshy sickness benefits claimants to double", Daily Telegraph, 3 Sep 2012

The article leaves the reader confused as to why people "judged fit to return to work" are "on Employment Support Allowance" at all. Because of course if they've been found fit to work, they won't be eligible for it.

In fact this is people who have been found not fit to work, even under the new test, and placed in the Work-Related Activity Group. This is the majority of people who receive ESA, and is regardless of whether a person's condition is in fact likely to improve.

baby I 'think' that what people are saying, is not that the exact same thing is going to happen.

But, already they are devaluing certain groups, making them out to be nothing but a burden, creating mass hatred. Disabled people are actually dying, after having their benefit taken away, and who actually cares? Who actually even realises?

Personally with all the benefit cuts, many of which haven't even come into force yet, and the way the housing market is, I could easily see us going back to workhouses and institutions, and from there who knows.

More people are claiming as disabled over time - really?

"The number of claimants in Great Britain rose sharply during the late 1980s and early 1990s, from under 1¼ million to around 2½ million (see chart 1). Caseload growth slowed down after 1995, with the introduction of Incapacity Benefit. Since 2003 the working-age caseload has exhibited a gradual downward trend."

From House of Commons briefing note SN01420, July 2012. It's widely accepted that the late 80s spike was caused by the Thatcher administration pushing redundant miners, shipworkers, etc, on to incapacity benefits in order to mask unemployment.

It may be distasteful babybarrister, but so is what is happening to disabled people.

www.regent.edu/acad/schedu/uselesseaters/ shows what happened to disabled people before and during the holocaust.

Garlic block, the number is now 2.6m and those assumptions about why it rose in that earlier period have been debunked.

chandellina you dont think that might have something to do with more disabled children surviving childbirth and early life due to advances in medical care????!!!!
I would have thought that would have actually at least crossed your mind for a split second considering that you are posting on a parenting site no???!!!

Oh and garlic has actually supplied figures above.

It barely matters why loads of people suddenly went onto sickness benefits in 1986-91, Chandellina. That was over 20 years ago; the affected towns & districts remain moribund; many of the recipients will be reaching retirement age now.

I know the number is 2.6m, it was in the government document I linked for you - which states there is a decline in numbers, not the increase you claimed.

You're right about reasons for more long term recipients, Darkest! The number of claims has been falling for 10 years, however.

The Office of National Statistics publishes all this data. It's more reliable than screaming headlines.

You said yourself it was 2.5m at its peak but it's actually higher now.

Darkesteyes, surely you have considered the medical advances, physical infrastructure, medication, etc. allowing more people with physical or mental health disabilities to function better?

I was looking at the ons data.

Agreed Garlic. The Gov rhetoric that is often used is long term unemployed and long term sick.
My friend has a son who is 24 this year but has the mind of a toddler (sorry i cant explain it any better than that in writing) he got called into the job centre and he had to go or lose benefit.
You should have seen their faces when my friend took him in there in his wheelchair.
They were falling over themselves apologising. They have promised it wont happen again but she knows not to hold her breath.

That would be the same ons data that classes workfare as being employed!

No, you have misread the paragraph I pasted from the Commons briefing, Chandellina. This strand contributes nothing salient to the discussion in hand, afaics. I wanted to disprove your incorrect assumption - also incorrectly made by Iain Duncan Smith, who had access to the same briefing - that numbers have risen. They haven't. They are falling.

Darkest, your story reminds me of one my Jobcentre "advisor" told me, about a client of hers who has learning difficulties. She did not understand that her benefits had been stopped because she missed a deadline, that she couldn't get back the missed payments or why she had to do the forms. Apparently she cried for the whole hour :( The advisor struggles to enjoy her job.