- Disusun berdasarkanKembali ke standar
Judul foto, A → Z
Judul foto, Z → A
Tanggal dibuat, baru → lama
Tanggal dibuat, lama → baru
Tanggal dipublikasi, baru → lama
✔ Tanggal dipublikasi, lama → baru
Hasil peringkat, tinggi → rendah
Hasil peringkat, rendah → tinggi
Kunjungi, tinggi → rendah
Kunjungi, rendah → tinggi - BahasaAfrikaans Argentina AzÉrbaycanca
á¥áá áá£áá Äesky Ãslenska
áá¶áá¶ááááá à¤à¥à¤à¤à¤£à¥ বাà¦à¦²à¦¾
தமிழ௠à²à²¨à³à²¨à²¡ ภาษาà¹à¸à¸¢
ä¸æ (ç¹é«) ä¸æ (é¦æ¸¯) Bahasa Indonesia
Brasil Brezhoneg CatalÃ
ç®ä½ä¸æ Dansk Deutsch
Dhivehi English English
English Español Esperanto
Estonian Finnish Français
Français Gaeilge Galego
Hrvatski Italiano Îλληνικά
íêµì´ LatvieÅ¡u Lëtzebuergesch
Lietuviu Magyar Malay
Nederlands Norwegian nynorsk Norwegian
Polski Português RomânÄ
Slovenšcina Slovensky Srpski
Svenska Türkçe Tiếng Viá»t
Ù¾Ø§Ø±Ø³Û æ¥æ¬èª ÐÑлгаÑÑки
ÐакедонÑки Ðонгол Ð ÑÑÑкий
СÑпÑки УкÑаÑнÑÑка ×¢×ר×ת
اÙعربÙØ© اÙعربÙØ©
Beranda / Album / Kata kunci Bob Kafka
+ Atty General Thornburgh 3
ADAPT (581)
New York Times NATIONAL Tuesday March 13, 1990 Bill Barring Discrimination Against Disabled Hits Snag By STEVEN A. HOLMES, Special to The New York Times WASHINGTON, March 12 — Having strongly supported a comprehensive bill in the Senate to extend civil rights protections to 43 million Americans with physical and mental disabilities, the Bush Administration is balking at efforts to toughen penalties against businesses that do not comply. Officially, the White House has not withdrawn its support for the bill, which would require all new buildings and services used by the public to accommodate the disabled. “We do support the legislation," the White House spokesman, Marlin Fitzwater, said today. "We‘re very supportive of their rights and their cause." But other Administration officials said President Bush was reluctant to support the measure if its backers persisted in seeking penalties for job discrimination that are harsher than those in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That law bars discrimination on the basis of race, sex and national origin and limits penalties to court injunctions directing a business to stop discriminating and to reinstatement and back pay for those dismissed or not promoted as a result of bias. Both the disabilities bill passed by the Senate and one pending in the House state that penalties for violating the anti-discrimination provisions will be the same as those in the Civil Rights Act. Letter From Attorney General But a new bill introduced in both the House and the Senate last month would toughen the penalties in the 1964 law to allow for compensatory and punitive damages. Thus it would affect those in the disabilities bill as well. Sponsors say chances for passage of the proposed changes in the Civil Rights Act are good. Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, in a letter sent tonight to Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, the chief sponsor of the House bill, said the Administration would seek to amend the disabilities bill to delete any link to the 1964 act and to lay out specifically what the employer sanctions would be. A spokesman for Mr.Thornburgh, David Runkel, said tonight that the Administration does not want the penalties in the disabilities act to go beyond the court injunctions and reinstatement and back pay now in the 1964 law. Senior Administration officials said the White House may withdraw its support from the bill if it is unable to delete any reference to the 1964 legislation. The disabilities measure, which passed the Senate in September by a vote of 76 to 8, has 246 sponsors in the House and passage seems virtually assured. Alixe Glen, a White House spokeswoman, declined to say whether the President would veto the bill if it continues to be linked to the civil rights laws. Rally by Disabled People The maneuvering over the bill came as more than 250 disabled people, many of them in wheelchairs, held a rally at the White House and then moved on to the steps of the Capitol to press for prompt House passage of the disabled rights bill. "Too often disabled people are seen as objects of charity or pity," Bob Kafka, a quadriplegic from Austin, Tex., said. "We're here to change that image. And we're here to send a message to the President and to Congress that this bill needs to be passed with no weakening amendments." If passed in its current form, the Americans with Disabilities Act would be the most sweeping civil rights law enacted since the landmark 1964 act. It mandates that all new buildings used by the general public, including restaurants, lodgings, places of entertainment, doctors’ offices and other establishments, provide the disabled with the means to enter and exit and that existing businesses make appropriate modifications if that can be done without creating a financial burden. The bill would also require that new railroad and subway cars and buses purchased by public and private transportation companies be accessible to people with disabilities and that telephone companies provide public telephones that can be used by persons with speech or hearing impairments. It was to gain the support of the White House and Senate Republicans that the bill's backers agreed to link the penalty provisions to those in the 1964 civil rights law. The bill's supporters had wanted to allow disabled people who proved they were victims of intentional and willful job discrimination to sue for compensatory and punitive damages. But the Administration argued that the disabled should not receive protections that were greater than those accorded to women and minorities. With the Administration's backing, the Senate approved the bill. But as it worked its way through House committees, a separate measure, the Civil Rights Act of 1990, was introduced in Congress with the backing of a coalition oi civil rights organizations that includes groups representing people with disabilities. The new measure amends the 1964 law to permit compensatory and punitive damages for victims of job discrimination. ENLARGED TEXT INSERTED INTO THE ARTICLE: How tough should the penalties against businesses be? PHOTO (The New York Times/George Tames): Three women in wheelchairs (Paulette Patterson, Christine Coughlin, and Lillibeth Navarro) across a sidewalk roll in front of a large white pillared government building [part of the White House complex]. The closest woman is holding a small bull horn and chanting; she is being pushed by another woman with an ADAPT headband and T-shirt. The other two women are in power chairs, the one in the middle has a placard that says something about Rights, and she is carrying the ADAPT flag and chanting. All four women look very determined and strong. Caption reads: Hundreds of handicapped people demonstrated in Washington yesterday to press for passage of the Americans With Disabilities Act.
ADAPT (479)
Two articles included here: Denver Post April 26, 1989 [Headline] Disabled protesters physically removed from the Federal Building By Peter G. Chronis Denver Post Staff writer More than 40 disabled demonstrators in wheelchairs jammed the lobby of U.S. Attorney Mike Norton's Denver office Tuesday to protest U.S. Justice Department action in a transit-access lawsuit. About 30 members of Americans Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation and a few non-disabled protesters stayed from noon to 5:30 p.m., when officers of the Federal Protective Service began removing them from the 12th floor of the Federal Building at 19th and Stout streets. All the demonstrators were physically led from the building, but no one was arrested. Protesters from Texas, Georgia, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, New York and elsewhere have converged on Denver to demonstrate this week during a federal Urban Mass Transit Administration meeting. They blocked lobbies and doorways of the Radisson Hotel on Sunday night and on Monday; on Tuesday, they targeted Norton’s lobby. The group's grievance is rooted in a Philadelphia lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Transportation in which a three-judge panel of the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals mandated that all new public transit buses be equipped with hydraulic lifts for the handicapped. ADAPT member Diane Coleman, a Los Angeles lawyer, said the Justice Department has asked the appeals court to vacate the decision and rehear the suit before the entire 12-member court. The full court agreed to do that, and it has has set oral arguments for May 15. Demonstrators demanded that Norton set up a conference telephone call with U.S. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, but Norton told the group that Thornburgh was traveling and could not be reached. Norton, shouted down several times as he spoke, promised to write a letter to Thornburgh expressing the protesters‘ concerns. He also gave the demonstrators Thornburgh’s Washington telephone number. About 4 p.m., after calling Washington, Norton also told the group that the administration appealed the court decision because it felt a policy calling for $270 million a year in additional spending should be made either by the administration or by Congress — not by a federal district court. Coleman said federal regulations allow decisions on disabled transportation to be made locally. “As a practical matter, that meant no transportation," she said. “We want a nationwide policy — we don't want to fight city by city." Bob Kafka, an ADAPT member from Austin, Texas, added, "Disabled kids in school today are being sold a bill of goods that they‘re going to be integrated into society." Transportation is the key to integrating the disabled, he said. Ironically, he also said that Denver's public transportation facilities for the handicapped offer relatively good access to the disabled. The end of first article; second article below: Rocky Mountain News LOCAL BRIEFS Rocky Mountain News Staff April 26, 1989 [Headline] Wheelchair-lift issue in court’s lap, lawyer says U.S. Attorney Michael Norton yesterday told a group of disabled activists that the federal government's appeal of a court ruling on bus wheelchair lifts was out of his hands. Norton appeared before 40 wheelchair-bound members of ADAPT, American Disabled for Access to Public Transit, who had camped several hours outside his 12th floor offices in Denver's federal building. ADAPT members are angry about an appeal by the U.S. Justice Department on behalf of the Department of Transportation. The appeal seeks to overturn a federal court ruling requiring all local transit buses to be equipped with wheelchair lifts. Thirty protesters were arrested Monday for blocking the doors of the Radisson Hotel, where their target, the Urban Mass Transportation Administration, was holding a conference.
ADAPT (476)
June 1989 ROLL CALL Page 11 [Headline] CORD Reps Join ADAPT in Philadelphia to Support Third Circuit Ruling Amy E. Hasbrouck & Kent Killam When the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia handed down its landmark decision in February — mandating lifts on new public transit buses, and eliminating the 3% cap on spending for access -— only three of the 12 judges ruled in the case. Usually such rulings stand unchallenged, but in this case the Bush administration chose to file a motion to have the decision reheard, according to Bill Henning, Director, and Kent Killam, an Organizer/Advocate at the Cape Organization for the Rights of the Disabled (CORD). On Monday, May 15, all 12 judges heard arguments in a suit filed by American Disabled for Accessible Public Transportation (ADAPT) demanding “meaningful” access to public transit for people with disabilities. Over 50 disabled rights activists turned out in Philadelphia over the preceding weekend to voice support for the original ruling, and objection to inaccessible public transportation. Many local activists were on hand for the weekend protests, including, Bill Henning, Michael Early, Killam and several others from CORD; BCIL member Leo Lucas; Fred Zepernick, an organizer for the Cape United Elderly; and Brian Shea, a member of BCIL’s Consumer Affairs Committee. Killam described what happened when the protesters arrived in Philadelphia on Friday afternoon. “We marched into the courthouse requesting to see the U.S. Attorney [Baylson] for the Philadelphia District," he said. “We could only get five people in through security, because they said the Attorney’s office was small. It got a little heated with security, and at one point we wound up blocking the metal detector and the gate. If they weren’t going to let us in to see the attorney and then we said ‘no one was going.’ They dragged chairs away, and we would wheel right back in.” Killam said the scene ended with Baylson phoning Attorney General Richard Thornburgh who was assisting the Department of Transportation (DOT) on the case. Baylson also met with the activists in the Ceremonial Court, an accessible courtroom on the first floor where the hearing would be held on Monday. “He said he had placed the call and expressed our concerns; how important this decision is for persons with disabilities to get out and be able to mainstream, the disabled term for integration. We were here showing our support and trying to express how important it was that this decision not be overturned.” Killam said Baylson sounded receptive. “On Saturday at 1 p.m. we gathered outside the courthouse on Sixth and Market streets," Killam continued. “We decided we wanted to ride the bus to New Jersey. To sum it up, we had three buses blocked." Bob Kafka of ADAPT crawled onto a bus at curbside, and as a second and third bus arrived, each was blocked and one demonstrator would leave his or her chair and climb onto the bus. Killam said when the second bus arrived, “The bus driver was holding up his hands saying ‘OH NO, not me!’ If they were smart they wouldn’t’ve let him through. We blocked that quarter of the intersection, traffic was blocked, people were pissed. They wound up having to let the motorists drive one at a time on the sidewalk. We plastered the buses with ADAPT stickers. “I didn't crawl on initially,” said Killam, who volunteered when another activist could not continue. “Toward the end I wasn't thinking much. I was thinking of what we had accomplished. And hoping it would make a difference, come Monday.” The police called the media, a press conference was held, then the demonstrators cleared the street. No arrests were made, and the police were very cooperative, according to Killam. “I felt people around were getting the point. I'm not sure if the proper people got the point." Killam said that one TV station gave the event limited coverage. “That night it was like a 25 or 30 second clip. ‘Bunch of radical gimps block buses’ that was about it." CORD Director Henning summed up the message of the action: “Without lifts on buses, the only way we can get on was to crawl.” On Sunday the group gathered in front of Independence Hall. Many people wore Revolutionary War costumes tri-cornered hats and white wigs. Someone also carried an ADAPT flag which resembles the American flag except that stars are arranged to form the international symbol of accessibility. The group marched around the two-block perimeter of Independence Hall. “When we were having the march a lot of people were applauding and taking pictures," said Killam. “Much better response on Sunday than on Saturday; we weren't blocking the buses." The march ended in the Liberty Bell pavilion. “We decided to rename it the Access Bell, as a lot of organizations have adopted it as their trademark. “We then marched across the street to the courthouse and did our all-night vigil. It started raining a little, but the building had an overhang. Different TV stations showed up. One station did a beautiful piece on the 11 o’clock news. One crew came at four in the morning to get footage for their 6:15 morning news on Monday. No one tried to make us leave. “Monday morning finally rolled around, and we went inside the courthouse to wait for the hearing. I'm told the hearing went well. Tim Cook, the attorney for ADAPT, did an excellent job! He was very to the point, well-worded, his thoughts were well organized, and he answered the questions very well. The DOT attorney was just mediocre." Bill Henning noted some highlights of ADAPT ‘s presentation. “Tim argued that federal statute guarantees access and so all buses must have lifts. Providing lifts is not a hardship economically and without lifts, there is extreme discrimination. The opposing attorney said it would be an undue burden to provide lifts." Henning wondered if crawling onto a bus is not an undue burden? He said it could be up to four months before the decision comes back, and described some possible outcomes. "They have a number of options, which range from accepting the original decision, to reconsidering it and issuing an entirely new decision." Henning said all the actions were designed to raise consciousness. “To that effect I think it was extremely well done," he said. “There was national attention on the event. This is an important decision because what it filters down to is that separate is not equal. It's vital that there be popular support. A lot of activists put themselves on the line for the cause."