A Question of Rights

by Editor · August 21, 2013

Many South Africans, and Catholics worldwide, have been inspired by the courageous example of the South African-born Redemptorist Father Cyril Axelrod, who has not allowed his disabilities he is deaf and blind to master his life.

Fr Cyril Axelrod. (Photo: Claire Mathieson)

Fr Axelrod’s way of turning a personal adversity he became legally blind only in later life into an opportunity to teach, evangelise and inspire marks him out as one of the most remarkable priests in the Catholic Church today. Instead of being embittered or intimidated by his disability, he has embraced it.

The priest touches all whom he meets with his faith and with his personality which is gentle, humorous, warm, charming, humble and generous. And he amazes many with his astonishing independence.

His work on behalf of deaf people he was in the country this month to develop a training and services programme with the Deaf Federation of South Africa has been noted by the British government: in November he will be awarded the Order of the British Empire medal.

Although he cannot hear nor see, he habitually travels independently, even across continents. Those who know him well testify that on these flights, airline crews are invariably delighted to assist him. When necessary, he teaches them how to communicate with him. Like virtually anyone who meets him, they tend to be enriched by the experience.

This has been so until this month, when the ground staff of Comair, which is owned by British Airways, refused to admit Fr Axelrod on their aircraft from Cape Town to Johannesburg unless he was accompanied by a qualified carer, the flight ticket for whom would, of course, be on Fr Axelrod’s account.

It made no difference that Fr Axelrod produced a medical card which confirmed that he was able to fly alone. The card also verified that crew members could communicate with him easily by writing on his palm. Nonetheless, the flight’s captain reportedly stuck by the airline’s regulations which deny access to deaf-blind passengers unless they are accompanied by a qualified carer.

Comair’s staff bear little blame for following company rules. The responsibility resides with an airline which, unlike most other airlines, discriminates against people with disabilities such as Fr Axelrod’s.

Fr Axelrod has described his experience as humiliating and hurtful, as he well should. He does not deserve to be treated like this. Indeed, nobody does.

The callousness of a policy which penalises individuals for their disability is a moral matter. We may rightly feel outrage when a policy, or the actions of those who are asked to enforce it, serves to humiliate people, many of whom already exist on the margins of society. As Christians we must register our disgust with it, even if we feel tempted to find justifications for such a policy.

Comair’s policy appears to be out of line with international aviation regulations. These place the onus on having trained staff to care for passengers with disabilities on the airline, not on the passenger. However, Comair’s rules adhere to those of the South African Civil Aviation Authority, which for a domestic carrier suffices.

Nevertheless, having flown internationally without a carer for close on two decades, Fr Axelrod was entitled to expect admission on the short flight to Johannesburg.

This incident touches not only on points of decency and industry regulations, but also on human rights. It may be questioned to what extent a blanket policy which excludes individuals from services on the basis of their disability is protected by the law.

Surely the demand, made in Fr Axelrod’s case, that an assistant be employed at full cost to the passenger represents a tax on disability.

This must be challenged, before the law and the Human Rights Commission, since the experience of Fr Axelrod also speaks of the rights of the broader community of disabled South Africans.

South Africa’s Bill of Rights outlaws discrimination on any grounds, including disability, and therefore the regulations applied by Comair, and apparently tolerated by the South African Civil Aviation Authority, could well be unconstitutional.

What will be done about this?