Bias, prejudice and dislike turned to hatred and anger motivated driver to assault the boy
What caused the Pat and the Elephant driver to lose his temper and assault the 14 year old boy with a developmental disability? Valerie Gillespie says Pat and the Elephant driver not safe
The boy drooled or spat on the door of the van. He cannot control himself. The saliva would be a stain like others that a vehicle would get driving in traffic.
It is unlikely the driver of the paratransit van would have assaulted another driver who splashed his van with mud.
Would he have jumped out and rubbed a flag person’s face in asphalt if some tar got on the white van? Of course not. They might be bigger and stronger than him and hit him back.
The uncontrollable act of the disabled boy resulted in the driver’s rage. Watch the mother’s account at :55 into the video.
The mother’s account of the paratransit manager’s words (2:20 in the video) indicate other people at the company are revolted by the boy.
“Well what are we going to do about the spitting. This grosses Margaret (another driver) out. It really grosses Margaret out. She can’t stand it.” attributed to Trent Costello manager of Pat and the Elephant paratransit service
Hate crime has different definitions but it is by consensus a crime motivated in whole or part by the perpetrators “bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or any other similar factor. Hate Crime in Canada Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
See also Congress adds disabled and gays to hate crimes bill
It’s not hard to imagine the Pat and the Elephant drivers sharing their dislike for the involuntary salivation of Brenton.
“Does he spit on your bus too? Yeah that grosses me out. Me too, I hate it.”
From that discussion came the idea in the mind of Pablo Szerman to teach the boy a lesson.
Szerman is not alone. The CBC story contains several mis-informed and prejudiced comments that thinly veil disgust with the child and potentially hatred.
“The child needed to be taught a lesson, I understand that discipline is sometimes required for these children and they cannot run amok. Jay French”
Sadly there are those in society who look on a person in a burqa, wearing a turban, walking oddly due to Cerebral Palsy or some other visible sign of difference and get irritated.
Some of those irritated people become resentful and angry. Some of those angry people physically assault the object of their anger or someone who looks the same.
For those living with disabilities, it is hard to believe they can instantly become a hated member of society by virtue of their bad knees, arthritis, post polio syndrome, blindness or MS.
For a UK discussion see the BBC article Does disability hate crime exist?
Anecdotally, I was rarely the recipient of hate until I became identified as a disability advocate. There are people who hate me and who vilify me repeatedly because of my disability even though they don’t know me.
There is direct evidence of hatred toward those living with disabilities on the Gentle Island of PEI.
Laws should protect Brenton and others from being victims of crime simply because they are disabled.
Related stories
Dehumanizing treatment from Pat and the Elephant
Facebook groups supports mother and boy in assault
Video – Valerie Gillespie says Pat and the Elephant driver not safe
CBC: assault should cost driver his job says mother
Paratransit driver convicted assaulting child with disability
JayFrench
Mr. Pate
What would Jesus say about dishonest debate. Using the name of Jesus, talking about hate crimes and taking comments out of context is not the way to win a battle.
My first comment to the CBC is as follows
“The attorney is correct. The bus driver felt bad that he had to teach the child a lesson that his parents should have and could have dealt with it in another manner.”
Mr. Godfrey, the attorney said the following
“Pablo has said to me many times he regrets what he did on that day, and that he wishes he could have dealt with it differently,”
I then asked –
“What is the line for unacceptable behaviour on the
bus by disabled children? Someone has to teach them life lessons”.
No one responded to this question about appropriate treatment. I was looking for a solution to the issue of how to deal with such behaviour. Instead, personal attacks ensued and like yourself, people took the comments out of context for the purposes of your agenda.
The quote of mine you posted above is not only misleading and disingenuous, but is also potentially slanderous as it accuses me of prejudice and hate. This is simply not true.
The text of my entire post in response to someone like yourself, who thought I was being disrespectful:
“The child needed to be taught a lesson, the bus driver COULD have handled this in a more appropriate manner. Wiping the spit on the child’s face was not appropriate and the bus driver apologized and stated there was a better way.
Do not let your heart get the better of your intellect. I understand that discipline is sometimes required for these children and they cannot run amok.
If the child had a spitting problem, a simple solution such as a cup would have worked.”
I clearly wrote that “Wiping the spit on the child’s face was not appropriate.”
I expect you to either post the full context of my comment or remove the post immediately or I will pursue legal action for your defamatory statements.
Stephen Pate
One of the problems here is that the comments are in response to a) the CBC printed story and b) people’s recollection of the audio story which are neither complete. We have attempted to present more of the facts including a longer interview with Valerie Gillespie. This is not a criticism of the radio story. We are merely adding to the sum total of what is known. The court transcript is not available to the public, we were told.
The child did not spit at anyone. It was not a discipline problem. The child keeps a piece of cloth to hold back the saliva but that doesn’t always suffice. I don’t know if you have experience with children who have this problem but there are often “accidents” that are not serious. Caregivers learn to deal with this type of incident and those more serious with the least amount of fuss, none of which can be characterized as “discipline”.
To frame the issue as discipline is to accept the excuse of Pat and the Elephant and the driver. He admitted the assault which takes the issue beyond all the post-conviction excuses offered up.
The child does not need discipline and the driver was not facing any imminent danger to himself and other passengers. If you read the commentaries on when someone is legally allowed to resist an assault, they only reasonable response is to remove yourself from the situation unless you cannot without creating a greater danger.
I felt your comment was insensitive and that is my opinion. You have had your rebuttal. We are all entitled to your opinion. Legal threats don’t sway me one way or the other. You would always have a chance to state your case, except when they become, in the judgment of this site, unsuitable. Once you put your opinion in the public view, you can expect comments.
Thanks for replying and clarifying your meaning.
JayFrench
Mr. Pate
Thank you for your understanding and opportunity to respond.
Defending defamatory comments is not a “legal threat.” As a website host, you should be aware that words have meaning and actions have consequences.
My comments which you took out of context followed the words….prejudiced comments that thinly veil disgust with the child and potentially hatred.
I assume you would defend yourself if your comments taken out of context were represented the same way.
I sympathize with child and wish him nothing but happiness and joy. I would be happy to donate to a charity that helps kids with similar problems.