An ad campaign too far?
I'm finding myself in a bit of a dilemma about the new ad campaign by Enable Scotland, a charity for adults and children with learning difficulties, in which they make the point - in a no-nonsense, hard-hitting way - that animal charities receive almost twice as much in donations as disability ones.
The campaign features stark posters of adults with learning difficulties, accompanied by very direct questions such as "If I ate out of a dog bowl, would you like me more?" and "Would you like me to sit up and beg?"
In their campaign literature, Enable Scotland point to the figure that 11.1% of the UK population donate to animal charities, while only 6.6% donate to disability charities. While those figures are shocking, they also leave something of an unpleasant taste in the mouth of this Crippled Monkey. Should we really be comparing charity with charity and saying that some are more worthy than others, and thus criticising where members of the public who are, after all, under no obligation to donate money to any such causes are choosing to place their cash? And furthermore, doesn't this campaign once again make disabled people synonymous with charity? As Tom Shakespeare said right here on Ouch over three years ago, should we not "challenge the idea that disabled people are the perpetual beneficiaries of charity"?
Be interested to hear your opinions on this campaign. Just click on that handy comments link below.