You Are Blind?
Then No
Movies
by Alberto Borghi
When
laws penalize citizens.
A few months ago a local news
created quite a reaction in Bologna when access to a movie theatre was refused
to a blind man and his guide dog; the man was facing a decision: inside the
movie theatre without the dog or outside the movie theatre with Fido?
The pugnacious
blind movie buff required the intervention of the police who confirmed that the
manager of the movie theatre had asked to leave the dog outside. Reason: the
presence of the animal in the room would have placed in significant danger the
other spectators in case of an emergency.
We were quite curious to know what
the law had to say about this. The law in such matters is n. 37 dated February
14, 1974, then modified by law n. 376 in 1988. Its sole article entails:
(translation) "The blind person has the right to be accompanied by his own guide
dog in his travels on any public transportation
without having to pay for the dog any ticket or taxes. Moreover, the blind
person has the right to access with his own guide dog services offered to the
public. Any other provision that could differ on this law is abrogated."
This
rule seems clear and unquestionable, but for that very reason every citizen
doubts that there could be another one which could be in contrast with it. In
this case, in fact, it is worth to evaluate what interests must be defended:
between those of the blind individual to be accompanied by his own guide dog and
those of the community to be able to use the emergency exits without any
mishap.
It is obvious that ensuring the safety of the public prevails over
the single blind individual. That is in principle.
It is necessary, in fact,
to consider as well the context in which we intercede, giving an interpretation
instead of the other.
This
context is about the protagonist, a single blind individual who has the right to
access any service offered to the public (which is, in this instance, the movie
theatre) with his own guide dog. The animal must therefore find an adequate
place which will not cause any mishap nor disturb the public's enjoyment of the
movie.
If these are the premises to respect, we still need to understand what
could have been the manager's motivation for refusing access to the movie
theatre to a would-be spectator with a visual impairment. How would it be
possible, in fact, that a single dog could create an accident to other
spectators is difficult to understand considering the presence of various exits
and the possibility of placing the dog (even one of medium to large in size) in
an adequate position to guarantee a margin of action.
The risk, truly
concrete if the laws in effect are interpreted to the letter and in theoretical
contradiction to one another is to state the following equation: You are blind?
Then no movies. Also because if the blind person has the right to use
specialized assistance from his own guide dog, guaranteeing at the same time his
own safety (and therefore the safety of the others) since the dog would
immediately be able to guide his master to the exit.
The question, therefore,
is spontaneous: who will think of the blind person in case of the evacuation of
a public room during an emergency, if Fido is waiting anxiously outside for his
master?