What's In A Word?

Cunt. Nigger. Dyke. Retard. Paki. Jew. Mong. All powerful examples of what can be in a word; power, oppression, prejudice, hatred, bullying, extermination, alienation. But, ultimately all just words. So what's the fuss about?

Context is everything, languages are fluid, constantly developing and the meaning of words can be subtle and nuanced. Sometimes humourous, sometimes insulting, it's the background and intention of use which matters not the word itself. Jokes can go wrong and humour fall flat, but that doesn't mean anyone should stop making jokes just because one isn't funny...although it might be time to add a Gervais exemption clause to that.

Ricky Gervais has recently joined twitter and typically for twitter it's the latest storm in a teacup. In short, Gervais made a joke that was frankly quite a lot shit and not at all funny. That's ok, we still (just about) have something approaching free speech and if a middle aged, overweight, acne scarred loser wants to make jokes that's perfectly acceptable. See, I just attempted a funny and it was almost, but not quite as crap and unfunny as Gervais. Next stop the Oscars for me.

So, what's all the fuss about? Gervais was making jokes about 'mongs'. Had he had the class to shrug his shoulders, admit that the joke wasn't funny in the way he intended it to be and accept that for many 'mong' is a word associated with hate and fear that would have been the end of it. But he didn't. Gervais moved on to whip up his twitter followers to 'prove' that the word mong totally, doesn't like mean anything to do with disability and is just, y'know all about monging around. Well yeah, sometimes it can mean that, but Gervais then went on to post photos on twitter pulling contorted 'mong' faces to prove his point that it absolutely definitely did not have any connection to learning disability and couldn't possibly be offensive.

Other comedians stepped up support those disabled people already pointing out that for many people mong was a hateful term, still used commonly in an abusive fashion. And that's when it got really nasty. Gervais was inciting his followers to 'prove' that mong was fine and his followers were dutifully following suit. One tweet I saw directed at Richard Herring made comments about how stupid it was to think that mong had any connection with anything...and ended by calling him a 'fucking mongoloid' for being stupid enough to think it did. Gervais insisted in a whiny way that 'it was all about jealousy of his success' and continued to insist he was funny.

In what must obviously be the same kind of coincidence as Gervais's forthcoming series, last night's episode of Shameless featured people with learning disabilities in a drama group as the community service 'punishment' for the character Mickey. Unlike Gervais's jokes, this episode of Shameless was beautifully written. The words may have been the same, but the intention and effect was entirely different. I howled with laughter when Mickey expressed dismay at being sent to a learning disability drama group and was firmly told that was what he got for calling the magistrate a fucking mong. I loved the way Mickey tried to hide his spliff until one of the young people offered him his, the confident and aggressive sexuality of one of the young women and the beautiful moment when, while still on her knees she looks at Mickey blustering as to why he doesn't want her to suck him off, shrugs and says...oh, you're gay. A scene which for me set up the biggest laugh of the episode, when they open the toilet door, the rest of the drama group are huddled outside eavesdropping and Mickey asks them not to tell anyone he's gay. A young woman in total deadpan fashion assures him that of course they won't...just as long as Mickey promises not to tell anyone she's got down's syndrome.

I could ramble on for a long time about how bloody brilliantly Shameless addressed the humour of disability, using the same words as Gervais, but unlike Gervais managing to make it hilariously funny all the way through. It boils down to just one crucial point though - at no point in last night's episode of Shameless were disabled people seen as weak, powerless, unintelligent or the butt of jokes. The language used went much further than Gervais as did the concepts, young women with learning disabilities in control of their own sexuality, or young autistic men using cannabis to assist their condition is not an image of disability seen in the mainstream media and it was frankly fucking fantastic to behold.

Banning individual words makes the liberal in me shudder in the same way burning books might, but reworking language is definitely to be encouraged. So, I'd urge you all to start using the latest insult for when someone's being an arrogant, unfunny, bullying prick ..... and start calling them a 'Gervais'

The Call From Ed Miliband

After a question about the treatment of disabled people feisty enough to bring a wry smile to the face of seasoned political commentator Peter Snow at the recent Labour conference, yesterday, the Labour leader Ed Miliband honoured his public promise to discuss the issues facing sick and disabled people further.

Sue Marsh and myself spent a day spent carefully planning what to say and what we might be able to acheive from this conversation; the pressure was on. We knew that at most the conversation would be scheduled for around 10 minutes and that there was a huge expectation for answers from sick and/or disabled people. We needed two clear objectives we thought we might be able to suceed with in that space of time so we decided to concentrate on the way sick and/or disabled people are being spoken about by politicians and the consequences this has for our lives. We also decided to focus on the particular issues with the Work Capability Assessment as that is affecting so many people already. It was difficult to narrow it down to just two issues but we wanted to be able to acheive measurable results from this phone call and decided these were the initial priority in getting Labour to listen to us.

The first thing Ed had to say when he phoned was an apology for calling me Harriet in the conference hall. Then he said he was ready to listen and to his credit, listen is exactly what he did. I must have done 90% of the talking, with Ed asking questions to clarify. We talked in some depth about the damage the scrounger rhetoric, used by New Labour as well as the Coalition government, is doing to sick and/or disabled people. I was able to explain that disability hate crime has risen sharply and that as sick or disabled people we see a direct correlation between that and the scrounger label. Ed explained that he has concerns around worklessness and disincentives in the benefits system but that he understands now the need to separate out sick or disabled people from discussions about worklessness and welfare dependency.

We also talked about some of the problems with the Work Capability Assessment, acknowledging that the original idea to support disabled people into work was well intentioned but not working in practice. Ed asked for clarification about what was happening, and what we thought the most pressing issues were. I was able to explain that although there are all sorts of issues surrounding the competence of Atos who carry out the assessments, the real problems are being caused by the change in the descriptors intended to ensure less people qualify for the benefits. We discussed how inappropriate it is for sanctions or conditionality to be used against people in the Work Related Activity Group, all of whom have been recognised to be sick or disabled and I was able to explain to Ed how impossible it is, particularly for people with fluctuating conditions to engage with the work programmes as they are currently set up. We also covered the problem of people with long term health conditions being found 'fit for work' and put onto Job Seekers Allowance where they are not able to access the more specialist work support intended for them via the Work Related Activity Group.

We also talked about how for sick and/or disabled people it feels like we are round pegs being forced into square holes, and that for as long as that continues to happen we will fall straight through the holes in the system. I emphasised that sick and disabled people need unconditional support when we can work and for those of us who feel able to participate it isn't that we don't want to work or contribute, but unless we are able to do so on our terms we won't be able to acheive that. For many people contributing to the world of work financially simply isn't possible, but that does not mean they are not contributing to society. We talked about how inaccessible the country still is to us, despite laws surrounding access and that not being able to get onto public transport or into businesses means yet another barrier for people who might want to work. I was able to explain that unless the world of business is ready to offer more flexible working options, part time, from home, small amounts of hours etc any of these work programmes will fail, not because disabled people are lazy or work shy, but because we have to do things in a different way to the 'normal' working week and world. 

Ed promised to set up a meeting between Broken of Britain activists and the new shadow minister for disability Anne McGuire. He also promised that he and Liam Byrne will meet with us all after intial meetings with Anne. We would like to thank Ed Miliband for honouring his promise to speak to us in more depth about these issues, for listening to our views and for making a committment to improving the way Labour speak about sick people, disabled people and worklessness to be clear that we are NOT scroungers.


We could possibly speculate as to the connection between this conversation and the press release late yesterday evening from Anne McGuire, but we welcome this as a hugely positive first step on the long road to improving the Labour party's perception and treatment of people who are sick and/or disabled. 

“I’m delighted to have been appointed as Shadow Minister for Disabled People. There is a responsibility on all of us to care for those in need. However many disabled people feel that they are unfairly being portrayed as scroungers and are feeling very vulnerable"

“Labour will be the voice for those in genuine need, who need extra help live a full life. The introduction of the Universal Credit will see support for disabled children halved, while the Severe Disability Premium is to be scrapped with nothing appropriate put in its place. We believe there can be reforms made to the system, but this is the wrong way to do it, and we will do all we can to stop these changes.”

Thanks also to John Pring of the invaluable Disability News Service who provided us with the press release from Anne McGuire. John is the only full time investigative journalist working on disability issues and without his fantastic service all those involved in grassroots activism would find it much more difficult to source the information we require.

But You Don't Look Ill...

 Guest blog by ManicSleepTeacher

I’m livid! Abso-bloody-lutely steaming! Probably not in the right frame of mind to blog but I have to get rid of this anger.

This morning, I built up the confidence to go to an exercise/dance class. I had been encouraged to do this by my CPN to build my confidence, my psychologist to develop relationships outside of work and my psychiatrist as the anti-psychotic is causing me to gain weight at a rapidly alarming event. So last night, I booked a taxi to get me there as I can’t yet do buses.

This morning, the taxi arrived. I was initially pleased as it was a driver I’d seen before a few times on trips to work. I got in the car and we passed pleasantries. He asked me if I was off to work and I explained I was off to the leisure centre for a class. The conversation went like this:

Him: “On holiday?”
Me: “No, I’m currently off sick”
Him: “And you want me to take you to the Leisure Centre?”
Me: “Yes please”
Him: *Long pause*
Him: “You’re not too sick to go to the Leisure Centre then?”
Him: *Uncomfortable laugh*

Now I do remember the days when, if I’d had a day off school, I wasn’t allowed to go out to play afterwards (if you’re not well enough to go to school ….) but this sort of attitude is just indicative of the demonisation of people with disabilities or long term health problems that @BendyGirl and @Suey2y highlighted in the ‘Ask Ed Milliband’ session at the recent Labour Party Conference, the image that the Daily Fail perpetuates throughout it’s pages and that middle England appears to wholeheartedly believe.

I honestly felt like Jeremy Kyle was going to pop up and accuse me of spending his tax payers money on exercise classes before I reminded myself that I am fortunate enough to be able to work and pay taxes too.

The confidence building exercise was an abject failure. I did complete the class but feel shame not endorphins running through my veins.

Attitudes More Suited To 100 Years Ago - Is It Due To The 'Official Stance'?

 Cross posted with kind permission from CrimsonCrip

I’ve been a bit quiet online this week, partly because I’ve been ‘licking’my wounds’, as I faced the worst and most blatant disablism ever personally targeted at me.

I’ve been trying to buy a new flat, I thought it would be my dream home. Adapted apart from needing a ramp, I didn’t see too much difficulty. I needed the permission of the other residents, as a group they hold the freehold. I had contact with the chairman of the group, he claimed the attitude was that of the committee, something I can’t confirm. First they are reluctant to allow me any kind of ramp, and are generally difficult.

This week they had a meeting and I rang to see what the conclusion was. I was told I couldn’t have a fixed ramp, even though I agreed to have it removed if I sell the property, I was told I could have a temporary ramp, and would be expected to move it when not in use. I was then told they knew this wasn’t suitable for me. I was also told I would not be allowed to lower the pavement, and it was repeatedly said there was no support for what he called my predicament.

This person then took it upon himself to discuss what he saw as the unsuitability of my choices. He couldn’t understand why I had chosen something appropriate, when I said it was he disagreed, because with no ramp I couldn’t access it. He then said that they were like a family, and I wouldn’t fit in, so would be lonely. Next he suggested it might be better if I lived in the local sheltered housing, with what he called my own kind, When challenged as to whether his attitude was due to my disability, he didn’t deny it, but said I was putting words in his mouth. My assertion that it wasn’t his decision where I lived, he said as chairman who lived there was his business.

To directly challenge his opinion to save my flat would take too long, both for me, I need a home, and the seller who needs to sell. I have made her aware of his attitude, it has cost her a sale. What I will do in regard to him I haven’t decided, but have worked this week to make sure all options are open to me.
It did make me question though, is he just of a type that thinks disabled people have a place, but only out of the mainstream, or is it a sign that the Gov/media campaign is taking hold? Will it be that soon the only ‘right’ place for us with be the modern equivelant of the workhouse? I feel that this situation is proof positive our rights to ‘normality’ are slipping, and we must fight like never before to halt the slide.