Last week The Times newspaper dedicated a full leader column to condemning the French minister for Europe, Pierre Lellouche, for using the word “autistic” to describe the Tory approach to the EU.
He is entitled to voice his disagreement with David Cameron’s stance on Europe. It may be useful to hear his warning that the Conservative leader’s promise to repatriate powers from Brussels is unrealistic. It is less helpful to hear his crude depiction of Britain having “castrated” its influence. What is absolutely unacceptable, however, is his description of Conservative policy as “bizarre autism”.
Autism is a serious, lifelong and disabling condition, affecting more than half a million people in Britain. To use the term “autism” and “autistic” in a derogatory or flippant manner can cause deep hurt to those affected by the condition. To use the term as a criticism, for dramatic effect or to try to gain political advantage, perpetuates the misunderstanding of this condition and is, as the National Autistic Society said yesterday, “extremely unhelpful”.
Blogger Tom Freeman says he “agrees with every word”.
He adds:
But what puzzles me is that the editorial makes no mention of the only noteworthy use in recent years by a British politician of the same term “in a derogatory or flippant manner… for dramatic effect or to try to gain political advantage”.
I mean George Osborne’s suggestion in October 2006 that Gordon Brown was “mildly autistic”.
Anyone who follows politics reasonably closely, as Times leader writers most certainly do, will remember this. Yet not a mention of this episode.
The newspaper also ran two columns by Ann Mary Seighart excusing George Osborne’s use of the term.
Curious that those two columns or the Osborne row were not mentioned.
Blogger Septicisle adds in the comments below Tom Freeman’s post:
Nothing to do with it being the Graun that reported it then. Or the fact that the Times accused the Graun of translating the French minister inaccurately when the interview was in fact conducted in, err, English.
| Post to del.icio.us |
*Shock in the blogosphere as it is revealed that rightwing Tory newspaper does not hold rightwing Tory politicians to same standard as leftwing French governments.*
Slow news day?
Where has the edit button gone?
I need to remove “left wing” from that post.
Grr…
Either it’s okay for BOTH the French AND the Tories to use the term, or it’s okay for NEITHER.
The Times find it inexcusable from the French, some here find it acceptable from the French but inexcusable from the Tories.
That, for those unfamiliar for the actual meaning of the word, is what ‘hypocrisy’ means (from the Greek for ‘play acting’)
(For the record, I don’t give a shit in either case, any more than if the French or Tories has used ‘mental’ or ‘retard’.)
John Stuart Mill put it a little differently in a letter in 1866:
“I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.”
What about Boris Johnson using the same sort of terms as abuse?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/dominic_lawson/article6888959.ece
As an Autistic man myself, I think they all deserve the best that the LC can throw at them.
Presumably, in an autistic fit, Boris missed the seminal significance of Alan Greenspan’s testimony on 24 October 2008 to the US House of Representatives Oversight Committe:
“Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html
The recent systemic crisis in financial services – verging on a global scale – is a hugely magnified version of the earlier Savings & Loan Association crisis in America in the 1980s and 1990s:
“The US Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was the failure of several savings and loan associations in the United States. More than 1,000 savings and loan institutions (S&Ls) failed in ‘the largest and costliest venture in public misfeasance, malfeasance and larceny of all time.’ The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around USD$160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. government, which contributed to the large budget deficits of the early 1990s.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_Loan_crisis
My insight into that crisis came from reading Donald Campbell: Incentives (Cambridge UP 1995, rev. 2006)
Sadly, the authorities seem not to have drawn the appropriate lessons from the earlier systemic failure.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
| 13 Comments 17 Comments 44 Comments 21 Comments 27 Comments 46 Comments 41 Comments 59 Comments 20 Comments 150 Comments | LATEST COMMENTS » rumpypumpy posted on Media campaign launch to 'expose' the BNP » Randy Bullock posted on First US 'Tea Party' conv. celebrates racist lunacy » Dick the Prick posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black » pagar posted on The myth of the New Labour carpetbagger » Col Bloodnokk ex M15 posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black » rumpypumpy posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black » GeorgeV posted on I'm not making this up, honest » Tim J posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black » Stewart posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black » the a&e charge nurse posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black » Dazmando posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black » Jewel in the Clown posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black » rumpypumpy posted on Women, political blogging and the future of the left. » Facthunter posted on The myth of the New Labour carpetbagger » cjcjc posted on Ali Dizaei: when bad coppers are black Last 50 // Comments feed |