Playing With Fire

From the UK we have a new case of the "Asperger's defense." In this case, the defendant is Steven Walker, who is guilty of (accidentally) starting a fire which caused a fair bit of property damage. A local newspaper, in reporting the events of Walker's trial, focuses on a possible Asperger's angle. According to this source, "Walker is thought to have Asperger’s Syndrome and was found to be lacking common sense." (What do they mean by "thought to have Asperger's Syndrome"? I have no idea. Anyone can be "thought to have" AS by someone or another. I can only hope that the court used more precise information in making its decision.)

So now we have the implication that Asperger's = setting fire to things by accident, because of a "lack of common sense." (What is "common sense"? Again, I have no idea. Whatever it is, I'm sure that it's not actually very common, given the state of the world today.)

I have to read more than halfway through the story to find out a more salient fact about this case--Walker had consumed vodka prior to the incident. The journalist's presentation of the issue makes it appear as though Walker's (unconfirmed) AS was more of a factor in the crime than alcohol use--which is, to put it mildly, rather questionable. Now, why would the paper do that? Could it be that sensationalistic headlines infantilizing people who (supposedly) have sexy, mysterious "disorders" are more interesting (or so they think) than another humdrum account of vandalism as the result of alcohol use?

Good riddance. I'd wager that drunken vandals are significantly more common than autistic ones, yet somehow the alleged autism becomes the salient point--not only in this report, but in the judge's sentencing.

Judge Andrew Woolman imposed a two year community order, involving two years supervision. He told the defendant he had committed a wicked offence.

He added: “If this was a case of the normal mindless vandalism coming before this court all too frequently, I would have no hesitation in locking you up for a couple of years. But it is obvious you have tremendous difficulties coping with life. I have no doubt that if I sent you to prison, you would be extremely vulnerable and at considerable risk yourself. I suspect that not even the victims, although very angry indeed, would want to see terrible things happen to you in prison”.

Judge Woolman seems to me to be rather confused. Disabled people don't want or need pity, and in any case, pity should hardly be the primary basis of a legal decision. Why is Walker's case different from the "normal" cases of "mindless [drunken] vandalism"? Because the defendent may have a diagnosis and the judge feels sorry for him? Oy. I do not know very much about the British criminal justice system, but I do know that in the US, prisons are highly unpleasant for most people, autistic or not. I think there are good arguments to be made for making prisons less hellish, because right now they're not doing much other than making better criminals. And locking people up for a "few years" because of drunken accidents is a complete waste of tax dollars, at least in my opinions. But to treat someone vastly differently on the basis of pity and possible disability is not equality; it's condescending crap which harms all disabled people. Shame on you, Judge Woolman and The North West Evening Mail, for making autism the primary issue at stake when it really, really isn't.

Resist Ableism in NY Times

I urge all readers interested in fighting ableism to read this post, and to send your name and e-mail address to jfa@aapd.com. As the U.S. is currently amidst a vital political struggle for much-needed healthcare reform, it is imperative that the voices of disability rights activists are heard. Especially when bigoted, ableist voices like Peter Singer are being given prominent platforms, such as The New York Times Magazine, to air their bigotry. This is an unacceptable state of affairs, and the Times should be made aware of it. (It was also the Times which published Singer's obituary of Harriet McBryde Johnson, suggesting a disturbing pattern.)

Singer uses tortured, ableist mathematics to "prove" that nondisabled life is preferable to life with a disability (quadriplegia is the example which he uses). This "math" is nothing more than ableist assumptions wrapped up in fancy, philosophizing language. It does not express any kind of truth about disabled people's lives--but unfortunately, the Times represents Singer-math as truth. (It has always struck me that Singer is more concerned about using disabled people as part of his thought experiments than in accurately grasping the reality of our lives. Whether it's unfounded assumptions about wheelchair users, or making assumptions about the capabilities of people with Down's Syndrome, Singer is apparently too busy philosophizing to examine empirical research about the actual quality of disabled people's lives. He'll just assume our lives are worth less without properly examining the assumption, as a thorough researcher should do.)

Singer's essay also touches on the issue of "curing" disability:

This method of preserving our belief that everyone has an equal right to life is, however, a double-edged sword. If life with quadriplegia is as good as life without it, there is no health benefit to be gained by curing it. That implication, no doubt, would have been vigorously rejected by someone like Christopher Reeve, who, after being paralyzed in an accident, campaigned for more research into ways of overcoming spinal-cord injuries. Disability advocates, it seems, are forced to choose between insisting that extending their lives is just as important as extending the lives of people without disabilities, and seeking public support for research into a cure for their condition.

This is a ridiculous false choice which Singer is proposing, and a blatant admission that Singer just doesn't think disabled people's lives are particularly important. Meanwhile, he sloppily uses Christopher Reeve as a token cripple without acknowledging how utterly unrepresentative Reeve was. (Why not Johnson or some other disabled person?) Reeve was an ultra-privileged wheelchair user, thanks to the fame and money he accumulated as a nondisabled person. Make no mistake--this class privilege allowed Reeve to mitigate, to some extent, many the problems which most wheelchair users face. He had the luxury of devoting his life to campaigning for a cure; many others struggle to obtain housing which is at all wheelchair-accessible. But Singer trumpets Reeve's pro-cure views as the disability standpoint, when in fact these views may not be wholly representative of disabled people. Nor do able-bodied people like Singer really know, with any accuracy, where disability advocates would prefer money be spent--which is often on accommodations, rather than cures. Such is the case for the autistic self-advocacy community, as well as "Jerry's Orphans" who have protested the asinine ableism of Jerry Lewis. I'd wager that most disabled people--if offered the choice, however ludicrous, between "cure" research and equality, would choose equality.

People with disabilities can speak for ourselves, and we deserve to be heard. So let's let the The New York Times know that they oughtn't only discuss the quality of life of disabled people when a known bigot like Singer is the one defining the terms of the discussion.

New Comment Moderation Policy

I really don't like to do this, but comments on recent posts have given me little choice. I've switched this blog to comment moderation, meaning that I will have to approve every comment before it appears. While I will try to be expedient about this, naturally this will cause a delay in comments being posted. I apologize about this to my readers who are interested in polite, in-depth discussion, but I feel that this policy will better facilitate such discussion for now. It is my hope that I can eventually switch back to open commenting.

Some general guidelines about posting:

-No attacking other posters or myself. Discuss ideas; don't make it personal.
-No dehumanization of autistic people, period. This encompases all autistic people--self-diagnosed, so-called "low-functioning" autistic people*, etc.
-No comments which demonstrate bigotry towards others on the basis of dis/ability, race, religion, gender, class, sexual orientation, physical appearance, etc. No exceptions.
-Don't demand immediate responses to your comments. People have lives outside of this blog, it can take time to construct thoughtful comments, and many autistic people (and perhaps some non-autistic people) react very badly to such demands.
-Posts from known trolls of the autism world will be deleted automatically.
-Posts which recycle old material from the same thread have less of a chance of being approved.

*This blog does not like to label people as high or low-functioning, and requests that commentators follow suit.

I will exercise my discretion in enforcing these guidelines. If you don't know why a post didn't go through, ask me in another comment and I'll try to respond. If you don't like the way I approve/disapprove comments, then tough. This is my blog.

To state the obvious, this blog is devoted to autistic rights, neurodiversity, and disability rights in general. I use the social model of disability. I will not delete comments from anyone merely on the basis of disagreement with these core principals, but I do have to ask that such disagreement is phrased politely and constructively. I admit to being rather puzzled that some people who disagree so vehemently with these principals spend so much time commenting here.

I apologize to all of my commentators who have contributed interesting, thoughtful ideas to this blog. I hope the new policy will improve the level of discourse here.

EDITED (to add a few additional guidelines):

-No un-diagnosing people or otherwise calling other people frauds.
-Let's try and stay away from arguing whether Asperger's is autism. As far as I (and most of the scientific establishment, and even the DSM) am concerned, that questioned has been asked and answered. I won't delete such comments automatically, but prefer that we pursue other topics of discussion.

Holding My Breath

As soon as I heard Pennsylvania gym shooter George Sodini described as a "loner," I began holding my breath.

How long would it take for someone to start speculating that Sodini was autistic?

While I haven't yet seen the suggestion in a mainstream media outlet, I fear that it is only a matter of time before I do. Certainly I've seen the suggestion floating around various crevices of the Internet.

But even while the "autistic" label has yet to hit the MSM, vile, insidious ableism has already crept into media representations of the tragedy. Specifically, there are those media outlets which are making this issue one about "untreated mental illness." (See for instance, this article from ABC News.)

The message is clear: People with "mental illness" are a danger to society, and need to be subjected (voluntarily or otherwise) to medicalized "treatments" from "professionals" who know best. This is necessary for public safety.

Never mind the fact that many studies have demonstrated that "mentally ill" people are no more likely to be violent than "normal" people, and that "mentally ill" people are in fact much more likely to be the victims of violence. No, let's start rounding up the crazies in a witch hunt.

In any case, it seems to me that the "mental illness" label is constantly brandished about in tragedies such as these. The Virginia Tech shooting was another such example. Which is an entirely circular way of defining the issues. No "normal" person could possibly commit such a heinous act, therefore anyone who does such a thing is dumped into the "mental illness" category by default. Meanwhile, the rest of us who are categorized as "mentally ill" or otherwise mentally "defective" are trapped in a web of vicious stereotypes and attempts to seize our autonomy.

This tragedy is not about autism or "mental illness," and we should strongly resist any attempts to make the conversation about it so. Indeed, there is far more evidence that racism and sexism played a role in Sodini's crimes.

For an excellent description of the flaws of the medical model of "mental illness," see amandaw at three rivers fog. It will be one of the best analyses you read on the topic; I guarantee it.

Meanwhile, I'll be nervously awaiting the cries that George Sodini is autistic, and that his crimes justify the "war against autism." Marginalized people always seem to end up society's scapegoats.

But You Don't Look Disabled

A cop in Florida fines a man with a disability for parking in a disability parking spot, even though he had a placard displayed. Apparently, he didn't "look disabled" enough. (Because we all know that you can determine a person's level of dis/ability just by looking at them, right?)

Sigh. This is why the public needs more education on disability issues, particularly invisible disabilities. And let's not get started on the comments to the story, some of which call for the abolition of disability parking altogether. I really don't know why I torture myself by reading the comments on mainstream news sites. I must be a sadist.