The only thing I'm happy about re the Executive Correspondence Officer is that I was referred to the correct ministers. Which means the letter may have been read. Reading more into it than that probably isn't worth the trouble. But I've never written to a Prime Minister before. The point is to find out what happens. And I'm afraid I don't expect anything more from Mr Martin.

I'm also afraid that the new ministers in the fragile minority government will not be at all willing to confront Canada's real autism problem. That would mean standing up to the parent organizations and the intolerance they have propagated. That would truly take courage, never mind leadership. I'm not holding my breath.

A lot of what autistics are doing these days is ensuring that our concerns have been expressed, and that no one can say "I didn't know" or "no one told me" when confronted with their own inaction and compliticy in human rights violations.

Edited by author 08-03-2004 03:42 AM
The true meaning of bland replies like this one.... (true meanings in brackets....)

"28 July 2004 "

That's a date, that is.
  

"Dear Ms. Dawson: (about whom we couldn't really give a shit!)"
 

"On behalf of the Right Honourable Paul Martin,"

(He couldn't be arsed to write to you himself.... he feels he has better things to do than to reply to defectives' letters... like masturbate?)

"I would like to thank you for your e-mail,"

(I'm writing that but I wish you'd piss off and leave us alone to trample all over you and your kind)

"in which you raised an issue which is of interest to the Honourable Ujjal Dosanjh, Minister of Health and the Honourable Ken Dryden, Minister of Social Development."

(I can't be bothered to read it myself, so I'm giving it to these two pillocks in the hope that they'll lose it between themselves.... or write a joint letter to you themselves telling you to get stuffed, cos I can't be arsed!)

"The Prime Minister always appreciates receiving mail on subjects of importance to Canadians."

(Believe that, you'll believe anything we say!)

"Please be assured that the statements you made have been carefully reviewed."

(We let the most hungry dog we own read it. He chewed it up. And shat it out. Then we gave it to the two ministers.)

"I have taken the liberty of forwarding your e-mail to the Ministers so that they too may be made aware of your comments."

(We want them to have a laugh at your expense too)

"I am certain that the Ministers will give your views every consideration."

(We intend to ignore that missive, so just piss off and leave us alone.)

"S. Russell
Executive Correspondence Officer
Agent de correspondance de la haute direction"

(nää-nää-nä-nää-nääääää)

-------------------------------------------------------------

From Psychoanalysis 101: if people in power are being pleasant to you, they are hiding hostile emotions.

Edited by author 08-04-2004 12:51 PM
I think re /m29 that everyone is due basic respect, including Prime Ministers whose mail is "managed".

>I think re /m29 that everyone is due basic respect, including Prime Ministers whose mail is "managed".

*Possibly, but only to a point. They have considerable power to have things brought to their attention when mail dealing with such matters comes in.

By "due basic respect", I mean not responding to someone who whose actions you disagree with by insulting that person personally. I haven't ever had a lot of patience for this strategy, and my positions have also been responded to by people who defamed my character. When you mock and sneer at people you haven't even met, you are saying more about you than about them.

In a message dated 8/5/04 9:46:08 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
qtopic+27-pYQpc3Xychyv@quicktopic.com writes:

From: Michelle Dawson Time: 01:54 PM
By "due basic respect", I mean not responding to someone who
whose actions you disagree with by insulting that person
personally. I haven't ever had a lot of patience for this
strategy, and my positions have also been responded to by people
who defamed my character. When you mock and sneer at people you
haven't even met, you are saying more about you than about them.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What you say is of course, true. But the difference is, David was not insulting that person, because that person isn't here to read it and become insulted. He was just being humorous for our benefit, and I have to say, I was amused. I just thought it clever and funny.
Clay

Edited by author 08-06-2004 01:30 AM
re:
"But the difference is, David was not insulting that person, because that person isn't here to read it and become insulted."


do not know if david was insulting anyone.
only david knows that.
insults are generated by the meaning/intention of the person speaking...
this is what think anyways.

now, as for the fact that IF someone was insulted, them not being here to witness itdoes not make it any less an insult.

it would be just the same as speaking about others behind their back, but not be willing to say the same thing in front of their faces.

that kind of behaviour is propably one of the most disturbing to mine self.
because it seems to indicate a willingness to participate in dishonesty (sying something about a person which one is not willing to say directly to that person is being dishonest).


do not at all like it when anyone speaks about anyone else, in a awy that they would not be willing to say directly to that person.


personally, do not say anyting about anyone that am not willing to say directly to them.
and also make a practice of not insulting people, or making jokes about them.

but, DO speak the truth.
sometimes, people are insulted by the truth.
taht is not the "fault" or doing of the truth-speaker.
but rather the inner feelings of the insulted.

for example, if one is to tell a person who is a habitual liar, that theyare one...
and if that person is insulted, it has nothign to do with the one speaking.
the one speaking spoke the truth.
the facts.

facts do not insult anyuone else except for those who wish those facts wre not true about themselves.

as for being humorous at someone elses expense:

"He was just being humorous for our benefit"

it is a good trait to want to be humorous for the benefit of friends and acquintances.

everyone neeeds "comic relief" occasionally.

but there is a difference between being humorous by 'insulting' someone who is not even here to speak up for themselves, to speak their position etc.

(assuming this was meant as an insult, have NO idea... have not see david state wht he meant)

and being honest, and speaking about things as one sees them, and know that one is wiling ot say all those things directly to the person being spoken about...
and then also to be notmaking fun of, or having humorous moments over the way the other person is, or lives their lives, or .. or... or....

minna

Edited by author 08-06-2004 05:05 AM
I wrote this somewhere in the ABA comment board archives (quoting something from my workplace ordeal), "If you are not ready to say something to a person's face, you should think very, very hard before saying it elsewhere. This is easy to remember and also how you would like to be treated."

So as a boring old person, I don't think it's clever what David wrote. I think it could easily have been clever, and certainly this is a situation that cries out for humour. But I'm not going to be one of a gang, like in my workplace, who can see no harm in insulting a person who everyone else was insulting, and who was not within earshot, and who was assumed to be too stupid to understand anyway. Nope, and I'm not going to be one of those people who, when she does not succeed, lashes out in mockery at other people, and I'm not going to be one of the people who is delighted to go along with this, and I'm not going to be one of the people who sees it happen and says, it's none of my business, I only care when I'm the one who's insulted.

Sorry all, but that is my position. Even when the target is an easy target, and especially when the premise is that you can do this, hey why not, because there are no consequences. My point was, yes there are consequences, to the person who's writing, and to the credibility of autistics who want to be respected.

...And anyone who calls the Hon. Ken Dryden a "pillock" gets a ten game suspension <blows whistle>

Rory Bremner is an impressionist comedian here in the UK that specialises in political satire, which is founded on insulting the establishment behind their back(assuming they all have one collective back).

I remember a newspaper going on a stringent a few years back about his 'views'. Bremner's defense was that they were not his views, they were purely for entertainment. Bremner has always relied on the fact that the researchers on his programme are extremely impartial and his writing has to be representative of it in case he is found to be factually wrong, so he basically has a go at everybody.

Er, so all David has to do is insult every politician in the world to show that he has no personal ill feelings towards the PM.

This is why my family thinks I'm a nutter...

Most public figures are amused and honoured by being hit on by a talented impressionist. In Canada, there's now a short tradition of comedians tackling politicians in public, which encounters then find their way to television. We also have talented impressionists and cartoonists and satirists. So we do appear to have a sense of humour.

But in a previous federal election, the former configuration of the Conservative party used advertisements that made fun of the facial features of the Liberal leader at the time, Jean Chretien--who has facial paralysis. This was, more than anything else, why the former Conservatives were wiped totally off the map (going from being the government to having two seats). Maybe Canadians don't have a sense of humour? But more likely, this sort of gratuitous insult was seen as not belonging in a real political discussion.

Likewise, in the more recent election, the Conservatives accused Mr Martin of supporting child pornography. This, of course, wasn't funny at all, and the failure of the Conservatives to apologize for this ridiculous accusation is one of the reasons Mr Martin is still in power.

There is an entire large satirical website dedicated to insulting Mr Martin (there's probably more than one). They don't seem to have changed anything though. What changed things were ridiculous insults in the context of real political discussions, and the change has always been against those making the insults, not receiving them.

Edited by author 08-07-2004 06:20 AM
We don't know if Paul Martin and/or other government ministers read these messages. But whether or not they do read them, I believe that David should not have posted his message /m29, for the reasons expressed much better than I can by Michelle and Minna.

David is just analysing the discourse used in politics when people for whom the politicians are supposed to act write back very nice, and bland, letters which really have no substance to them.

I have, quite frankly, had a great many such letters from various people and the common thread running through them is that - when it all comes down - the people do not really value the opinion that was put forward in the letter to which they were replying. For someone in any sort of authority to pretend otherwise is actually unethical. And therefore, insulting. Or is it the other way around?

Or does it even matter?

From what I have seen of the replies to Michelle's very sensible letters, I have been amazed that the responders have actually considered that they have made useful and considered replies at all. They have little, if any, relevance to the subject matter put by Michelle, and they have - each to differing extents from the others - been (as far as I can see) insulting to the recipient. Now, I'm aware that this is not justification for having a go at any one person, but I still feel that my opinion about what the vast majority of politicians (and their officers) say to us in these replies has very little content regarding the matters we bring up (many get similar things from other people in power).

However, there is a difference between what I do in analysing the discourse of politicians and what some politicians do to each other: I, for example, would NEVER accuse a politician of supporting child pornography. Nor would I consider it tasteful of party political advertisers to pillory any other politician for the features of his/her face.

As for insulting all possible politicians in the world, to show that I am not biased in my dislike of politicians generally, I'm sorry but there are some politicians I actually like, because they DO take their posts seriously enough to care about the issues that their electorates raise with them. But these are few and far between.

As for ill-feelings towards any prime minister.... if a PM can go all out to wage a war that was wanted by the head of another country, against a third sovereign nation against which it had no mandate to make the attacks that constituted that war; and if that PM can have made statements that he knew were not the truth, but were made for effect (e.g., the threat of Iraqi WMDs being able to be launched at 45 minutes' notice or whatever the phrase was that was used).... I don't see any person there that I should have any respect for. He sold that out when he sold us out by lying to us and waging a war in our name without the proper authority to do so, and thereby making us targets to extremist factions.

As for Mr Martin, he has not - despite being officially made aware of the inconsistencies in the attitudes towards certain disablity groups regarding the funding of the supposedly representative bodies for those groups - actually (at least visibly, so far) censured any official for those inconsistencies (which are mainly based on attitudes that are not consistent with respecting one of the disability groups concerned).

I cannot help but believe that politicians generally (with certain notable exceptions) do not care about their electorates, and nor do they wish to: the term "career politician" has been coined already. Why should such a person be respected?

I don't know either.

I'm taking the liberty of copying this message (which was posted on the No Autistics Allowed open letter comment board) into this comment board, since it's another letter to the PM.

Here's the message, from Dinah Murray:

Hi everyone
below is a letter I've sent to the Canadian PM, copies to Health and Social Development - they need to worry about what's happening, not wallow in complacency.
(it and the copies went by flying snail, on headed (Autism & Computing) paper). I reckon the more such messages they get the more worried they will become. Perhaps they'll even get worried enough to google all this...and that just might get them worried enough to *do* something other than send vacuous and patronising messages of dismissal
Dinah

The Right Honourable Paul Martin
Office of the Prime Minister
80 Wellington Street
Ottawa
K1A 0A2

August 5, 2004



Dear Prime Minister

First let me offer you congratulations on keeping out the Tories again, big sighs of relief in this half Canadian household .... I hope this will mean you will now be able to address the well-motivated concerns of world-renowned autistic campaigner Michelle Dawson. I wonder if you are aware of how widespread is the concern about Canadian treatment of autistic people? It has received attention in the most widely read (professionally run) autism news website – Autismconnect - and has been supported by a wide range of individuals - both autistic and professional - involved with autism around the world. People have been frankly shocked.

Your autism society claim that not all autistics can communicate, they then claim that because of this no autistics should be included in their debates and discussions. Their argument is self-contradictory. One may question the truth even of the first claim – with access to modes of communication acceptable to them and to their interlocutors, and when motivated, all autistic people are able to communicate effectively. Anyway, whatever one believes about that, the second claim is nonsense of course – if some autistics can communicate, as is implied and is evidently the case, they should obviously be as actively involved as feasible in the decisions which impact on their lives. The autism society’s present stance is exclusionary and discriminatory in ways which surely contravene not only dearly held - and widely admired - Canadian principles but ones which are enshrined in law.

Just as disturbing is the pernicious denigration of autistic people as evidence of a spreading “plague”. Autism is not an illness and autistic people are real people with real minds and real feelings. This
conceptualisation exemplifies the sort of dehumanisation which standardly underpins human rights abuses of the gravest kinds.

I look forward to your considered response and trust it will include action to correct the current deplorable situation.

Yours faithfully



Dinah KC Murray BA MA PhD
Cc to Ministers for Health and Social Development

Re /m39, I've made it pretty clear that I'm not exactly pleased with the responses I've received from the government. These responses have been incompetent, they have been disrespectful, they have been insulting, and one of them was illegal.

My definition of basic respect stands. If you're not in a personal argument with someone, you don't get personal. Getting personal means you've lost your priorities, or you've given up and are now resorting to making rude faces and rude noises.

Edited by author 08-09-2004 12:07 AM
agree 100% on the matter that despite the fact that the "other party involved' may be behaving in a way that is disrespectful, insulting, and at times illegal even, personal attacks are not warranted.

not only that,
also further hold the following belief:

EVEN IF, someone was to make personal attacks against this being that am,

will not, succumb to their level of spewing forth insults or other personally demeaning comments (about any characterisitic, or lack therefore) for then... what does minna really have to complain about, if am willing to do the same to the other person.....

but rather will continue to hold the following view:

WILL NOT do to anyone, anything that would not like to have done to mineself.

this is propably the principle that is lacking the most in our societies today.

too many people seem to take the stance of:
"ooh s/he did such and such to me, so am going to do such and such to them, its only fair, am only giving back to them what they gave to me"


it is most important, in order to remain credible, and consistently able to strongly stand by ones own integrity,
to treat each living being (no matter how ignorant they may be, no matter how disrespectful, or demeaning they may be) with the SAME amount of respect that one deserves themselves and wishes to be treated with.

having said that, also agree that there is nothing wrong (and infact encouraged it) to speak the truth at all times, yet the truth does not need to be delivered with words that are demeaning of ones character.


now, a small comment on the political satire.

sure some folks make their living from such.

that is just the case... they make their living doing it.
the audience who go there, know what they are going there for....
the person doing it, may, or may not truly think those things about the things they are 'making fun of' but are rather echolalic with 'popular' myths, perceptions and prejudices.
(have seen some satirists speak of their wife, or their mother, or their ancestry, or their own culture and other characteristics of themselves or their family and friends in ways that seemed rather cruel... but it seems that the audience liked it, and felt they were getting what they came there for).

those kinds of shows are the proper setting for such satire.

the people who go there, are knowingly going there to be "entertained" at the expense of others.

this discusion forum (if am not mistaken), is not meant to entertain us al with political satire, (or anything else someon considers to be comedy provided for the benefit of the reader)....
certainly sometimes we may find one of the comments amusing, or perhaps soemtimes we all make our efforts to bring some humor into our discussions....
yet, am feeling like the kind of humor where one picks on, or points out, the short comings, or the struggles, of one person or another...
am thinking taht that kind of 'comedy' is not what we come here for....


personally am disturbed when people choose to mock others (even those 'others' whose behaviour certainly leaves lots of room for seemingly justified 'attacks' in the eyes of many), or to point out their shortcomings, or their challenges (wether it is challenges in getting their own heads out of someones butts, or the challenges or finding their own principles, morals, and values regarding certain issues, or wether it is challenges so obvious as someones facial paralysis, lack of intelligence, charm, empathy etc. etc.)

am thinking that perhaps made a point allready.
ifit wasnt obvious.
please try to look for it again.


as for respect.

this is what believe.

respect is NOT something one gives to another IF that person holds the "correct" views on something(personally, think that the war is wrong, and am VERY upset with Bush, and all politicians who supported the war, but that does not mean that wont hold out the basic respect that any living being deserves.. even to Bush... heck there IS an excample of the compassion that hold out for people like Bush, when read that he is struggling greatly with depression, and personality changes and is now on antidepressants, which apparently are not making things better but worse for him.. .immediately thought of him as another man suffering from the cluthces of depression (perhaps brought on by his own 'inner demons' for all that he has done to deaman humanity )... immediately thought of "what can minna do, to help him out in his time of need".... this is certainly NOT because like Bush... he is one of the men in this planet who TRULY feel is VERY wrong in most of what he does, and a dangerous man at that... but will not hold back compassion for another hurting being, evevn if IT is Bush... so sent him a package... a little 'care package' that think would help.. IF he ever got it.. but ofcourse know htat noone will give it to him... but feel that the positive energy that send out, will somehow make a meaningful effect somewhere, to someone).

So, as for respect, yes, hold the same respect for Bush (even )as a living being, as hold for the ant which will not kill although it crawls in our home...
or the fly which hover over the computer buzzing to distract this brain....
or Albert Einstein, or Mahatma Gandhi....
or the beetle that walked on teh floor this afternoon...

ALL living beings, of all sorts, deserve the SAME respect.
Even those who do not hold respect for us.
IF we are not capable of engaging in a meaningful,factual, and truthful discourse, or disagreement, without disrespecting, demeaning, or generally making 'comic' comments about their short comings, or struggles, or even the darker parts of their personalities, then
We can always walk away, before we demean ourselves to the lowest position of attacking others verbally, emotionally, or physically...

before we lower ourselves to the point of acting like the abusers who do not respect others lives...
we can always CHOOSE to build our characters,
to solidify our principles and morals.....
we can always choose to "do the right thing".. and lead by example.



minna

Edited by author 08-09-2004 02:12 PM
Hi Minna,
What you wrote in your last message is so full of compassion and love.