Derek McMillan Posted April 25, 2004 Share Posted April 25, 2004 Attitudes to mental health "Bonkers" was the measured and compassionate response of the Home Secretary to the release of a man driven mad by imprisonment. With characteristic New Labour doubletalk, Blunkett mocked the released man, giggling on national television when he used his childish schoolboy abuse, he said "other people" would think this was bonkers. Imprisonment without trial. Imprisonment without knowing when or whether you will be released. Imprisonment without any reason being given. These are circumstances actually calculated to induce trauma, depression and mental illness. It would be interesting to see how long in solitary confinement would cause Blunkett to cease giggling about mental illness. The pretext of opposing terrorism is a complete fake. The real targets of anti-terrorist legislation were revealed when at a meeting with the American governors on February 23, George W. Bush's Secretary of Education Rod Paige called the National Education Association, which is a teachers' and educators union,a "terrorist organization." Paige reflects the Bush Administration's contempt for workers, viewing any resisitance to their anti-union agenda as unpatriotic. In particular the campaign of trade union teachers in America to oppose the persecution of muslim pupils or pupils from muslim countries on the pretext of terrorism has angered Bush. If trade unions do not oppose imprisonment without trial for "suspects" today, the same weapons will be used against us tomorrow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rowena Hopkins Posted May 20, 2004 Share Posted May 20, 2004 You might be interested to know that in Canada rewards are being offered, by a mental health charity, to people who spot the use of offensive and degrading references to people with mental health problems in the media. The result has been two fold. A backlash by those in favour of 'free speech' who see nothing wrong with calling people 'nutters' 'mental' 'bonkers' or whatever, and increased awareness of mental health issues. I think its a great idea. Why is it bad to call someone a 'paki' or 'n' or 'spastic' but perfectly OK to laugh at the idea of someone being 'loopy'? It certainly provides opportunity to examine our prejudices. Rowena Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Derek McMillan Posted May 20, 2004 Author Share Posted May 20, 2004 The result has been two fold. A backlash by those in favour of 'free speech' who see nothing wrong with calling people 'nutters' 'mental' 'bonkers' or whatever, and increased awareness of mental health issues. I get this from pupils. My view is that freedom of speech is not an excuse for being downright rude. I use the opportunity to patiently explain something about mental illness. Changing attitudes is a long slow business. With public figures like the home secretary however I have no patience Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now