Commentators

Partly Sunny with Showers 9° London Hi 12°C / Lo 6°C

Ian Birrell: Mind your language: words can cause terrible damage

When did people with disabilities cease to matter in the battle against bigotry?


Chris Coady / NB Illustration

Racism was rife in the playgrounds of my youth. It seems incredible looking back, but if someone would not share their sweets or lend a few pennies to a friend in need of crisps, they might be mocked as "Jews". Or even "Yids". Sometimes, children would go so far as to rub their noses in a "Shylock" gesture to emphasise the point.

It must have been hellish for the handful of Jewish pupils. Thankfully, as we grew older and began to learn the brutal history of anti-Semitism, the taunts dried up. Today, such behaviour is stamped upon. A lexicon of loathsome words has been driven underground as we make faltering steps forward towards a more tolerant society.

Sticks and stones break bones, but words wound. This explains why there are such howls of outrage when a low-rent celebrity makes a joke about "Pakis", or when a newspaper columnist delivers a diatribe against homosexuals. Casual racism, crude stereotyping and abuse towards a minority is not just offensive, but corrosive.

So why is it acceptable against people with disabilities? When did they become such a forgotten minority that they ceased to matter in the battle against bigotry? A group so exiled still from mainstream society that it has become acceptable to fling around hateful words such as "retard" and "spazz" without a murmur of disquiet. Not just in the playground, where these words and many more like them are commonplace, but online, in the office, in the home and in Hollywood.

This week, we had two of the hottest young actors, Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart, describe rumours of their romance as "so retarded". Last month, Guy Ritchie used the same word to describe his former wife. Previously, it was Lindsay Lohan, Courtney Love, Russell Brand and Britney Spears. Imagine how their careers would have nose-dived if they used language offensive to gay or black people.

Go on to YouTube and look at all the videos of people dancing "like a retard". Or go on to MySpace and find an oh-so-funny gallery entitled "Adopt Your Own Retard". Or go on to any one of dozens of internet sites and laugh at the jokes about "retards". Or go on to the most popular political blogs and see the word bandied around as a term of abuse; one left-leaning site failed to spot the irony of a rant about "homophobic, racist retards" in a recent posting on the BNP.

It is not just the new media polluted by such unthinking contempt. Listen to radio phone-in shows. Or watch the film Tropic Thunder, which uses "retard" or "retarded"17 times and makes gags about actors going the "full retard". Or check out the Black Eyed Peas song "Let's Get Retarded" with its chorus "Everybody, Everybody, Let's get into it, Get stupid, Get retarded". This from a band whose main creative force was one of the most influential figures behind the mobilisation of support for the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States.

But then, even the first black president makes derogatory jokes about the disabled, while a leading French politician yesterday used autism as a form of political abuse against the Tories, and a supposedly-liberal newspaper splashed it across its front page without comment.

In America, the fightback has begun. The Special Olympics has launched a campaign to drive the word "retard" into disuse, asking people to pledge never to use the word. Many of the pledges are from children such as Samantha, who has a sister with special needs. "All my life I have heard people saying the r-word. It makes me really upset. No one understands how hurtful it is until you have someone close to you being called that."

As the parent of a child with profound mental and physical disabilities, I share Samantha's view. It is deeply upsetting to hear words once used to describe my daughter thrown around as a casual insult. But far worse than my own bruised sensitivities, language reflects how we view the world, reinforcing the exclusion of people with disabilities from the rest of society.

When people with physical disabilities are figures of fun and mental incapacity is a term of insult, is it any wonder my daughter gets unpleasant stares wherever she goes? Is it any wonder parents complain over the appearance of a children's television presenter missing part of one arm? Or a major fashion chain insists that a similarly-disabled worker is hidden out of sight of customers? Or that a college allows classmates to hold a vote to ban a student with Down's syndrome from a barbecue party, as happened this summer?

People should bear in mind that barely one in six disabled people are born with their disability, and the number of people with disabilities is rising. Despite this, there is so little interaction with disabled people that a recent survey by Scope discovered a majority of Britons believe most people see them as inferior people. Given this scarcely-believable finding, it is unsurprising that people with disabilities find it so much harder to get jobs, are far more likely to live in poverty, will be paid less and bullied more if they do find work and, increasingly, are victims of hate crime.

Six weeks ago, Britain was engulfed in outrage over the terrible story of Fiona Pilkington, who killed herself and her disabled daughter after years of hostility from her neighbours. But the reality is that disabled people are regularly mocked, taunted, harassed, hurt and humiliated, with the most vulnerable – those with mental disability – suffering the worst. There are even cases of torture and disembowelment, of a woman urinated on and filmed as she lay dying in a doorway.

Hate crime is the most extreme articulation of the prejudice that disabled people endure on a daily basis. Its roots lie in contempt, fertilised by misguided feelings of superiority. So will anything really change while retard is an acceptable term of abuse, and autism is used to denigrate political rivals?

"We are giving people permission to say and do hateful things," said John Knight, director of policy and campaigns at Leonard Cheshire Disability, who himself had to endure screams of "spastic" from two aggressive men in the street just a fortnight ago. "And it's getting worse. If we don't address low-level abuse, we let people think it's acceptable, allowing it to proliferate and become mainstream."

An investigation into crime against the disabled revealed that nearly two-thirds of people with mental health problems had been abused in the street in the previous two years, with about a quarter suffering sexual harassment or physical assault. But only 141 disabled hate crimes were successfully prosecuted in a year, compared with 778 homophobic cases and 6,689 racial cases. The Home Office does not even bother collecting statistics on disability hate crime, unlike racially or religious-based offences.

We are retreating in the fight to offer respect and inclusion to more than one million of our fellow citizens. John Bangs, head of education at the National Union of Teachers, admitted to me that the promotion of disabled rights had fallen back in the past decade while schools concentrated on racism and homophobia. And as the struggle for inclusion in society gets harder, the stares get more pronounced, the insults more widely heard, the harassment worse – and more and more people with disabilities will abandon their personal battles and withdraw to their ghettos.

Is this really what we want? Or should we at the very least start to mind our language?

i.birrell@independent.co.uk

Your Independent

Do you agree with Ian Birrell? Do you have any special insight into these issues? Give us your views or your stories and we'll publish a selection of responses. Write to: yourindependent@independent.co.uk

Post a Comment

View all comments that have been posted about this article.

Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.

Comments

Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>
pc nonsense
[info]archie23 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:56 am (UTC)
I think this kind of journalistic self indulgence should be dismissed as PC. How dare you suggest we think about the feelings of other people when we are just trying to enjoy ourselves!
Taig?
[info]ron_broxted wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 01:03 am (UTC)
One cannot legislate against ignorance. The term retard can accurately be used to describe a person with learning difficulties. The old scale was imbecile, moron, slow, etc. Ethnic minorities can use the "N" word. Northern Ireland? I can call myself a Taig but you cannot (unless you are a Taig). In East Timor "maubere" was used in just such a way (fem Bibere) as a method of opposing first Portuguese, then Indonesian rule. It is a matter of place. In Ireland the insults are most graphic dealing with gypsies, in Dixie with those of mixed heritage.
Here here!
[info]know_comment wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 01:23 am (UTC)
I completely agree. I am always shocked at the way these words are used, even in my own family without a second thought; and even more dismayed when any challenge I pose is simply shrugged off as 'I don't mean it that way'.

The PC world can sometimes drive me to distraction too, but getting rid of the 'r' word and the 's' word is not PC, its just common sense. Only when we stop using terms that were once applied to a group of people in a derogatory way will we truely be able to start recognising those people as equal.

Not soon enough.
[info]know_comment wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 01:24 am (UTC)
I completely agree. I am always shocked at the way these words are used, even in my own family without a second thought; and even more dismayed when any challenge I pose is simply shrugged off as 'I don't mean it that way'.

The PC world can sometimes drive me to distraction too, but getting rid of the 'r' word and the 's' word is not PC, its right. Only when we stop using terms that were once applied to a group of people in a derogatory way will we truely be able to start recognising those people as equal.
Wasn't the correct wording "mentally challenged" anway?
[info]yosemitejoe wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:12 am (UTC)
Sigh. Language control is all fine, but there are practical problems...

Can I still use "idiot" (probably not)? How about "witch"? "Imbecile"? "Sociopath"? Sociopaths are not yet classed under persons with special needs, as far as I know.

"Imbecilic sociopathic politicians" doesn't flow too well though. But it actually expresses better what I feel.

retard
[info]orangiey wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:57 am (UTC)
looking from another view, the medical word uses 'retard' for drugs that have a long half life in the body or slow release into the body for example..'DICLOFENAC RETARD', does the author propose the removal of this word?
Re: retard
[info]lisy_babe wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:00 pm (UTC)
Missing the point, much?

The word "retard" means "delayed". So Diclofenac Retard means it's a slow-release version of the drug. The dissolving of the pill has been delayed.

The author calls for the term to no longer be used as an insult. Just like "gay" is perfectly fine to use in the context of "this person is attracted to someone of the same sex," but it's not acceptable to use as an insult.
That article was so gay.
[info]mmurray57 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 07:04 am (UTC)
Can we get stop gay being used as a synonym for broken or damaged as well please.

Michael
Re: That article was so gay.
[info]uanime5 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 10:14 am (UTC)
Gay is generally used as a synonym for lame, rather than broken or damaged; so okay then.
well.....
[info]jaffgyp wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:28 am (UTC)
actually all this hypersensitivity re disability is getting counter-progressive : what ARE 'disabled' folk to be called?
as it is, people, especially children, naturally identify one another by physical and other traits - i have taught classes of ( yes, mixed ability) teenaged boys who routinely referred to one cheery well loved and much admired 'disabled' lad as 'hump', and another as 'china', as well as using much more coarse nicknames for the 'non-disabled' - it bonded them; really hurtful names they usually reserved for the girls - but that was a different matter, involving trying to cover up raging adolescent hormonal turmoil;
i still recall with agony my schooldays when i said that my classmates were a stingy crew for not forking out towards some collection or other - and the hysterical reaction of one of the jewish girls who had 'misheard' me in classic freudian mode...
if the disabled are to be supported by the able (including rather too many able who receive far less social or financial help themselves) they are perhaps being unreasonable in expecting to have all the benefits of such support as well as endless special treatment?; high time that a new classification, of the 'enabled' was created, for those who have received all the help they need and are now ready to face real life with all its hurts and failures and lonelinesses as all the rest of us have to?
Re: well.....
[info]lisy_babe wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)
what ARE 'disabled' folk to be called?

How about "disabled"?

There's an excellent simple guide to disability related language here: http://www.manchester.gov.uk/site/scripts/documents_info.php?categoryID=200041&documentID=106&pageNumber=5 or if you're looking for a more in depth explanation try: http://blobolobolob.blogspot.com/2008/04/language-of-disability.html
Re: well..... - [info]jaffgyp - Saturday, 7 November 2009 at 08:51 am (UTC) Expand
Name calling
[info]rosa31 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:37 am (UTC)
thibbit has obviously not been subjected to the kind of name calling that exactly this article was addressing, or he/she would not make such a stupid comment. It's not a question of being "thin-skinned". Being abused, verbally or physically, day in and day out, is exhausting. Add that to the added effort of just getting through daily life as a disabled person, even in a society that does more to integrate disabled people than ours does. Hate crimes are very real - even if you aren't conscious of what you're doing when you abuse a disabled person.
guilty as charged maybe, but...
[info]contrastcolour wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:53 am (UTC)
If I have used the word "retard" in the past I was in no way using it in a way that was designed to cause offence to any person with learning disabilities. And, I have a strong feeling, this is the case with 99.99% of all contemporary usage of this word.

However, if I were to use the word "nigger" there isn't really any ambiguity about it, is there? It's a word with direct contemporary usage as a word of disparagement against black people. Therefore, it's hardly a word I (or anybody with any sensibilities) would use.
Re: guilty as charged maybe, but...
[info]lisy_babe wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:12 pm (UTC)
If I have used the word "retard" in the past I was in no way using it in a way that was designed to cause offence to any person with learning disabilities.

However, if I were to use the word "nigger" there isn't really any ambiguity about it, is there?

How can just justify a difference? Oh, yes. Disablism is socially acceptable. Racism isn't.
Re: guilty as charged maybe, but... - [info]contrastcolour - Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:38 pm (UTC) Expand
Re: guilty as charged maybe, but... - [info]ladyjulian - Friday, 6 November 2009 at 07:40 pm (UTC) Expand
Carol Thatcher: "low-rent celebrity "
[info]billdavy1949 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:55 am (UTC)
Oh what bliss!
Re: Carol Thatcher: "low-rent celebrity "
[info]mallamb wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 08:20 pm (UTC)
Being so much lower-rent than Prince Harry, I take it. Would it be a case of the lower the rent the higher the probability of malice aforethought?
slow down
[info]snowdonwatcher wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 10:40 am (UTC)
I read this article & was trying to work out what it was about. I always thought the word meant to slow down, as in a throttle. On tractors & on old cars a hand throttle is used & the word for slowing down was to retard the throttle.

Mind, if someone is using this word to describe a person for the reasons stated in the article then I do agree that that use would be wrong.

However there is a problem with banning words. Some as with the "n" word to describe someone who is black appears to have a single meaning, but many others have multiple meanings.
I walk with a stick, & someone once said very brusquely, "don't bother, you're useless!"
I wonder if we should ban the word "useless"?
[info]slaveweknow wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:05 pm (UTC)
Is this including more tolerant society to the Muslims?
Thanks
[info]chissylou wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:19 pm (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I couldn't agree more. I've seen this kind of thing going on for years in stand-up comedy: http://www.mencap.org.uk/page.asp?id=4199 It's cruel and unnecessary.
[info]slaveweknow wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:32 pm (UTC)
read "wide sky " by Daniel Tammet,ISBN-13: 978-1-4165-6969-5.
not all you said is true,need more time to read and study in this controversial issue.
Hmmm...
[info]annelew wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 12:50 pm (UTC)
Wholly agree with nobody being abused sentiment, however think the extreme PC part of this article is being blown up out of context.

If someone is accused of acting 'like a retard' my thoughts would be that, for someone who is not inflicted with an illness or disability, their level of behaviour is totally unacceptable. saying 'are you deaf' to someone who is blanking you deliberately is no slight on a deaf person, it is saying 'hey, you've got no excuses not to answer me'

This article is hypersensitive.

For the record I have been the victim of rudeness several times by people in wheel chairs because I haven't gotten out of the way quick enough. I watched a disabled man on a crowded path ram the back legs of a little girl because he was impatient that the throng wasn't moving quickly enough for him

We are ALL due respect. Articles that place emphasis on one group are discriminatory in themselves. EVERYONE OF US is part of a smaller element that can be abused. Ever said 'cry like a girl'? Ever said 'women drivers!' Im both!!! Ever said 'even a man could do it!' Ever laughed at a joke about old people...the list is endless









Re: Hmmm...
[info]contrastcolour wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:41 pm (UTC)
Hmm. Some common sense. Well done. Not much around...
Are you deaf?
[info]rosa31 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 02:06 pm (UTC)
Actually, annelew, saying "ars you deaf?" in that way, to imply someone is in fact mentally deficient, is an aggressive slight on deaf people.
The mere fact that all the nondisabled people who are posting messages assume they have a right to judge what is or is not offensive to disabled people demonstrates perfectly the discrimination that disabled people face. Why not ask a disabled person what he or she finds offensive, rather than imposing your own ill-informed views? Or do you assume they are too dim to know?
Re: Are you deaf?
[info]lucid1984 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:57 pm (UTC)
I don't think you can force people to comment, so unfortunately you'll have to deal with the people who care enough to comment, like you.

I used to have a best friend who had spina bifida. She's not around any more, but the kind of patronising tone you take, as Guardian of The Disabled, would really get her goat. The chip on her shoulder was from people who wouldn't josh about with her as a normal person, which is the best kind of acceptance there is.

Do you assume they're all offended? Have you asked?
Re: Are you deaf? - [info]mallamb - Friday, 6 November 2009 at 08:33 pm (UTC) Expand
[info]bonoffee wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 03:12 pm (UTC)
So many people here are missing the point. Verbal abuse like this seems insignificant until it leads to wider problems like assault and murder (as detailed here, and that's only a small part). It's the same as the rise in homophobic insults and connected bullying (as the article by Johann Hari pointed out). I think people need to stop crying about 'PC' and using it as an excuse to keep doing damaging behaviour. You might not think it's important, but to those of us who live with someone with special needs (and are used to all sorts of unpleasant things associated with that) it's a pretty big deal. I don't think it is too much to ask for everyone else to just think of nicer things to say, or to change what they do to make others' lives a little easier.
Rosa...
[info]annlewis wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 03:34 pm (UTC)
'Are you deaf' implies that the person is not listening, it has nothing to do with mental faculties, that would be 'are you stupid' surely? Which really would be an affront.

Why do you think you are more special than me? Why are my babies not special, why are my problems so un important?

Sorry, being disabled doesn't automaticaly make a person a nice person or that they are more deserving of respect.

I speak from experience in how i have seen some disabled people treating the rest of us with contempt. Are you saying being in a motobility scooter gives people the right to abuse those not in a one? Hence my point, we should be treating each other respectfully. As usual we are back to positive discrimination because we seem to have no right to be offended when treated badly because we are 'not special'




Re: Rosa...
[info]bonoffee wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:50 pm (UTC)
What are you talking about?

This has nothing to do with whether someone is nice or not. As I said, completely missing the point. Hey, so, not all black people are nice either. Does this mean we should let racism go unchecked?

A few words of abuse from one or two disabled people does not equate to systematic abuse and oppression of a minority by those who should know better. I'm sorry but it's not the same thing at all.
Watching your language ...
[info]john_b_ellis wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:09 pm (UTC)
It always seems to me that the litmus test in this "watch what you say" versus "PC gone mad" debate is to engage brain before opening gob, and ask yourself whether or not the words you were about to come out with might make the person to whom you're speaking think, even momentarily, that those words could logically and naturally be followed by a slap round the head or, at the least, an overt, completely unambiguous insult.

If you're in doubt, find some other way of saying it. Why be gratuitously and heedlessly hurtful and discourteous? The world's ungracious enough without adding to it.

Forrget about whether it's PC or not. Just aim to be nice to folk.
Yes, but...
[info]whatdoyoudo2 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:13 pm (UTC)
I agree with your point, which is well-made, especially about the insult to a group of people who are less able to stand up for themselves. But I question the language you are using - I feel it would have been more accurate to distinguish between people who experience mental health as a disability and those who are developmentally disabled; you only cover the second topic but seem to be using the terms interchangeably, which is a shame as those with mental illness are often written and spoken about in similarly hateful ways. Tabloid coverage of Leona Lewis's recent attacker, a man who was presumably not well considering he was sectioned, called him "a maniac", "a buck-toothed nut", "warped" and a "crazed thug", for example (http://www.zimbio.com/Leona+Lewis/articles/DDpP0dsRZiB/Leona+Lewis+attacked+fan+buck+toothed+nut) and that seems to be acceptable.
wholeheartedly agree
[info]erinnorman wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:17 pm (UTC)
Very well said. I agree completely. When I was younger I used the word "retard" and I had no idea whatsoever where it came from, it was like saying someone was an idiot.

Low level forms of abuse and discrimination act as building blocks to far larger crimes. It would pay people to remember that many believe your worth is directly equated to how you treat others.

I'm glad to see this here - its an issue that a lot of parents with disabled children discuss amongst themselves but you dont see so much on the news.
As someone too young to have ever called a disabled person a 'retard'
[info]lucid1984 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 05:54 pm (UTC)
(by the same token, I'm also too young to remember when black people were charmingly called wogs on national television, and gay people being called 'shirtlifters') I know that the only way to give a word no power as an insult is to not care. Sticks and stones may break my bones and all that. Act all shocked and horrified and you're showing what YOU associate with the word retard, nobody else. How progressive.
Re: As someone too young to have ever called a disabled person a 'retard'
[info]whatdoyoudo2 wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 06:45 pm (UTC)
I don't think this is true. We cannot help the associations that words have in society; it is not a personal decision but deeply ingrained and strongly related to prejudice.
It's admirable that you don't use offensive language for minority groups, but only those groups can truly tell us if a term still carries the weight of prejudice.
Okay, no more retarded
[info]had_it wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:16 pm (UTC)
I get it. Retarded is no longer an acceptable word in any circumstances.
Deja vu: Backward nations, poor nations, developing nations... as soon as a word is associated with reality it must be retired in favour of a new euphemism. All of these semantics are much more important than actually dealing with the problem. (or, if not more important, at least easier).

If we can just get everyone hung up about words, we don't have to actually do anything while we argue about what to call it.
Sad but true..
[info]fulkehunke wrote:
Friday, 6 November 2009 at 09:51 pm (UTC)
The problem is whatever words are chosen to describe a person with a particular disability, someone will abbreviate the term and use it to describe an individual. Children then pick up on this a run with it. When I was young, blue peter had a number of episodes featuring a disabled man called Joey Deacon, you can guess what happened next. The problem is ignorance is only overcome by experience. I now have a disabled sister in law and I am sensitive to particular words, she however is not.
Page 1 of 2
<<[1] [2] >>

Columnist Comments

hamish_mcrae

Hamish McRae: A time for giving with a difference

With the recession, there is a shift from giving people things to giving them services

mark_steel

Mark Steel: Come rain or revo- lution, it's money they want

Haven't the 20th anniversary celebrations of the overthrow of communism been miserable?

terence_blacker

Terence Blacker: Science must never be political or emotional

Politicians and action groups select favourable data, ignoring inconvenient evidence


Loading...


Most popular in Opinion