to think Scott Morrison didn’t say anything wrong?

[Organictangerine]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-61171449.amp

I heard this being discussed on Shelagh Fogarty this afternoon. I don’t think he’s said anything wrong. What do you think?

@carefullycourageous

Well clearly a lot of people were unhappy with his remarks as Morrison has had a backlash, it is not what '99.9%' of the population would say.

Also, the way we talk about things evolves.

Morrison is a clumsy arse, he is always offending people. I think generally he should be more careful.

I agree language has evolved ... but only to be not allowed to say anything at all. I'm sure he has offended the wokerati but then who doesn't . How many times does the conversation go on hearing the news of a pregnancy , oh congratulations what are you hoping for , oh we don't mind as long as they're healthy . I am sure he didn't mean to offend , any child is a gift but I'm sure people would prefer the child not too have disabilities. You'd have to be some kind of selfish to be happy a child has a potential life of pain , surgeries , limited abilities etc . Parents will love any child but I'm sure before the arrival they'd hope it was healthy . Having seen first hand my aunts struggle I can see the impact not just on her but the subsequent children that came after . They are the ones who suffered with reduced personal attention , no quiet spaces , where they lived , the holidays they couldn't take the meals out they couldn't have etc etc . There is very little respite for families and that should change to give more support .

@XDownwiththissortofthingX

but people will find offense in anything if they want to

Maybe Morrison should have thought about the language he was using then, and given the perpetually offended no ammunition?

Funny thing about offence. It's not within the gift of people other than the intended target to decide whether something is offensive or not. That's why I don't, as a white person, generally go around telling black people whether they should be offended by something or not, and I wouldn't dream of telling them that they are probably just guilty of looking for offence where none is intended.

Morrison's comment relates specifically to parenthood, and implies that parents of NT/able bodied children are 'blessed'. By definition, that comment also relates to parents of ND and disabled children, so I really think unless you fall into that demographic, it's not for you to judge whether what SM said is offensive or not.

Plenty of people in this particular demographic are unhappy and offended by what he said, so that in and of itself is a pretty good indicator that what he said was offensive.

It relates to disability. Any disabled person is entitled to an opinion.

For some reason the site ate my post. I was saying that on a topic related to disability, Amy disabled person is entitled to an opinion. It's weird to try and gatekeep it to just parents of disabled children, and honestly makes me think you want to silence the disabled people commenting on the thread who are disagreeing with you...

If you’re comparing Scott Morrison’s comment to Hitler and his eugenicist death camps, you’ve absolutely lost the plots and have no business in debate.

I’m not even sure they are, it seems to just be people taking offence on their behalf.

I'm disabled, I wish I wasn’t, my disability causes me pain and interferes with living a normal life. I wouldn’t want this for my kids, and I make no bones of that.

What he said would have been exactly what 99.9% of the population would say

I disagree. I think that most people would realise that bringing up the fact you have two able bodied children is in no way relevant to the issue, and would have had the sense not to say anything about that at all.

It relates to disability. Any disabled person is entitled to an opinion

Agreed, and I did not mean to imply that this is a matter exclusively for the parents of disabled children to offer an opinion on, though I can see why my post might have suggested I thought as much. Apologies, I should have made that much clearer.

If you’re comparing Scott Morrison’s comment to Hitler and his eugenicist death camps, you’ve absolutely lost the plots and have no business in debate

Just as well I'm not then, isn't it?

That was entirely a point about the difference between politicians saying things people do not agree with, and saying things that are outright offensive to specific groups. It was to emphasise the difference between the two. At no point have I made any comparison between Morrison, or anything he said, and Adolf Hitler, and I'm a bit confused as to how that thought would even enter your head if I'm honest.

But it wasn’t ‘outright offensive’ was it? Are there no shades of grey any more? Outright offensive would’ve been what @ITSupport said earlier in the thread. I get a bit tired of the worst possible inference being taken from normal speech.

Very few (if any) people would actively choose a disabled child in the abstract aka if they could pick the characteristics of a future child. That isnt at odds with having a disabled child and loving them and valuing them every bit as much as an able bodied child.

As an Australian. Context is key here. Scott Morrison has form for being completely tone deaf. I watched the debate - he totally deserves the arse kicking he received. He is honestly the worst PM I have ever encountered.

He was wrong, thoughtless and totally out of touch with his comments.

I’m not even sure they are, it seems to just be people taking offence on their behalf

Christ, it's like a game of ableist bingo.

So far we've had 'going out looking for offense', and now 'being offended on other people's behalf'.

It's evident from this thread alone, if nothing else, that plenty people have found it offensive, and given that a good number of those are of the specific demographic that his poor choice of language implied were somewhat inferior or undesirable, I'd suggest that's a pretty clear indication he's pissed specific individuals with a stake in this off, and it's not just people with an agenda kicking up a stink on the behalf of others, whether that's merited or not.

bear in mind we have Boris Johnson!

But it wasn’t ‘outright offensive’ was it?

Yes, it was.

🙄

Context is everything. While those of you in the UK can probably take this incident on its own it's impossible for anyone in Australia to ignore the context of him being one of the most tone deaf politicians in our history. The man is truly vile. He's a Pentecostalist who likes to lay his hands on unsuspecting members of the public and pray for them.

He runs from controversy and is remarkably loose with the truth.

This was two years ago and he hasn't covered himself in glory since

He's got a bit of history with Australians of the Year too 😉

Agree. He didn't. Nobody wants for their kids to be born with a disability. And most people wish others a happy healthy baby... But people look into everything he says lately to find offence and most who are offended are those with children with a disability. There is nothing wrong with them having children with a disability but I'm sure that wasn't the goal when they grew up jisy a hand they're dealt and dealing with it amazingly... But... He didn't say anything wrong to the rest.

What are his actions rather than his words. I dont know Australian politics. Is he improving care for disabled children or removing/underfunding it.

To me, in effect he said he was lucky not to have to cope with disabilities in his children. He was acknowledging that other people have harder lives. Assuming disabilities are never a good thing, what he said is what everyone would say.

Stunning comeback there.

So, again, explain to me how the assertion that only parents of NT or able bodied children are 'blessed' is not offensive, given that it demands by inference that parents of children who are ND or disabled are not also 'blessed'?

If he had paused and thought for a moment, he'd have surely seen how utterly tactless his choice of language was, and the fact that the able bodied status of his children is irrelevant and didn't even need mentioned anyway.

Intent is important. He may not have intended to offend people, and may have thought he was merely making a comment that would engender some sort of feeling of mutual understanding between parents, but he made a complete mess of it, and chose some ill-advised language to talk about something that added nothing to the exchange anyway. At best, all you can say about it is that he's inadvertently and not deliberately offended, but that's not exactly anything new for SM.

explain to me how the assertion that only parents of NT or able bodied children are 'blessed' is not offensive, given that it demands by inference that parents of children who are ND or disabled are not also 'blessed'?

He didn’t say that. That’s your interpretation.

Here's exactly what he said -

"Jenny and I have been blessed, we've got two children that don't - that haven't had to go through that."

Clearly the sentiment is that he and his wife are 'blessed', thanks to the fact they have had two children that "don't -that haven't had to go through that"

So what possible interpretation could there be other than the parents of children who 'have had to go through that' not being similarly blessed?

It's pretty unequivocal. Even if that's not what SM intended to suggest, that's what his actual choice of language does suggest, hence why people are offended and angry.

His government have made huge efforts to cut the National Disability Insurance Scheme. He is not a friend of the vulnerable.

Genuine question, does this sort of enforced positivity actually help those with disabilities and their carers? For example referring to Downs syndrome as a "chromosomal difference" doesn't make the symptoms associated with the condition any different.

@WhatNoRaisins In my opinion, forced positivity is just annoying and detracts from honesty about the real difficulties of living with disability / chronic illness (esp at the more severe end).

(But at the same time I think the onus was on him to be careful of his wording when the topic related to children, as there's clearly more potential for offence and hurt there.)

Changing terms and language is an important part of destigmatisation campaigns. Whether you refer to Downs Syndrome or "chromosomal difference" makes no material difference to the actual condition as it is experienced, but 'chromosomal difference' doesn't carry anything like the number of associations with stigma, prejudice, ignorance, deliberately cruel language, or misguided and preconceived notions that 'Downs Syndrome' does, so changing terms can be an important part of dispensing with or minimising societal stigma, and can therefore lead to a small but significant improvement in the lives of people living with the condition or the relatives and carers thereof.

Society doesn't commonly describe people as 'Schizophrenics', 'lunatics', 'hysterics' and such any more because those terms are outdated, carry a stigma, and centre the condition rather than the individual. It's going the same way with 'wheelchair user' and such, where the emphasis is again on the wheelchair and not the person. It's slightly different with terms that describe a condition or diagnosis, but the likes of 'Downs' has long been used in a pejorative way, so I can totally understand why people might believe there's a need to move on from it. We don't diagnose people as 'morons', 'cretins', or 'idiots' any longer, but those terms also have their origin in the medical model, albeit an archaic and flawed one.

I think it's very clear what he meant. That he feels fortunate to have neurotypical children.

It's a shitty thing to say but I think every single person with NT children thinks the same way. Few of them are crass enough to say it to our faces though.