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?

@XDownwiththissortofthingX but disability isn't a blessing. I'm not saying an individual child is not a blessing to their parents and their family; of course they are, no matter what additional needs they have. They are a blessing as a person. But it feels like you're trying to say that disability should only be spoken of in a neutral way? And to acknowledge that the absence of disability is easier, more pleasant, literally entails (usually) less pain and expense and stress, etc ... that's just the reality. It is a blessing not to face all those things. That's what abled privilege is.

I see plenty of disabled people in this thread saying similar things.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX the term 'wheelchair user' is not preferred for that reason. Speaking as a wheelchair user 😉

It primarily replaces 'wheelchair bound' which is not favoured because it focuses on limitation and doesn't acknowledge that for most of us, the chair is a tool of greater enablement.

This neutral/differences language just seems fake and potentially gaslighting to me.

That said I do think lucky might have sounded better than blessed.

@Innocenta

I'm not suggesting disability is a blessing, merely that SM, as a PM, should really give more consideration to the language he uses and whether or not his responses are relevant and/or actually add anything to the discussion. In this particular instance he's not only made his point in a particularly clumsy and tone-deaf way, but he was busy putting his foot in his mouth bringing up something that had no relevance to the question he was asked in any case.

In terms of how disability is described - I think that's a matter for the individual. I have no issue with people who do have a disability describing it in any way they see fit, but where I do take exception is when someone with no disability uses clumsy and ill-considered language in an attempt to make some ill-conceived point that does have implications for disabled people. I don't consider my own condition to be either a blessing or a curse, it has it's plus points and a whole load of negatives, but I totally reject the notion that I'm in any way less a desirable member of humanity than someone with no disability because of it. My disability simply 'is'. It's a part of who and what I am, and I wouldn't be rid of it given the option, because then a significant part of who and what I am would go with it and I'd cease to be 'me'. I can understand though why other people, with other conditions, might take a totally different view and wish with every fibre of their being to be rid of their disability, but again, I think it's totally unacceptable to suggest that those people are somehow 'less than' because of their condition. A senior elected official really ought to know better and be held to a higher standard.

"Wheelchair user" is an interesting one. It's had a lot of discussion where I am, and the reason I said 'going the same way' is because that discussion is very much about whether it is a stigmatising term or not, and whether people believe there is something more apt that could or should replace it. Personally, I don't like it, purely because of the semantics of the term, but I've discussed it with plenty of others who, like yourself, prefer it to older and outdated terms and have no particular issue with it. Generally speaking, I'm not keen on any term that centres a diagnosis or a piece of equipment rather than the individual or the person who uses it, but that's just my view and I totally accept others see things differently.

SM, as a PM, should really give more consideration to the language he uses and whether or not his responses are relevant and/or actually add anything to the discussion.

but you can’t be this precise and planned with spontaneous natural speech. It’s getting ridiculous.

Perhaps if you can't you are totally unsuited to being an elected representative in high office.

Most of us get through life perfectly comfortably without offending people simply by engaging in conversation. There are some who can't, and I don't think they should be anywhere near politics quite frankly.

I don’t think anyone can hence virtually every politician making some kind of ‘gaffe’ at some stage. Your standards are too exactly and unrealistic of anybody. How do you know you haven’t offended anyone? Do you check with every person you have an interaction with?

I tend to know because they usually tell me, kind of like the people telling SM he's an objectionable arse.

But again, I'm not an elected official or PM of an entire country, so I don't think I actually need to match up to the standards that should be expected of SM.

He was just acknowledging that ableism is something he hasn’t had to face as a parent of abled children imho. Not that he believes himself they are lesser. You’re stretching to reach that conclusion by simply one word of “blessed” in place of “that” which would have made it all ok to you.

But language is important and one word can very often make all the difference.

For example, If he was talking about racism and had said he was "blessed" to have white children I very much doubt anyone would interpret that as an acknowledgement that racism isn't something they've had to face as a family. You'd think "wow, what a racist pig, did he really just say that?"

Acknowledging parents of children who are ND/disabled (and the children themselves) face many barriers to participating in society can be done without making sound like you're somehow lesser for having to deal with them. The fact that so many on this thread don't get that shows just how far we still have to go to be an inclusive society.

He actually said he was blessed that his children "haven't had to go through that" which is a bit different to saying he's blessed he doesn't have disabled children IMO

As a parent of a child with a disability, it's offensive. I understand feeling blessed not to have to deal with the challenges of a disability. If I could take away my child's disability I would - not because I value them less, find them a burden, don't feel blessed to have them, but because their life would be easier without having to deal with the extra challenges, some quite large. I accept them as they are and we take a positive approach to the issues. I think it is offensive as something I don't want my child with disability to hear themselves. Fortunately, they almost certainly won't hear it. My child hearing that would hear that a child with a disability is a burden on their parents and it's luckier not to have them. That's not a message I want them to hear.

So I get that yes, it's easier and fortunate not to have a child with these challenges as none of us want our children to have it harder in life than they have to. I think the wording is poor and sends a potentially bad message to children with additional needs.

this
so am i not "blessed" as my dd is severely disabled....she is a joy to be around. is kind and never nasty unlike many nt people.
horrid comment.

He didn’t say he’s blessed because he doesn’t think disabled children are joys.

he said he’s blessed because his children haven’t had to go through the process for national disability insurance.

so why even mention it? why bring his non disabled children into it?

I'm not sure why you've asked what people think in your OP. You're clearly not remotely interested in what anyone else thinks

He has said nothing to cause offence. Not to most rationally minded people anyway

Another tick on the bingo card, this time 'you're all mad'. Suppose I should just cross off 'gaslighting' while we're at it and claim four corners.

Here's a hint - the very fact so many people are offended by what he said is a pretty big give away that it was offensive. I've no idea how you are having such a hard time grasping this.

You'll have a difficult time finding anyone more 'rationally minded' than some of the disabled people with one specific condition (if you know, you know) that SM has offended, so not only is your comment completely crass and offensive, it's also demonstrable nonsense.

"And so, for parents with children who are disabled, I can only try and understand your aspirations for those children."

This is the bit that makes me uncomfortable tbh. Possibly the use of the word aspirations. As if he can't understand having aspirations for 'those' children.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX So do you use a wheelchair yourself? As you clearly think the commonly preferred term that most people who do use them want, is problematic. What term do you want to use instead?

Fwiw, I certainly have no problem whatsoever with other individuals feeling or describing their own disability or condition as neutral (as you did in your post) or even as positive, which sometimes, some people do. But I think there is a very real risk of that bleeding over into a 'this is how we should talk about disability' kind of attitude (because it seems more positive, and because, ironically, it's an easier narrative for able bodied people to reckon with!) which then leads to policing people who realistically are in medical situations that just. are not neutral. and cannot ever be.

@XDownwiththissortofthingX I think it's really unhelpful to frame this discussion in terms of ableism bingo. Many of the people disagreeing with you are disabled.

Oh please. It’s getting silly now.

Same as every parent, isn't it? Aspirations for them to have a happy and fulfilling life, whatever that is for them.

Dude, you literally started this thread asking opinions. Yet those which are different are silly? If someone with a disabled child, tells you that his opinion on having a disabled child is offensive to them, who on earth are you to say that it isn't? And that they are being silly?

Well exactly! So why would he find it so hard to understand them?