MNHQ .. Can we talk about disability bashing?

[Brownsugarshortbread]

Over the years i have posted on and enjoyed MN.
Sadly there seems to be a growing culture of it being okay to have a go at disabilities, those who claim DLA and those who's children have 'invisable' disabilities such as ADHD and ADD.
The terms 'freak' and 'scrounger' have been batted around and comments from some posters IMO certainly boarder on harrassment and discrimination.

When certain posts or posters have been reported, some have been removed, yet a lot haven't.

And while I agree with free speech, these types of comment or reaction to these comments, are not an education for those bigoted posters. Nor do those whose lives are touched by disability wish to be used to educate those posters.

Disability Harassment

is unwanted behaviour based on disability,
impairment or additional need. Such behaviour may include comments that are patronising or objectionable to the recipient or which creates an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for people with disabilities. Disability harassment includes inappropriate reference to disability, unwelcome discussion of the impact of disability, refusal to work with and exclusion of people with disabilities from social events or meetings.

i don't think you are really listening to what i'm saying tbh shoesy, if you are getting so hung up about one phrase in about a bizillion quite considered posts.

fanj, then hackles is the wrong word, i just meant that if you were generally in an environment where you felt protected and felt that a firm line would be taken, it might lessen the fight or flight a bit. do you see what i mean?

Clear guidelines etc by MNHQ in the first place, where everyone knew where they stood would have made this situation avoidable.

This is the crux of the matter.. The poster wouldn't have posted what she did, people would have been up in arms etc etc

I've seen the mob thing on mn change HQ stance ( take cuntnames etc)..
I would like to think they are still Reading this thread because things may change.

The problem is people do get really hurt by these comments, particularly when we live with it day in day out. It starts to grate.

AitchTwoOh please please don't talk down to me, I am glad you are taking time out to post on this thread, but please don't forget how these thing affect people.
words hurt,

x-post. phrase being rampaging mob rather than pretend to be normal.

quite early on in the thread the poster agreed that pretend to be normal was not right, not really what she had been trying to express and that she shouldn't have said it.

it is my belief that had she not been being torn apart at the time, she might very well have asked for the post to go herself. she was, after all, on the side of children with disabilities who she felt were being exploited. a bit odd, but hardly a monster.

okay, ignore me then shoesy. i'm not talking down to you but if you will insist that i am, then just ignore me.

I know exactly why 'pretending to be normal' is awful. I can see why there is a lot of upset over it tbh.. But that is because I walk in those shoes.

That comment, does need to be bought up IMO

but brownsugar. the poster would have posted EXACTLY what she did, because it was afaswc in SUPPORT of the very children whose parents took such offence.

anyway, yes yes to HQ, let's draw a line in teh sand re clear breaches of the law, and effectively name and shame posters with more directed deletion forms. 'message deleted by mn for possible breaking of Disability Discrimination Act' would be a good one, i think, and set the tone.

I do think back to HQ to set the mark !

I know what your saying aitch, it was just very badly put across by the poster. This is where education IMO comes in.

"It needs an 'I hear you' from MNHQ in the first instance and a restatement of the commitment to making this a welcoming place for all parents. There will be conflicts with that, it's inevitable, but you have to decide where you stand and work to that."

I think that sums it up well for me Lenin

Me too

I think there are words which are too offensive to be generally used, even satirically. Perhaps they might sometimes form part of a direct quotation, or private remarks between two people who are both likely to be the target of that particular insult. If there is any doubt, I think it would be entirely reasonable for mn hq to promptly delete the offending terms, leaving the rest of the post and thread intact.

Now, clearly there will also be honest disagreement, tactlessness, over-sensitivity and all the rest. Which we could and should respectfully challenge each other about. Depending on the issue we'll apologise, forgive, grit our teeth or agree to disagree.

We should try to distinguish between the two categories of behaviour.

I'm not a lawyer, I'm an adviser, so always take proper legal advice as well. But, from what I know thus far from my work and from the government guidelines on this, training materials and conversations with solicitors and barristers over the last year....

www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice-and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/equality-act-guidance-downloads/ is the best place for getting the right info on what is a breach of the Act and what to do about it. In the first instance, I'd always say to talk to the organisation concerned to make sure they realise there is a breach of the law happening in their service. They have an obligation then in law to act swiftly to investigate, let the person know the results of that investigation, and take any action. And do so in a way that respects confidentiality, not necessarily on a public forum. People are free to take further action if they need to. The law is now quite powerful, and if a person feels humiliated or intimidated by aggressiveness or negative behaviour towards them (from staff, volunteers or service users) relating to a protected characteristic (whether disability, gender, sexuality, race or otherwise), that is normally seen as quite enough evidence that a breach has happened.

All service providers also have a duty now to make Reasonable Adjustments to ensure that all disabled people have an equal chance of contributing, and an equal chance of accessing the service and joining in with that service. Are there easy-read documents, or is there assistance available for interpreting them, fast? Are there the right adaptations for people with visual impairment if needs be, etc. The exception would be if it changed the nature of the service by doing this. Or if it cost so much to make the changes that it would near-bankrupt the service concerned (though this is a tougher one to prove these days, since if you're running a service, they're supposed to factor in disability needs at the start, not realise there's no cash for it half way through. Otherwise it's like saying "ooo, there's no cash for fire extinguishers or alarms in the building - never mind, we won't have any").

www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/EqualityAct/service_users_businesses.pdf p 81+ gives details on how to take action if required. Alternative Dispute Resolution is one possibility. The other is to take it to court within six months of the incident(s) happening.

From the service provider's point of view, they would have to be seen by a court to have carried out advance checks that disabled people can indeed access things in a fair way, consulted with the right authorities, decided how to spend their money wisely, set up written and active policies for disability matters etc, put in the right training and information for all staff and volunteers, and actively monitor for reports of breaches so they can take fast action. All easy stuff to do, and help from people like me is always available, as they already know. 'Tis why I am asked to advise a large number of online services on this stuff - to aid them in getting it right. It's a free service, as well, since it's supported by a community fund.

Also, let's say that service user A calls service user B a r n b***d on an online forum. It doesn't even matter that service user B isn't learning-disabled or black - the assumption that they are, and the abuse directed at them as a result, is a clear breach of the Equality Act (if that forum's managers don't take the right action when they find out).

And if behaviour is because of disability, it is a breach of the Equality Act to target that person for it. Thus someone with a learning disability cannot be mocked for not understanding a debate. Someone with autism cannot be mobbed by a group for not understanding social rules well enough or getting elements of social language wrong, etc. Someone with profound CP cannot be thrown out of a restaurant or treated in a worse way for (say) dribbling or 'upsetting' the other customers by looking different. Respect for disability has to be shown by all involved, and a service has to be given as fast and as effectively to each disabled person as they would for others (and indeed to each person with other protected characteristics).

Hope it helps a bit.

ITA w Leningrad. The whole "we should leave up offensive posts about disability, because it's educational" thing is just a lazy excuse for letting stuff slide when you really know better. MN may like to call it educating. I call it feeding the trolls. Nothing, but NOTHING would "educate" people better about how genuinely offensive disablist posts are than MN taking a stand and deleting them.

What I am trying to work out is how feasible it would be for MN to be taken to court on this one; the law protecting the disabled and their carers has strengthened recently. As far as I can see, under the Equality Act 2010, MN is a voluntary community service provider, and under the Act for such a service provider to allow harassment* by virtue of disability (and the law explicitly includes harassment of carers) is illegal. And as it's clear that comments about disability are being treated more leniently than comments about race &c, and requests by carers to pull these offensive posts are less likely to be acted on, it should be straightforward to show that MN are breaking the law.

*there's a legal definition, but in this context it means disablist abuse which makes a disabled person or their carer feel uncomfortable about using the service. As a huge % of the MNSN crew (self included) never venture outside of that board because they can't face seeing the horrible things that are written about their children, I think that's fairly straightforward.

Ah. X-posted w Amber, but I think we're on the same page.

I'm popping in a bit late to the discussion, but I'm wondering this... if it's okay to leave certain disablist terms and posts on the forum in order to "educate" people, then why are homophobic and racial terms and posts not also left on the forum to similarly "educate"?? Because they are deemed offensive... but sadly, being offensive towards those who are disabled isn't apparently as important.

When Mumsnet leaves these other offensive posts in an effort to educate as well as the disablist ones, THEN I'll feel as if it's being treated equally. Until then, I have to agree with those that say that their dealing with disablist comments is on a different level than other offensive terms to other minorities, and as such, is violating the law.

In this instance, Mumsnet is making a clear choice to allow the offensive behaviour to continue in the guise of education and thus allowing the offenders to bully the victims even further by putting the victims in a position to either take the abuse (and say nothing) or resort to confronting the offenders themselves (and be even further abused verbally). I truly feel that this has changed this site for the worse. It's becoming a site that is more and more being overrun by bullying behaviour and a disturbing lack of compassion and/or sympathy for anyone less fortunate.

I don't think anyone wants MN to turn into Netmums, but I do believe that self-policing only works when the majority of posters have a moral compass and are willing to stand up against offensive behaviour. Unfortunately, the tide is turning - and even if the offenders are in smaller numbers, the ability to name change frequently and create havoc gives the offenders an easy tool to torment and verbally abuse others. I do think that the name-changing facility needs to be changed.

And on a personal note, I do not feel it is my job to educate on this site. I come on this site for discussion, information, and general chat, and the last thing I want to do is spend my time defending or explaining to someone why something they said was offensive only to be told off en masse for being too PC. I spend a lot of time in public having to deal with this issue, as our DS is disabled, and I resent having nasty comments and snide remarks aimed at him and us by cruel and ignorant people who view him as less than human. If there are comments/posts on the site that are offensive to disabled persons, then it should be removed, with an email to the poster indicating specifically why it was removed. If they did not mean it that way, they can then post again in a reworded version that perhaps is more clear and less offensive. I do agree with a 3 strikes you're out policy as well. A one-off mistake is one thing... 3 times shows a clear disregard for the rules and the law (not to mention a clear disregard for the people you're trashing in the post).

Yes Lenin, so true.

I am almost with Aitch on the throws like a thread- almost. pretending to be normal is a vile phrase and a conmcept that directly causes harm to my NT-acting ds1, because nobody can keep up some pretence they feel they have to make for ever and when he falls, he falls far further. Low pressure and acceptance results in the highest achievements.

I am presuming MNHQ are taking advice and that's why they never returned back (though Aitch is pretty well linked, aren't you Aitch?). I hope to goodness theya re: overall my experience of MN has been more positive than bad and I wanted to see small changes not some massive collapse but I would support anyone taking action if they felt they should, and hope MN can resolve the issues before it is needed. It wouldn't take much, really.

I described myself on anohter thread as an SN Warrior: i try to walk away from MN regualrly but as long as there is nastiness feel I should use my long term status to fight the wanker brigade. With the exception of one or two recent decision I have always felt MN to be onside with that and supportive, and I wonder if my actions in part have led to an understanding that it is something we should do instead of something I choose, if that makes sense? Much like a recent decision of mine not to volunteer for a service that was making redundancies: my volunteer time is a gift I choose to give, not something I should be required to do or relied upon for. Heck if I was reliable and not always needing time off and sleep I would get a bloody job!

I would like to go back to real MN: to be able to post in chts and have a laugh etc. At the moment my time is all Sn-warrior stuff and that's not fair is it? It's not a bloody job! It won't replace the cambelt on the car. Just leave me depressed and time poor.

And it doesn't work with me anyway too much; few bother taking me on now, I either bore them (same old same old) scare them off with my perceived attack dog status or act as a sign to just go away now. Depends on their personality.

I don;t go on Sn much now: to an extent I needed to step away for my own sanity and besides within my own lie I have most skills I need in place. others here offer excellent advice but my role on main boards has become aggressively pro SN and I don't like that at all. there's all these assumptions about jumping to ofence etc but I work really hard to understand and gently infom. Until I lose my cool or someone mentions euthanasia anyway- then i am Mrs Nasty.

the education thing is a total red herring.

as Leningrad and triggles have pointed out - it is not a reason used to leave any other offensive material up. why not? one could easily argue that posters need "educating" about that too.

I am happy to educate on a range of issues to do with SN: why a blue badge is necessary for "invisible" disabilities as well as physical disabilities; why mainstream schooling is/is not appropriate for a child with autism; why, when I seem to be ignoring my child's meltdown in public, I am not actually doing so, but am actively parenting my child - maybe not the way you would do so but nonetheless, it works for us; oh, and a million other things which, if you haven't lived the life, you could very easily just not notice/understand/"get".

but offensive hate terms? no. not my job. and tbh, if you do not understand why (when it has been explained a hundred times on a thread) then it is more a case of not willing to understand, and not willing to be pleasant and not caring about who is offended/hurt etc.

totally agree that the easiest way to educate on that front is to swiftly remove, and prove that these terms will not be tolerated.

I am shocked that mn hq have not been back to this thread, it imo shows how they feel.
Is there any legal stuff we can hit them with?
surrely as discrimination is against the law there must be something

"but offensive hate terms? no. not my job. and tbh, if you do not understand why (when it has been explained a hundred times on a thread) then it is more a case of not willing to understand, and not willing to be pleasant and not caring about who is offended/hurt etc."

Exactly. Well said!

If there was a post anywhere on here with the word nigger/paki/chinky etc in the title, it would be pounced on and removed pronto.

Yet the thread with spastic in the title (which I will swear to the death is a wind up from the very start) was left to stand.

Why? It causes the same hurt to those who have SN/SN children as nigger would to a black person.

I'm truly baffled by all these double standards and one rule for one........

MNHQ have yet to answer that question haven't they?

Why?

what happens when we get to 1000 posts, do they hope we will go away.
(hopes the thread is allowed to keep running until sorted)

hey peachy, just for the record, i do a bit of work for HQ but i would never discuss anything like this with them 'behind everyone's back' as it were. totally not my thing. i'm a completely ordinary MNer, one of nearly a million at this point, and i would be mortified (and HQ i'm sure would be horrified and pissed off) if i ever used the fact that i do some work for them as a means of tackling them about a community subject. if it's all on-board then it's all above-board, afaic.

i'd be convinced, though, that this is on a OTW, and that it will be discussed at their next bigwigs meeting.

oh yes, I think you are right, using the law is a good idea

Just for background information, there isn't a hate crimes act, per se (that I know of) but repeated harassment of a disabled person etc is a crime in law as well as a breach of the Equality Act and in theory could end with arrest and imprisonment. Hiding behind a false ID doesn't count these days as courts have the power to order service providers to reveal who it is (recent Twitter case on this).

Also if repeated harassment ended up (say) with the person committing suicide, there could be a Corporate Manslaughter action against the Directors of any company that has failed to take the relevant action to protect that user. Mumsnet for example is a Limited Company based in the UK, with Directors.