Not “Disabled Enough”: Nathalie Allport-Grantham Goes to Stansted Airport

This happened just after New Year’s, and I’m just hearing about it now. Happy New Year to Nathalie Allport-Grantham, who experienced a particularly annoying variation of discrimination  due to  not looking “disabled enough” to the staff at the Stansted airport in the UK.

Image on "Airport" written in lights in block letters on a black background. Keyword: Allport-Grantham

Image Description: “Airport” in block letters, in lights, against a black background.

Content Note: Ableism, not “disabled enough”, discrimination by airlines, non-apology

“But You Don’t Look Sick”

For those of you who haven’t read thoughts on this before (by me or by other writers in the disability community, because not looking “disabled enough” is unfortunately a common experience among disabled people), here’s the breakdown:  There’s this perception out there, held mostly by non-disabled people, that if someone doesn’t have some sort of sign of a physical disability (like, they’re using a mobility aid or there’s some bodily sign of disability), they’re not really disabled. It’s outright wrong, and offensive enough on its own, but people tend to rub salt in the wound by asking for (sometimes demanding), when they’ve no authority to do so, proof of disability if there’s some sort of disability accommodation involved.

Like when Kanye West sent his staff into the audience to check that audience members that weren’t standing during his concert when he demanded they do so actually couldn’t stand.

(No disability accommodation involved there; Kanye just wanted everyone to stand while he was singing.)

Underlying this desire to “check” is an assumption that a person who says they’re disabled but doesn’t look “disabled enough” is lying; it leads to behaviour like people leaving notes that say “FAKER” by disabled parking passes. There are a lot of people out there who like to act as self-appointed assessors of degree of disability and policers of “fakers”. Some of them take it upon themselves to accordingly mete out justice.

It’s not the public’s role to do any of that. When a non-disabled person on the street assumes that they have the power and the right to assess disability and its degree, and therefore eligibility or ineligibility for a support (and to demand “proof” if a person doesn’t seem disabled to them) is indicative of deep and insidious ableism. The non-disabled person’s belief that they have power over disabled people is clearly on display.

Nathalie Allport-Grantham, who has Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Marfan Syndrome, and Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome and uses a wheelchair part-time, experienced an extreme example of this in Stansted Airport in the UK.

It was truly unacceptable – yet another sign of how the airline industry in general needs to get its act together when it comes to service for its disabled customers.

Nathalie Allport-Grantham and Stansted Airport

Nathalie Allport-Grantham uses a wheelchair part-time, but opted not to bring one on her trip out of Stansted Airport, as she was told that the airport could provide one. This service proved less than reliable, but the real trouble started when she and her boyfriend tried to check in at the gate for their flight with Ryanair. She was not in the wheelchair at the time; she’d had to walk to the gate from a nearby lounge, because the staff in the lounge that had taken the airport wheelchair and promised to bring it back and didn’t.)

As Allport-Grantham told The Independent, the woman at the gate decided that she didn’t need help.

“…I told the lady on duty that I had booked special assistance and needed help with my bags and to get on the aircraft.

“She looked at me and said, ‘If you want someone to carry your bags, you’ll have to pay £50.’

“I told her I had pre-booked disability assistance and I need help getting onto the aircraft.

“She said, ‘I’m actually waiting for someone who cannot walk, if you want to get on the plane I suggest you queue up like everyone else. If you don’t want to carry your bag, it’s £50 to have it put in the hold.’

“The person she was waiting for was me, but she expected someone who looked more ‘disabled’ than I do.

“Then she said loudly, in earshot of everyone at the gate: ‘I’ve got disabled people to help and you are wasting my time.’ Everyone was staring. It was humiliating.”

Now, you can argue that the woman at the gate was just doing her job as instructed – she’d presumably been told to look for a person who was much less physically mobile. However, there are a couple of issues with this.

Nathalie Allport-Grantham, Assumptions, and Accommodations Denied

The woman at the  may just have been doing her job, yes. But her perception that just because Allport-Grantham was more mobile than she’d either been explicitly told or that she’d assumed based on given information led her to deny the young woman accommodations to which she was entitled. As I touched on earlier, her behaviour isn’t surprising, given what else Allport-Grantham experienced at the hands of “disability services” at Stansted Airport that day:

  • No lifts available; she was told that staff would have to help her up the stairs into the plane.
  • After checking in at the airport, her boyfriend wheeled her to a lounge in a wheelchair that the airport provided. She transferred into a more comfortable seat, and a staff member took the wheelchair, promising to return it. He never did. It was from here that she had to walk to the gate, five minutes away.
  • She sat on the runway by the plane in an airport wheelchair for ten minutes in the rain before she could get assistance to get on the plane.

But that’s not really the point.

Obviously there are problems with disability services in general that need addressing, but the woman’s behaviour at the gate is especially problematic, as it’s indicative of the deep ableism I talked about earlier. I used a wheelchair on and off for a year after I got out of stroke rehabilitation. Mostly I could get around with my cane, but walking for long distances was very tiring, and it was nice to have the option, on days when my fatigue level was high (or when I wanted to keep it from getting too high too quickly) to be able to use my chair. People with many types of disabilities make use of a wheelchair for exactly the same reasons – you might never see them use a mobility aid, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t use one.

It must have been so frustrating to be in Allport-Grantham’s situation, to have to stay polite after explaining twice that she’d pre-arranged for help to be available, when the person she was talking to  had obviously decided was she wasn’t “disabled enough”  to receive support (even though that’s not her right.)  It must have been so difficult to fight anyway despite the fatigue caused by having to walk to the gate from the lounge on top of the stress of having a plane to catch, and the general stress of travel…,

And to have the woman at the refuse to even investigate whether Allport-Grantham was even right, so sure that she was dealing with a “faker” that she didn’t even ask for her name, so that she could see if Allport-Grantham was actually who she claimed to be…it must have been infuriating, especially in light of the fact that this exact action eventually settled the matter: another staff member stepped in, noticing Allport-Grantham’s tears, checked her name against a list of people who had requested disability services, and verified that she was indeed the person they were waiting for.

Such a simple way to deal with the issue, but so much more effective than saying to a passenger (my paraphrase), “Step aside, faker. You’re wasting my time.” But the woman at the gate’s assumption that Natalie Allport-Grantham was faking a disability so coloured her attitude toward her that she couldn’t be bothered to do even the barest minimum to check a customer’s story.

You’re welcome to argue with me over whether this is ableism, but you can’t deny that it’s horrible customer service.

Meet Me at Camera Three, Stansted Airport

I’ve worked a lot of difference customer service jobs – grocery cashier, ice cream scooper, snack bar attendant in a movie theatre, a brief stint as a cashier in drug store right before my stroke, customer service manager for a website company, customer service for a government agency…

The best advice that I got was when I worked in the grocery store, when my boss once told me that the money that the customers spent in the store was money that went into paying my wages, so it literally paid to keep them happy.

I’m proud of the customer service skills that I’ve developed – and if I was a businessperson who had someone on my staff who:

  • Took a wheelchair that the company provided to a customer, promised to return it, and then didn’t
  • Left a customer sitting in their wheelchair in the rain for ten minutes while luggage was loaded onto the plane
  • Told a customer, any customer, that they were wasting our time,

…there’d have to be a damn good reason for it.

Every time I hear of a story like this, I think not only of the effect on the disabled person involved, but of how short-sighted the business is being.

(Sidebar: It’s hard to know in this case who’s ultimately the most short-sighted, because several organizations are involved: Ryanair presumably employs the woman at the gate, “wheelchair services” within Stansted Airport are provided by a company called Omniserv, which Stansted Airport books with the airlines and the airlines pay for. But Stansted is still responsible for how the services are carried out.)

I don’t quite get it, but given these things, and given the fact that Ryanair’s position on all this was to push it on you, and your position was to push it on Omniserv

If I was still using my wheelchair, instead of driving a little out of my way to fly out of Stansted Airport because of your excellent services for disabled people, I’d rather drive a lot out my way to fly out of an airport where:

  • Omniserv didn’t handle wheelchairs
  • I could get to my destination without having to fly Ryanair
  • Staff have disability sensitivity training (this may not exist; there sure doesn’t seem to be a lot of evidence for it.)

Bottom line? You wouldn’t get my business. Businesses that make disabled people feel subhuman don’t get my money, and other disabled people get told why. I usually just buy a snack and a magazine in the airport while I’m waiting for a flight, but I guarantee that lots of disabled passengers spend a lot more than that.

Do you want our business or not?

By now, hopefully someone involved in this Stansted Airport clusterfuck has issued Nathalie Allport-Grantham a real apology, instead of the “pass the buck” non-apology she was offered earlier in the month.

If not, someone needs to get on it – this isn’t that difficult.

Fox News Contributor Calls Autistic Child a “Snowflake”

There’s a quote that goes, “When you assume, you make an ass of you and me.” It’s a funny reminder that speaking and/or acting before we know the whole story can make us (and other people) look foolish.

Content Note: Ableism, Bullying, Cyberbullying, Non-Pology

Snowflake image on blue-green circle. Keyword: Tammy Bruce

Image Description: Snowflake image on blue-green circle

***

Sometimes making assumptions does more than make people look foolish, though — disabled people particularly are often harmed by the assumptions of others. Assumptions like, “If you can’t talk, you have nothing to say”, “people with intellectual disabilities don’t need families and are best cared for in institutions”, “disabled people don’t work for the money”, and “disabled students in schools are better off segregated from non-disabled students” have been used to violate the rights of disabled people in Canada and the US for almost a century, and we are still fighting for the right to live safely as full, active participants in our communities.

Often assumptions are smaller, and their effects are less far-reaching, but just as sad to witness. Let’s consider a segment on the May 10th episode of “Tucker Carlson Tonight”, guest hosted by Fox anchor Bill Hemmer.

Fragile Children

Hemmer’s “Are Our Children Fragile?” segment focused on an event for military families hosted by VP Mike Pence. While addressing the families, Pence accidentally brushed the face of one of the children standing just behind the podium, Michael Yee, who afterward said to him several times, “You owe me an apology.” Footage of the interaction here:

 

Pence bumped him in the nose. He wanted an apology. Fair enough.

Not according to Tammy Bruce, radio host, and Hemmer’s guest commentator on what happened. Video in the linked article.

Transcript:

Tammy Bruce: I guess we’re giving birth to snowflakes now, because that looked like that kid needed a safe space in that room.

Bill Hemmer: Is this a different time or not?

Tammy Bruce: It is, a bit. The eight-year-old pretty much stalked the Vice President afterwards. He wasn’t even — the headlines said he was “hit, he was struck, he was smashed, he was bumped.” The fabric on his sleeve touched his nose maybe. He stalks the Vice President, says, “you owe me an apology.” This is like he was channelling [University of Missouri professor] Melissa Click wanting to get some muscle into the room. This is crazy. Now look, he’s seen it either on television, maybe he’s seen it at home perhaps, but he felt aggrieved because, I don’t know, the vice president maybe slightly touched his nose. It’s pretty amazing.

(Background Reading: For those that aren’t familiar with how “snowflake” has come to refer young people that are weak, entitled, and unable to cope with life, this Guardian article provides a good overview that also touches on the conservative disdain for “safe spaces”.

This New York Times op-ed also discusses safe spaces.

Reading Suggestion for Tammy Bruce

I read Stephen Covey’s “7 Secrets of Highly Successful People” when I was in high school. Covey tells a great story in that book about finding himself on a subway one night with a couple of kids that were running around, making noise and grabbing peoples’ papers and generally annoying everyone, and a father that seemed out of it and unwilling to do anything about them. Covey talks about getting more and more annoyed, tired after a long day, until he finally has it and asks the father if he maybe wants to do something about his kids.

Covey says in his book, “The man lifted his gaze as if to come to a consciousness of the situation for the first time and said softly, “Oh, you’re right. I guess I should do something about it. We just came from the hospital where their mother died about an hour ago. I don’t know what to think, and I guess they don’t know how to handle it either.”

Covey talks about how immediately his orientation toward the man changed. Instead of seeing a man that he assumed was just too lazy to take care of his kids, he saw a man that was grieving and overwhelmed, and his first instinct became to find out how if he could help.

Assumptions, people. Everything isn’t always as it looks at first glance.

Tammy Bruce and Assumptions

Tammy Bruce made a lot of assumptions about Michael Yee, and it wasn’t long before she figured it out. Presumably (I realize that I’m making an assumption) it was because she saw CNN’s Jake Tapper’s piece with Michael’s mother later that week, in which we find out that ten-year-old Michael (not eight-year-old, as Bruce said) is autistic, has only been verbal for five years, and has been working very hard with his mother, teacher and therapists on social skills, including for what behaviours he needs to apologize and for what behaviours he should expect an apology from others.

Because the next time we saw Tammy Bruce on Fox News, she was talking about Michael very differently.

Here’s Jake Tapper’s interview with Michael’s mother, Dr. Ingrid Herrera-Yee. Transcript starts at 1:19.

 

Jake Tapper: Regular viewers of “The Lead” know that military families often turn to us then they feel that they’ve been wronged, and that is the case with Michael’s mother, Dr. Ingrid Herrera-Yee. She joins me now. Thank you so much for being with me today. A lot of comments about Michael from people who don’t know him — why don’t you tell us about Michael?

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Well, Michael is ten years old, he is on the autism spectrum, he’s a military child, and he loves the White House; he calls it “the peoples’ house”, he was excited to go visit. For those who don’t have a child with autism, they need to really rehearse and, you know, a lot of their therapy involved practicing social interactions.

Jake Tapper: How long has he been verbal?

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Only five years, so about half his life he’s been verbal.

Jake Tapper: So that was — when you see that video, you see a kid who’s working hard to —

Dr. Herrera-Yee: I see a champ, yeah.

Jake Tapper: A champ — to say…somebody did something and he thinks an apology is owed.

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Absolutely. Because for him it was about manners. He says that to me and his dad all the time: ”You owe me an apology”. It’s not meant in any sort of negative way, it’s just him learning, again, the social interaction with someone else — so, what is appropriate to say, what isn’t…and we teach him about being, you know, having his manners and apologizing if he’s done something wrong. He was simply following, you know, what he’s learned in therapy, and what his wonderful teachers at school have taught him, and what we’ve taught him at home, just to, you know, make sure that there’s an apology there. And he was so sweet about it — just “Excuse me.” There was no…he wasn’t overly…

Jake Tapper: No, no, he was wonderful. He was very charming. And I assume that you thought until Friday night that the media coverage seemed respectful, and, ”Look at this charming moment”, and the Vice President was wonderful.

Dr. Herrera-Yee: The Vice President was wonderful. My son was so excited to be there and to meet him. He’s a big fan of the Vice President. He (Mike Pence) came into the room…he (Michael) doesn’t know about politics, he was just hanging around, having a good time. They gave him ice cream and brownies, you know? He had fun. And the Vice President was so respectful, he gave him a hug at the end, gave him a high five. He apologized when he noticed. It was no big deal. It was just a cute little clip.

Jake Tapper: And then what happened Friday night? When did you find out about, um, this attack of your ten-year-old boy?

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Well, um, I’d actually gotten a call from my mother, who had seen a teaser, and she had told me that they were going to talk about Michael. Now, earlier in the morning, on Fox and Friends, they’d talked about Michael in a really positive way, so I was excited. So I sat down with my coffee and started watching, and then suddenly it just went south. I was…devastated…when I saw — and what they were saying. People who- they didn’t even know his age. They didn’t know who he was. They were really taking out of context a really innocent, you know, interchange between the Vice President and my son.

Jake Tapper: And you have-you have other children. And your fifteen-year-old, Will-um, this hit him pretty hard.

Dr. Herrera-Yee: It did. I’ve tried to shield my children from this, as any, you know, parent would. I would not want them to, to be reading some of the comments that are out there about my son and my family and myself. And he, unfortunately, being that he’s a teenager and he’s online, saw this. So, not understanding, he went online and answered some of the negativity, trying to defend his brother. But he was viciously attacked online, and I came home to find him crying, um, about this. So, it’s definitely affecting our family.

Jake Tapper: How can we fix this? What do you want? What do you want to be done for this wrong to be righted?

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Well first I’d want people to be more aware of autism and how our kids interact in the world. And, um, second, just like Mike asked the Vice President so sweetly for an apology, I’d like to ask, on his behalf, for FOX News to apologize for having used my son out of context, and using those really horrible words to describe him and our family. That’s really what I would want to come out of this, is just more awareness. And please don’t use kids — whether they’re typically developing kids — it doesn’t matter that he’s autistic or he’s a military kid, forget all that, that doesn’t matter. He’s a kid. And you don’t use children as examples on national television like that. I would hope that this is the very last time that this happens.

Jake Tapper: Thank you so much for being here. I know that it’s not easy to do that, but you’re standing up for your son, and I really appreciate it.

Dr. Herrera-Yee: Thank you very much for having me.

Jake Tapper: Of course.

Tammy Bruce apologized after “The Lead” segment aired.

Tammy Bruce’s Apology


Transcript starts at 0:13.

Tammy Bruce: Good Morning, Bill, thank you so much. First of all, I am so sorry to the family. My intention was never to hurt a kid and his mom. We had absolutely no idea that Michael was on the autism spectrum, and as a gay woman and feminist, I’ve spent most of my adult life working to improve the lives of women, children, and those that are disenfranchised. I get it and I apologize. I also appreciated the boy’s mother, Dr. Ingrid Herrera, public comments, and her clarity on this. A main lesson here, no matter intent, is to leave kids out of our political discussions. We certainly agree on this.

Meet Me at Camera Three, Tammy Bruce

As a disabled woman, I have some concerns:

  • You “apologize” to “the family”, despite demonstrating later in this trainwreck of an apology that you know at least the mother’s name and, more importantly, Michael’s name. You never apologize to any of them by name. This *screamed* at me.
  • You say that you never intended to hurt a kid and his mom. What did you intend to do? You made it clear in your remarks on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” that you knew you were commenting about a child. You called him a snowflake and implied he needed a safe space (and after viewing your other videos, noting that you’re a frequent guest on Carlson’s show, and listening carefully to your tone of voice as you said those things, I actually feel comfortable assuming that you fall on the political far right where “snowflakes” and “safe spaces” are unwelcome), and implied that Dr. Herrera-Yee wasn’t a good parent. If that display on “Tucker Carlson Tonight” was you not intending to hurt a kid and his mom, God help the people you do intend to hurt!
  • You had no idea that Michael was autistic? For what reason do you think that this buys you some slack? You made a mistake because he didn’t “look disabled enough”? You made a mistake because you couldn’t be bothered to do some research into this story? Both? Whatever it was, the fact remains that you saw a chance to make a political point by taking a cheap shot at a kid on national television, and you went with it. And as his mom said, that’s not an okay thing to do to *any* kid. Shame on you.
  • You’re a gay woman and feminist working for social justice? Great. Keep it up. But talk about it somewhere else. All of that doesn’t mean that you “get it”, and it’s not really the point of all this. Or it shouldn’t be.
  • You agree that the main lesson here is to leave kids out of political discussions? Then why did you bring Michael into a political discussion in the first place?

You did owe Michael an apology, Tammy Bruce. You made assumptions about why he felt so strongly about getting an apology from the Vice President, and said some hurtful things as a result. But here’s what really bothers me: I suspect that you apologized only because you (or Fox) were uncomfortable with the fact that you’d bullied a disabled child, and not that you’d bullied a child *period*. Your beliefs as outlined in your apology contradict your words in the “Tucker Carlson Tonight”, otherwise — if you really believed what you said in your apology applied to all children, you wouldn’t have said the things you did in the first place.

Parents of non-disabled children should be insulted by that, and parents of disabled children should be, like Ingrid Herrera-Yee, uncomfortable with this whole business.

I will give Fox News kudos for at least attempting an apology. There are definitely networks out there that wouldn’t have. And if what you said was enough for Michael and his family, then that’s great.

But I know it wasn’t enough for the disability community, Tammy Bruce. I’ve heard them talk about this.

It wasn’t enough for me, either, Tammy Bruce.

Just so you know.

Save

Hillary Clinton Lies about Nancy Reagan’s Record on AIDS

Let me just preface this by saying that while I really like Bernie Sanders and have been hoping that he’ll get the Democratic nomination, I don’t go around trashing Hillary Clinton, either. I’ve been of the belief that either would make a great candidate, and that I’d support (from Canada) either of them and tell people “You need to vote for this person!” because America needs to keep a Republican out of the White House. However, even candidates that we support sometimes need to be called out on things, and Hilary Clinton needs to called out (as people have been doing, thank goodness) on remarks she made on March 11 about Nancy Reagan’s record on the AIDS crisis as it emerged in America.

Content Note: US Election 2016, Hilary Clinton, Nancy Reagan, Reagan Response to AIDS crisis

Hilary Clinton, wearing a pink jacket, white blouse, and chunky necklace, looks into camera and smiles during a 2014 TV appearance. Keyword: Hilary Clinton

Image Description: Hilary Clinton, wearing a pink jacket, white blouse, and chunky necklace, looks into camera and smiles during a 2014 TV appearance.

***

I’m quite concerned about Hilary Clinton’s remarks, not just because they were utter bullshit, but because I’m not sure now what to think about Hillary Clinton.

Here’s some CNN commentary about Hillary Clinton’s remarks to MSNBC:

Transcript:

Host: I want to talk to you about some comments for which Hilary Clinton has apologized, characterizing the Reagan administration, specifically Nancy Reagan’s advocacy as it relates to the AIDS outbreak in the 1980s. Watch and listen.

(Cut to Hilary Clinton talking to press)

Clinton:  It may be hard for your viewers to remember how difficult it was for people to talk about HIV-AIDS in the 1980s. And because of both President Reagan and Mrs. Reagan, in particular Mrs. Reagan, we started a national conversation when before nobody would talk about it, nobody wanted to do anything about it, uh, and, you know, that is something that I really appreciate. With her very effective, low-key advocacy, it penetrated the public conscience, and people began to say, “Hey. We really need to do something about this.”

(Cut to CNN Studio)

Host: Well, there was major backlash after her comments were aired from the human rights campaign GLAAD. I mean the record is that the Reagans did not act quickly enough, many will say; did not advocate for people who were suffering from this then-new disease. Ronald Reagan didn’t utter the word or use the acronym AIDS until 1985.   She did, Senator Clinton, release this statement on Twitter. She said: “While the Reagans were strong advocates for stem cell research and finding a cure for Alzheimer’s Disease, I misspoke about their record on HIV and AIDS. For that, I’m sorry.” First, just generally, how does something like this happen? Because it wasn’t just like a quick quip where she said something that was inaccurate. She went on for quite some time describing something that just did not happen.

Maria Cardona: Well, you know, um, I think this is a circumstance where we have to look at the context. Hilary Clinton was at Nancy Reagan’s funeral, and I think she was trying to find ways to honour her life’s work. Yes, she misspoke, and she talked about something that was not true and it was hurtful to a lot of people. But also to her credit, she acknowledged it, she took responsibility for it, she apologized for it, and I think that is going to be enough. And she reacted to the backlash because a lot of her supporters are those LGBTQ activists.

***

Judging from reactions that I’ve seen yesterday and today, it’s going to take a lot more than a weak apology on Twitter to undo the damage caused by her statements.

She did not “misspeak” about how Nancy Reagan handled the AIDS crisis.

She lied.

The Reagans and the AIDS Crisis – I Don’t Remember, But I Learned

Hillary may think that ABC’s viewers may not remember what happened when AIDS first emerged in America, but I think that she’ll learn (if she hasn’t already) that this isn’t the case. And a whole lot of people have learned about it. I wrote an essay about it in high school, totally unprepared for what I was going to find when I began my research. What I learned from (from Randy Shilts’ “And the Band Played On: People, Politics, and the AIDS Epidemic”, mainly) shocked me and broke my heart. I was just 18. I didn’t know that governments could (or would) treat sick people that way. Writing that essay had a powerful impact on me, more so than most of the writing I’ve done.

Later on, I read transcripts from the era. They fleshed out a terrible history of rampant discrimination, where people died of an unknown disease and the government didn’t  care because it was only showing up in gay people, prostitutes, and intravenous drug users. Shame on Hillary Clinton and her revisionist history that in thirty seconds swept that ugliness under the rug and made the government sound like it  was instead doing good at the time.

My Concern Now About Hillary Clinton

Hillary Clinton’s history is in general a blind spot for me. I don’t know a whole lot about Benghazi, except that there were a lot of investigations that found nothing. I know a bit more about the email server issue, but not enough to explain it to someone thoroughly.

I’d been giving her the benefit of the doubt on these things and assuming her innocence. But seeing her lie so easily makes me nervous. Seeing her lie about something that’s so widely known and easily disproved makes me nervous. I mean, I’m Canadian and I’ve known about this since I was 18.

What does it say about Hillary Clinton, and about what she actually thinks of the voters?

I’m quite thrown off by this, and not sure what to do with it.

ETA: Today, I found this article written by Hillary Clinton, on Medium…by accident. I see that it’s also on her Facebook page, but I only went there to check because a comment prompted me – I’ve never looked at Hillary Clinton’s Facebook page before today, It’s entirely possible that I might have missed this article if I hadn’t gone wandering on the Medium site. For that reason alone, I’m not sure what to think of it, but there are a couple of other things that leave me cold: 1) There’s no apology  2) She doesn’t explain *why* she said what she did, granted that she knows all this history.  I actually feel like she may have dug the hope deeper with this.

Save

Jim Carrey Tweets Picture of Autistic Youth Without Permission During Anti-Vaccination Rant

Canadians, who tend to be at least supportive of Canadian actors just because they’re Canadian, have always been a bit divided about Jim Carrey. He’s one of those “love him or hate him” actors. I’ve enjoyed a few of his films. I’ve not enjoyed more of them. A few of them I haven’t bother to see, I’m that convinced that I’d hate them.

Content Note: Anti-Vaccination Rhetoric and Autism, Exploitation, Dehumanization, Non-Apology
Cartoon. Woman with long red hair, wearing a nurse's uniform, sirs next to child with orangish hair, wearing jeans, a yellow sleeveless top, and sneakers. She is giving the child a needle. Keyword: Jim Carrey

Image Description: Cartoon. Woman with long red hair, wearing a nurse’s uniform, sirs next to child with orangeish hair, wearing jeans, a yellow sleeveless top, and sneakers. She is giving the child a needle.

***

I don’t usually let an entertainment figure’s stance on an issue dictate whether I’ll see one of their films, with some exceptions. I had some serious issues with “The Passion of the Christ” and some of Mel Gibson’s public remarks, and now tend to avoid his work. I avoid some comedians because they use the R-word.

I knew that Jim Carrey’s stance on vaccinations being toxic is quite strong, but I don’t stop talking to people because they hold those views.  I didn’t see any need to boycott his films on that basis. And I still don’t.

But last week he took some the steps to get his anti-thimerosal/anti-mercury message out (Carrey insists that he’s not anti-vaccination, but against the addition of these substances in vaccinations) that crossed a line for me, and those steps have put me at “boycott” point.

Jim Carrey Uses Alex Echols’ Picture in Rant About California Vaccination Law

Upset by the law officially put into place in California last Tuesday that children must be vaccinated in order to attend school, Carey went on a 30-tweet rant about the chemicals in vaccinations, calling California governor Gerry Brown a “corporate fascist” and using images of children in distress, implying that the thermosil in their vaccinations had caused the autism.

“Salon” web magazine tells us the following about the pictures that Carrey tweeted:

  • Two pictures of crying boys were stock photos.
  • The third was of 14-year-old Alex Echols.

Alex’s picture was used without permission.

His mother, Karen Echols was very upset, and tweeted to Carrey:

“Please remove this photo of my son. You do not have permission to use his image.”

She explained later in an Instagram posting that Alex’s autism is caused by tuberous sclerosis and that he was showing signs of being autistic before he was vaccinated.

Jim Carrey removed the photo and apologized:

“I’d like to apologize to the Echols family and others for posting a pic of their kids w/o permission. I didn’t mean to cause them distress.”

I love a good non-apology.

Dehumanizing Autistic People

Cara (no last name given) nailed why Jim Carrey’s action were inappropriate in her blog post, ‘An Open Letter to Jim Carrey‘. She talks about how Jim Carrey used pictures of children in distress, one that we can confirm is autistic, hoping that they’d scare people into seeing his point of view, and his hopes that people would say, “Oh my goodness, we don’t want our children to turn out like *that*, we’d better not vaccinate!” She talks about how static pictures are inherently dehumanizing, and how autistic people as a group don’t need anything more that dehumanizes them – in the last five years, 80 autistic children and adults have been dehumanized by their parents and caregivers to the point where they’ve been murdered.

Kudos, Cara, for beautifully expressing why Jim Carrey’s actions were so wrong.

Cara touches on the other form of dehumanization that went on.

Shame on You, Jim Carrey

The picture of Alex Echols that Jim Carrey used has been used in a couple of media pieces. Is it fair use? I’m not sure. I wouldn’t use it without permission for a number of reasons, the least of them being that I figure that it’s been posted in enough places by now that Alex doesn’t ever need to come across it in another. But even if it is fair use, Jim Carrey did not use it fairly. He co-opted it for his own cause, with no concern for whether Alex and his family would be okay with that, and in his apology he didn’t say that he was wrong. That he can claim to be so passionately concerned for child safety but exploit a disabled child in that way makes me angry, and very concerned that he didn’t have that insight into why what he did was wrong until someone called him on it.

It was another level of dehumanization: “I’m just going to pick you up and drop you in my cause and I don’t care what you think about it.” Shame on you, Jim Carrey.

Yes, shame on Jim Carrey, because he didn’t have to go further than Facebook to see that Alex is a growing, learning, person, deeply loved by his family and support staff.  Because they’re better people than I am, the Echols family is grateful for the awareness that this incident with Jim Carrey has brought to tuberous sclerosis and to the challenges that Alex faces every day.

And he could only manage a non-apology on Twitter.

Learn More About Alex and his Family

Another Website About the Echols Family

Learn More About Tuberous Sclerosis and Autism