Dear Sharon, Michael et all,
This is not a freedom of speech vs. civil liberties issue. Free speech is
not opposed to civil liberties, but is itself a civil liberty and one of the
foundations upon which modern liberal democracies exist. Carried to extremes
this liberty, like any other liberty, does pose some level of threat to the
equal liberty of others (such as disabled people) to express themselves.
This would appear to be the charge against the medics in the case under
discussion. However, as Michael rightly points out, Singer-esque arguments
for the killingof disabled infants are not new, and should we not hope that
as disabled people we can meet such views head-on, in well-argued,
cool-headed debate? This is not to condone the antiquated views of these
medics, but rather to suggest that we should by now have outgrown the
tactics of the mob. Arguably, in shouting down such speakers, the hecklers
at the event under discussion only succeeded in curtailing the speaker's
right to say what he/she believed. We might not like what they have to
say, but are we to deny them the right to say it?
Best wishes,
Peter
Dr. Peter Handley
School of Political, Social and International Studies,
University of East Anglia,
Norwich UK
----- Original Message -----
From: slamp1 <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:31 PM
Subject: Re: Medical Ethics Lectures...or hate speech?
> hi michael,
>
> the example you give seems to be a freedom of speech vs. civil liberties
> issue.
>
> i don't know about you but discourses supporting the killing of disabled
> people cause me to fear for my life as a disabled person. what about the
> rights of disabled people to not be subjected to (or tortured by) speech
that
> promotes and exacerbates such fears?
>
> i also think there is something to the argument that debating and
> rationalizing the death of people with disabilities further devalues our
> lives. what other minority group is expected to sit politely while the
value
> of their lives, or "personhood" is debated at a conference? and was there
any
> guarantee by the conference organizers that the subjects of the paper
would be
> given equal time to speak?
> best, sharon lamp
>
>
> >===== Original Message From Michael Peckitt <[log in to unmask]>
> =====
> >The gave a Singer-esque argument for the Killing of disabled infants,
> >amongst other issues, it gave another reason to accept Singers argument.
I
> >was not convinced - but what mkes me angry is that the people with
> >disabillities in the auidence had probably heard it befire and worse, and
> >acted like this wasa the first man to say it.
> >
> >Michael
> >
> >>From: "P. Cushing" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>To: "Michael Peckitt" <[log in to unmask]>
> >>Subject: Re: Medical Ethics Lectures
> >>Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 15:19:47 -0000
> >>
> >>Could you elaborate on what the paper was about?
> >>
> >>Est ce que vous pouvez expliquez plus la theme du papier?
> >>
> >>PjC
> >
> >________________End of message______________________
> >
> >Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> >are now located at:
> >
> >www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
> >
> >You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
>
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|