What happens is if your 'behaviour' is peaceful direct actions and 'others'
are 'alarmed and distressed by your 'presence' as a disabled person'?
I have Tourrette's Syndrome too amnd I may swera if I am on 'meltdown', but
I don't mean too. I make ir clear that 'Shameless', on Channel 4 as totally
misrepresented TS. I don't swear much at all. My TS and neurodiverse
behaviours are triggred by 'exposure-anxieties'.
Do we lock-up all 'crips' then because others are caused 'alarm and
distress' by the disabled persons 'impairments'? What about those who
experience Meantl Ill Health/Distress?
How can I have a 'dialogure' about my health and social care support with
the public bodies, if they want let me in their public-buildings' ,because
offciers are caused 'alaram and distress by my 'neurodiverse behaviours?
Are you stating that I have put myself 'at-risk' and I am too blame for the
discrimination and abuse I have experienced by Officers working within all
these public bodies by me going to these places to assert my basic human and
civil rights as a 'neurodiverse' crip? So I have the 'choice' not to go to
these 'public-buildings', then I would not be experiencing all this 'abuse'
and threats to my basic freedoms and liberty by 'them' putting me in
'prison' to 'shut-me' up all together.
Is this not called NIMBYism?
I am not clear within the emails I am receiveing from Laryy and others that
people within the 'disabled peoples' including academics) movement actually
disagree with what I've been doing in my basic human and civil rights
campaigning work?
Yours
Colin
>From: Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
>Reply-To: Larry Arnold <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Amended email Colin Revell:- A background history to my case
>from 1995 -present
>Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 11:28:13 -0000
>
>Now fuck me backwards as I know what normalising discourses are and are
>opposed to them, there is a difference of rough manners and commonplace use
>of expletives and behavior in a public place that is likely to get one
>thrown out if repeated.
>
>I come from a predominantly working class background, however much of my
>discourse takes me into the territory of the polite middle classes from
>whom
>a lot of academia seems to be drawn. I might slip in my linguistic usage
>from time to time, and I do not modify my accent, I am still rough edged
>but
>I do not take a physical hammer to my opponents, that is transgressing, cos
>if you do that you expect them to respond in kind.
>
>Now there is outright war and guerilla action, but if one is resorting to
>the formalities of courts and due process of law to establish ones case,
>ones rights, one is expected not to trespass too far outside of the bounds,
>and if one does it is a calculated act of civil disobedience, for which one
>expects to be a casualty if it goes wrong.
>
>I have engaged in varios incivil protests before and even yelled from the
>strangers gallery at the monkeys in the zoo below, thing is nobody herd me
>because they were yelling loud enough below not to hear.
>
>Perhaps I have been more fortunate than Colin, or perhaps there has also
>been something in the way that I have been prepared in meetings to leave
>once I have transgressed and used strong language. I have been thrown out
>of
>many public meetings, but always at the point which civil discourse was not
>gaining me anything.
>
>It is also true that people aware of my explosive propensities have
>provoked
>me into that state of action in order to justify there claims that I was
>being unreasonable.
>
>However in all my discourses I have pursued a dual approach of civility
>alongside the occasional demonstrations of rage and avoided the ASBO's and
>bans. When I turn up to a Council meeting or whatever, they know what to
>expect, there will be some disregarding of the chairs directions, or some
>heckling, but there is also an understanding that I will withdraw if the
>heckling becomes too disruptive.
>
>Anyway to use a metaphor, if you the tribal person want to fight
>civilisation, it is no good doing it with bows and arrows, you have
>sometimes to adopt the customs of your enemy and use artillery.
>
>That is a metaphor, I am not suggesting someone purloin a tank to take on
>the town hall, I mean if one wishes to make ones point in the camp of ones
>enemy, sometimes one has to use there tactics and if that means for
>instance
>wearing trousers instead of a loin cloth then so be it.
>
>Larry
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: The Disability-Research Discussion List
> > [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of A Velarde
> > Sent: 16 February 2006 10:35
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Amended email Colin Revell:- A background history to my
> > case from 1995 -present
> >
> >
> > Paul wrote: If "neurodiverse crips" assert themselves in
> > "neurodiverse ways" is it simply as Colin asserts, that "our
> > neurodiverse 'behaviour' is always misinterpreted". It does seem
> > to mean there cannot be limits to what is acceptable conduct
> > without being accused of imposing 'neurotypical' behavioiur.Now
> > clearly this is a thorny issue..."
> >
> > In my impression there is a need to dissect this issue as what we
> > are discussing is a very political matter. there are 3
> > different issues to analyse regarding appropriateness: of
> > conduct, of behaviour and language. These can be analysed in a
> > matrix of two vertical columns: of appearance and of content. in
> > this matrix therefore there're 12 issues to discuss: I.e. is the
> > content/appearance of our/their conduct appropriate? is the
> > content/appearance of our/their behaviour appropriate? is the
> > content/appearance of our/their language appropriate?
> >
> > In each of these areas there is a political struggled of forms.
> > The persons who we relate in an organisation would be distress if
> > we trespass what is the grounds of the 'acceptable. (and some
> > will love to see us trespassing I.e. losing our temper/manners
> > etc, because then content would not take priority. what would be
> > discussed then will be the form, our form, never theirs). Paul is
> > right when he suggest that this is similar in racial relations.
> > (I.e. How wonderful the establishment feels when a person of
> > ethnic minority swears. 'Here he is the tribal man/woman
> > offending the civilised nation. Look at him, her. someone would
> > even turn on the reflectors and start the camera rolling to
> > record the incident for everyone to witness'. So everyone is
> > relief because none will notice with the same intensity the
> > offence committed against the swearing person in the first place).
> >
> > We are in a land of political manners. ground that has already
> > been set. So the sophisticated, the educated, the normalised
> > could show off, and the forgotten, the working class, the rough,
> > the excluded, the colonised, the drugtaker, the travesty,the
> > prostitute would feel uncomfortable and self exclude from
> > participation in the construction of society for the benefit of
> > the 'middle nation'. (All who have had a panic attack when
> > giving a speech or reading aloud would pay attention to this. It
> > is not you, it is the setting you are in)
> > what I am referring to in this juxtaposition of discourses is
> > that the cultural setting we are in make sure that everyone that
> > is not benefited by the normalising capacities of the episteme
> > (system) is autoexcluded.
> >
> > So what?
> > Yes there are forms that need to be considered. But also there
> > are thing that the educated (enlightened?)in the struggle of
> > disabled people and other normalised categories, need also to
> > consider. When you see a person swearing, or behaving different,
> > whether because you just arrived, or because it is shown on TV,
> > try to look at the content, try to understand him/her. Because
> > he/she is not the animal that appears to be, and the
> > establishment is not the civilised system that appears to be
> > either. Look at the content, make an effort. This is
> > particularly important for research too, so we could have a more
> > rounded picture of what is going on.
> >
> > So going back to the matrix. a campaigner, or a person who is
> > going to knock at the massive wooden door of the establishment,
> > to say I compliant because ...(I.e. you in fact are excluding me
> > and I reclaim the right to exit in this world, my world too and
> > not only yours!). would need to take into account that forms
> > matter. It is the first hurdle. if we pass it, the content of
> > what we say would be heard by some.
> > Hope this help, Andy
> >
> >
> >
>
>________________End of message______________________
>
>This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for
>Disability Studies at the University of Leeds
>(www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list
>administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
>
>Archives and tools are located at:
>www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
>You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
_________________________________________________________________
Are you using the latest version of MSN Messenger? Download MSN Messenger
7.5 today! http://messenger.msn.co.uk
________________End of message______________________
This Disability-Research Discussion list is managed by the Centre for Disability Studies at the University of Leeds (www.leeds.ac.uk/disability-studies). Enquiries about the list administratione should be sent to [log in to unmask]
Archives and tools are located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
