According to an article in the English newspaper, the Independent, Michael Savage has been placed on a list of sixteen people banned from entering the United Kingdom. I have never been a lover of Savage. Long before he went on his anti autism tirade he was a conservative extremist. According to Home Secretary Jacqui Smith:
I think it's important that people understand the sorts of values and sorts of standards that we have here, the fact that it's a privilege to come and the sort of things that mean you won't be welcome in this country. … Coming to this country is a privilege. If you can't live by the rules that we live by, the standards and the values that we live by, we should exclude you from this country and, what's more, now we will make public those people that we have excluded.
I would suggest that this sort of attitude should be of concern not just to people who believe in free speech in general but to people on the spectrum in particular. It means that our friends across the Atlantic have decided that there are certain “values and standards” that go beyond obeying the law and not causing physical harm to other people. How long before this gets turned not just against right wing fanatics but against people who simply do not fit in, people like us?
1 comment:
Not to disagree with you, but he does hold some merit on some aspects of his case. Autism for a student means special treatment, regardless of the intentions of the student.
Student A, who has Autism, may be wary of the treatment but accept it anyway, understanding that the special education will help him to succeed. Student B, who also has Autism, may want to exploit the special education. I’ve heard several students with Autism and AS (Asperger’s Syndrome) almost use their diagnosis as an excuse for delinquent behavior, and having more leverage over teachers and peers. An example could be:
If student A who does not have Autism does action X which gets him a detention, he may give some excuses as to the situation. The teacher may or may not listen, but he or she would be more inclined to give that student the punishment. Student B who does have Autism may also do action X, but they could say that because of their disability they have trouble controlling themselves. This may or may not actually be true, but the teacher would not only be inclined to take away the punishment for student B, the teacher would almost be obligated to do so.
What I’m saying is is that there are some cases that people with Autism use it to their advantage. Although it is a spectrum disorder, many people may not fully understand the definition of spectrum disorder, and expect each autism-affected student to act the same way, and often forgive them for thing that normal students would not get away with, regardless if being excused for those actions was the Autism-affected student’s intention.
I’m not sure if banning him from the country was the best idea, though. It wasn’t like he was a violent person, or would harm anyway because of his opinion. There could be many people with the exact same opinion as he, but the only difference is that he is able to vocalize his opinion on a wide-scale. That really shouldn’t constitute a banishment or restriction from entering a country.
Also, being a “right-wing” shouldn’t matter either. Conservatism may not exactly look down on Autism, but more so the funding that is to be given to the cause, which many often expects to come from the government.
I don’t agree with much that he says though, Autism is not a fraud in any case. However, going past his ranting and raving there is a sliver of truth that he takes from, being that there are some people, that have Autism, that do use their disability to their own advantage in a way that is not necessary to them.
Post a Comment