AUTISM AND HATE SPEECH IN THE TORONTO STAR

The Letter That Was "Too Hurtful"

1. Letter sent to "Letters to the editor" The Toronto Star

(Aug 27, 2004) Subject: Autism and Hate Speech

Re "Autism battle drains parents" (Aug 23) and "Autism funding should draw ire" (Aug 25): Put them together and it looks exactly like a contest to see who can say the worst things about their own autistic child, and everyone else's — as well as a contest to see which parents can most be pitied for being burdened by an autistic child.

Here's a summary of what the Star chose to publish: autistic people can't learn or communicate "even the most basic things" and are prone to aggression; autistics belong in institutions or group homes; autistics are sick and need medical treatment or we're doomed; autism is the equivalent of a tumour, which must be attacked and removed; an autistic child is a terrible, devastating, and disordered torment; only an autistic who is "fixed" enough to have a "normal" life belongs in society; only an autistic who is "fixed" can contribute to society, and all other autistics are costly millstones; there is nothing good about autistic people; and finally it would be much better if autistics did not exist at all.

Looks like hate speech to me, unless the Star is proposing that this is an accurate and balanced view of the nature, worth, and place of autistics.

The Star decided that the community of autistics has no interest in legal cases and legal decisions about ourselves (our nature, treatment, rights, and worth), meaning we do not need to be consulted or considered when such a case is reported. The Star now claims that if autistics are portrayed as ruinous and potentially dangerous burdens in the reporting of such a legal case, this is of no import, since the article isn't really about autism.

I wonder what words will next be deployed in the escalating demonization of autistics. "Plague" is now a routine descriptor. "Devastating" is de rigueur, we are also a "scourge", a "living death" and "festering". Yes, we've been called a holocaust. "Apocalypse" is still available to those who applaud the Star's portrayal of autistics.

Having an autistic child is a privilege. In his letter, Mr Orzechowski wields the possibility that "anyone" could have an autistic child, like his own, as a dire threat. I feel terrible for that kid and for the boy whose parents see him as a precise financial liability — and not at all because these children are autistic.

Michelle Dawson
Clinique spécialisée de l'autisme, Hôpital Rivière des Prairies, Université de Montréal
No Autistics Allowed, Canada

2. Letter to Don Sellar, Toronto Star Ombudsman, and Linda Larsen, Publisher's Assistant; copied to Helen Henderson, Toronto Star Disabilities Reporter

(August 30, 2004) Subject: The Ombudsman's Advice

Mr Sellar, Ms Larsen:

I obediently sent a letter to the Star's editor. It is within your guidelines. Since I sent it on Friday, and it did not show up Sunday or Monday, I can safely assume it has been rejected.

I have gathered a few letters that the Star did print. They show that I am being both more concise and more circumspect in the letter I sent than your more acceptable correspondents were in letters you did print.

Here are some quotes from Mr Sellar:

More to the point, you have an important and valuable perspective on autism that I would like to see expressed on the Star's letters page. I encourage you to help lead a discussion on the subject.

I wasn't suggesting you submit a letter to the editor in the Star to redress your complaint. Rather, I viewed such a letter as an important contribution to public understanding of autism.

I again urge you to contribute a concise letter to lettertoed@thestar.ca, attaching your name, address and day/evening phone numbers for authorship verification. The paper can't publish letters it doesn't receive!

I really can't add anything, except to say once again the Star would give fair consideration to a concise letter to the editor from you on this subject.

From the outset, I've said a letter to the editor would provide an opportunity for you to explain, from your particular perspective, why you regarded the story's description of autism to be incomplete, misleading, inaccurate and hateful.

I am aware that the Star does not have to publish a letter. However, Mr Sellar's correspondence shows clearly that this was the only option which was repeatedly offered in a case in which an identifiable group of people was denigrated and characterized, unopposed, as potentially violent catastrophes. You are not allowing any other view in the Star.

I've done a lot of legal work, and this includes many cases related to the assumption that autistic people are dangerous, and/or cannot learn or communicate, and/or do not belong in society, and/or should be eradicated. I'm aware of many, many more such cases, some of which I have investigated or been consulted or taken action in. These have involved the banishment, unethical medication, abuse, incarceration, and killing of autistic people, because they were autistic.

I am stunned by the Star's decision simply to discard autistic people, to classify us as subhumans against whom hatred can freely be promoted and encouraged, and to deny our voices when we object. I am at a total loss to understand this level of intolerance and irresponsibility.

Sincerely,

Michelle Dawson

3. Letter from Don Sellar, Ombudsman, Toronto Star

(August 30, 2004) Subject: The Ombudsman's Advice

Michelle Dawson:

Your letter hasn't been rejected. Normally, letters sent late on Friday arrive too late to make the Saturday, Sunday and sometimes Monday pages, depending on staffing arrangements, vacations and other factors. I'll inquire further on your behalf.

Regards,

Don Sellar
Ombud

4. Letter to Don Sellar, Ombudsman, Toronto Star, copied to Helen Henderson, Disabilities Reporter, Toronto Star

(August 31, 2004) Subject: The Ombudsman's Advice

Mr Sellar:

Yes in fact my letter has been rejected. What I wrote in the message below stands.

I have also lost my OPC [Ontario Press Council] case against the Globe and Mail. My complaint was considered ridiculous (this is a guess, but a fair one), which is in keeping with the Star's view.

Everyone knows autistics are horrible people who should not exist. At least in Canada, everyone knows this.

In other countries, like the US and UK, objections to dangerous and damaging stories about autistics are actually printed in newspapers. A UK magazine was also forced to apologize for printing an advertisement mocking autistics.

In Japan, a cabinet minister was forced to apologize for insulting autistics.

But in Canada, we are not human. Just read what was printed in the Star.

The Star is now free to print false statements promoting hate against disabled people, and is also free to ignore then silence any opposing comment from said disabled people, so long as these disabled people are autistic.

Congratulations for having so carried out your journalistic responsibilities.

Sincerely,

Michelle Dawson

5. Letter from Don Sellar, Ombudsman, Toronto Star

(August 31, 2004) Subject: The Ombudsman's Advice

Michelle Dawson:

The editor hasn't yet told me whether she intends to run your letter. I'll let you know of her decision, one way or the other.

Regards,

Don Sellar
Ombud

6. Letter to Don Sellar, Ombudsman, Toronto Star, copied to Helen Henderson, Disabilities Reporter, Toronto Star

(August 31, 2004) Subject: The Ombudsman's Advice

Mr Sellar,

Since I sent the letter on Friday, referring to stories which were already somewhat dated, and since it is now Tuesday, and I have not heard from the letters editor, I have my answer. Being autistic does not, regardless of what the Star printed, make one incapable of learning.

Autism does, however, just like the Star printed, make one incapable of communicating, since if you are autistic, you will be censored.

Self-fulfilling journalism. I can't help but be impressed. You have disappeared a large, identifiable group of people.

I've read your columns. Very impressive, very conscientious. Too bad you don't see autistics as human beings. Perhaps you, as many others do, assume we can't read, so it doesn't matter.

Again, congratulations. You will only ever, in the future, have to read about how terrible and useless people like me are. This is the result of your, and the Star's, leadership in this issue.

Sincerely,

Michelle Dawson

7. Letter from Don Sellar, Ombudsman, Toronto Star

(August 31, 2004) Subject: The Ombudsman's Advice

Michelle Dawson:

I checked this afternoon with the letters editor. She believes the letter is too hurtful to be published. I may, however, broach the subject in an ombud's column, and refer to our recent exchanges. I do not share your opinion of my attitude toward persons with autism. Have you read the recent novel, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night? I found it insightful and fascinating.

Regards,

Don Sellar
Ombud

8. Letter to Don Sellar, Ombudsman, Toronto Star, copied to Helen Henderson, Disabilities Reporter, Toronto Star; and others

(August 31, 2004) Subject: "Hurtful"

Mr Sellar,

I note that the article and the letter the Star chose to publish about autistic people are not considered to be hurtful.

This means that the Star believes what it printed is accurate and true, and/or that autistics have no rights, interests, and emotions, and live no consequences. And if we are mistreated, banished, censored, and incarcerated in institutions, that is entirely because of our nature, not because of intolerance, prejudice, and hate.

The book you mention is written by a non-autistic person. I dislike this book. So does my father, who is both a "real" (non-autistic) person, and the parent of an autistic daughter.

Autistic people have written a large number of books, see this list and the explanation at the bottom http://www.autistics.org/library/booklist.html.

Also, I noticed you don't mention any of the writing by autistic people I sent you as links in the emails we have exchanged. Most people who read "Don't Mourn for Us", which as I mentioned was presented in Toronto more than a decade ago, comment on it. I suggest the letters editor read it, to know who exactly she is hurting. Same with "Past, Present, and Future", which a world-class researcher found so astounding in the excellence of its argument that he distributed it to his large quantity of colleagues. Those articles you ignored.

I just posted a book chapter I was commissioned to write. I guess you won't read it either http://www.sentex.net/~nexus23/naa_bto.html.

The Star's position that only non-autistic people can speak about and have "insight" about autistic people seems to be held also by its Ombudsman.

The assumption that autistic people are "unhurtable" was part of my rejected OPC argument. So, you can tell everyone it is open season on autistics. We won't feel a thing.

Sincerely,

Michelle Dawson

Notes:

There was a great deal of previous, futile correspondence and conversation with Mr Sellar in which I attempted to have the Star recognize more of an obligation than to offer me the slim chance of having a letter published. Some of this correspondence is referred to in the above. Mr Sellar claimed I understood neither autism nor the relevant article.

This isn't over yet. However, I did not want to let the Star stand unanswered.

I edited one of my own letters for a typographical error. Everything else is copied exactly.

The Ontario Press Council decision was made by its Executive and will be reviewed in October 2004. I have no hope whatsoever that the Executive's decision — that a case similar to the one reported above has no merit — will be reversed.

All the letters above (mine anyway) were written quickly in the heat of the battle. This is probably obvious.

This sequence will be added to if necessary.

Michelle Dawson
No Autistics Allowed: Explorations in Discrimination Against Autistics