The Tory parliamentary candidate for Cambridge, Chamali Fernando sparked outrage and horror after saying mental health patients should wear wristbands to identify their conditions. Fernando was speaking at a hustings event hosted by the campaign group Keep Our NHS Public when she made the comment.
Andy Burnham, Labour’s Shadow Health Secretary, said:
“There has been an enormous amount of work in Parliament to challenge the stigma surrounding mental health. But comments like this are so disappointing – they set us back and remind us how far we have to go. Jeremy Hunt must disown these comments, instruct his candidate to apologise and make it clear that they form no part of Conservative Party policy.”
“This proposal shows the candidate’s harmful views on mental health.”
Disability and Mental Health Adviser at University of the Arts, London Annabel Crowley said.
“Research carried out by the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience at King’s College London shows personal contact with mentally ill people is the most effective way to reduce discrimination.”
Crowley says Fernando’s proposals would only alienate the mentally ill and “further curtail their freedom,” which would encourage further stigmatization.
“We need to provide adequate care and support, not blame the victims of a failing health service,” she added.
Mental Health Services are in crisis because of Coalition cuts to funding. The Government has been criticised for allowing mental health services to be cut disproportionately, as the NHS as a whole undergoes the most severe budget cut in its history. And let’s not forget that under the guise of a “policy of deinstitutionalisation,” Thatcher’s “Care in the Community” Bill was about anything but care: it was all about cutting costs, as reflected in the experiences of many people leaving long term institutional care and being left to fend for themselves in the community. “Compassionate Tories”: there is no such thing.
Dr. Pooky Kingsmith, a mental health specialist, said that she [Fernando] “fails to understand” what the wristbands would achieve “beyond increasing the stigma and prejudice already experience by mentally ill people.”
A petition has since been set up calling for Fernando to stand down in the election. The description on the petition read:
“This kind of thinking has no place in modern society and especially not in someone who is hoping to be elected as an MP.
I can’t see any possible justification in allowing Ms Fernando to continue to stand for election after showing such prejudice against the mentally ill, and if allowed to do so, shows a total disregard to the people in this country, who already have to battle against the misunderstanding and ignorance of their mental illness.”
Chamali Fernando was asked how the authorities could help the police better deal with people with mental health issues.
Fernando responded that wristbands which disclose a person’s illness could help barristers, such as herself, to better aid the public.
She said wearing colour-coded wristbands indicating the nature of the person’s condition would be helpful to professionals as “they often could not explain themselves.”
Perhaps Fernando had designs that are something like this in mind:
1936 illustration of Nazi camp ID-emblems.
The red triangle was used by the Nazis to identify social democrats, socialists, trade unionists, Freemasons and communists, for example. The pink triangle was primarily used for identifying homosexual men, and the black triangle was used to identify “asocial elements” (asozial) and “work shy” (arbeitsscheu) including those who were mentally ill, pacifists, vagrants and the Roma.
And for anyone itching to invoke Godwin’s law at this point, I suggest you hang fire and read about Allport’s Ladder of Prejudice. Whilst I am very aware that we need take care not to trivialise the terrible events of Nazi Germany by making casual comparisons, there are some clear and important parallels on a socio-political level and a psycho-social one, that I feel are crucially important to recognise.
Gordon Allport studied the psychological and social processes that create a society’s progression from prejudice and discrimination to genocide. In his research of how the Holocaust happened, he describes socio-political processes that foster increasing social prejudice and discrimination and he demonstrates how the unthinkable becomes acceptable: it happens incrementally, because of a steady erosion of our moral and rational boundaries, and propaganda-driven changes in our attitudes towards “others” that advances culturally, by almost inscrutable degrees.
The process always begins with political scapegoating of a social group and with ideologies that identify that group as an “enemy” or a social “burden” in some way. A history of devaluation of the group that becomes the target, authoritarian culture, and the passivity of internal and external witnesses (bystanders) all contribute to the probability that violence against that group will develop, and ultimately, if the process is allowed to continue evolving, genocide.
As I have discussed elsewhere on this site, we have a government that uses words like workshy to describe vulnerable groups. This is a government that is intentionally scapegoating poor, unemployed, disabled people and migrants. One Tory councillor called for the extermination of gypsies, more than one Tory MP has called for illegal and discriminatory levels of pay for disabled people. (See also David Freud was made to apologise for being a true Tory in public.)
David Freud’s comment that disabled people are not worth the minimum wage was not a momentary lapse, nor was it unrepresentative of Tory views more generally. He is the contemptuous architect of the grossly punitive Tory Bedroom Tax that disproportionately affects households of disabled people. The Tories endorsed Freud’s discriminatory policy proposal, and savagely ridiculed the UN rapporteur, Raquel Rolnik, when she pointed out, very professionally and reasonably, that the policy contravenes human rights.
He is the same government minister that rejected suggestions that austerity policies have led to an increase in food bank use – making the jaw-droppingly astonishing suggestion that food bank charities are somehow to blame. This former investment banker and peer told the Lords that the increase in the usage of food banks was “supply led”. He said:
“If you put more food banks in, that is the supply. Clearly, food from the food banks is a free good and by definition with a free good there’s almost infinite demand.”
Poverty reduced to blame-the-individual neoliberal motivational formulae. Yet it is the government that are responsible for policies that create and sustain inequality and poverty.
We need only look at the discriminatory nature of policies such as the legal aid bill, the wider welfare “reforms” and research the consequences of austerity for the vulnerable – those with the “least broad shoulders” – to understand that these comments reflect how conservatives think.
This is a government that is using public prejudice to justify massive socio-economic inequalities and their own policies that are creating a steeply hierarchical, society based on social Darwinist “survival of the fittest” libertarian, minarchist principles.
The Tory creation of socio-economic scapegoats, involving vicious stigmatisation of vulnerable social groups, particularly endorsed by the mainstream media, is simply a means of manipulating public perceptions and securing public acceptance of the increasingly punitive and repressive basis of the Tories’ welfare “reforms”, and the steady stripping away of essential state support and provision.
Let’s not forget that we were recently informed that the Tories plan to limit child benefit to the first two children because it would save money. The idea is being examined by the Conservatives, despite previously being vetoed by Downing Street because of fears that it could “alienate” parents.
Asked about the idea on the BBC’s Sunday Politics programme, Duncan Smith said:
“I think it’s well worth looking at. It’s something if we decide to do it we’ll announce out. But it does save significant money and also it helps behavioural change.”
This is a clear indication of the Tories’ underpinning eugenicist designs – exercising control over the reproduction of the poor, albeit by stealth. It also reflects the underpinning belief that poverty somehow arises because of faulty individual choices, (as opposed to faulty political decision-making and ideologically-driven socio-economic policies), that those choices are non-rational, stereotypical, and that reducing cost to the State involves making people change their “faulty,” stereotypical behaviours.
This government’s policies are contibuting significantly to mental illness: Suicides have reached a ten year high and are linked with welfare “reforms”.
And Osborne announced in the budget that the government will be funding a “package of measures” to improve “employment outcomes” which will entail putting Cognitive Behaviour therapists in more than 350 job centres to provide “support” to those with “common mental health conditions” who are claiming employment support allowance (ESA) and job seekers allowance (JSA).
As I have written elsewhere, the government have put up an online contract notice which specifically states:
“This provision is designed to support people with common mental health conditions to prepare for and move into work, with intervention at the earliest possible point in a claim to benefit or access to the Fit for Work service.”
Cognitive Behaviour Therapy (CBT) is used to change how you think (“Cognitive”) and what you do (“Behaviour”). It bypasses emotions, personal history and narrative, to a large extent, and tends to focus on the “here and now.” In this case, the here and now consists of taking any job available, regardless of its suitability, or face being sanctioned.
CBT is an approach that facilitates the identification of “negative thinking patterns” and associated “problematic behaviours” and challenges them. This approach is at first glance a problem-solving approach, however, it is of course premised on the assumption that interpreting situations “negatively” is a bad thing, and that thinking positively about bad events is beneficial.
The onus is on the individual to adapt by perceiving their circumstances in a stoical and purely rational way.
So we need to ask what are the circumstances that the government are expecting people claiming benefits to accept stoically. Sanctions? Work fare? Being forced to accept very poorly paid work, abysmal working conditions and no security? The loss of social support, public services and essential safety nets ? Starvation and destitution?
The political vilification of sick and disabled people and the poor, amplified in the media, has preceded policies particularly aimed at the steady removal of State support, indicating a clear scapegoating process, and this isn’t indicative of a government that is “neglectful”- it is patently intentional, hence the pre-emptive “justification” narratives to garner public support and acceptance towards such punitive and harsh policies.
“The ideology of a small state or the belief that benefits build dependency are crass, irrelevant details to what at its core is simply a decision about how to treat a human being. This is particularly damning when one person has all the power and the other is forced through economic necessity to take whatever humiliation or pain they are given. To do that to someone – let alone hundreds of thousands – is no accident. It is a conscious decision, that has been made over and over again by this government.”
I’ve consistently expressed my own well-founded, carefully considered, evidenced view that the Tories are authoritarians, social Dawinists, and their social policies are founded on a creeping and implicit eugenics by stealth, fueled by their preference for a steeply hierarchical, unequal society, anachronistic ideas about “deserving” and “undeserving”, which belong to the 1834 Poor Law era, and a behaviourist approach to socio-economic circumstances .
In Edgbaston, Keith Joseph, (1974) announced to the world that:
“The balance of our population, our human stock is threatened … a high and rising proportion of children are being born to mothers least fitted to bring children into the world and bring them up. They are born to mothers who were first pregnant in adolescence in social classes 4 and 5. Many of these girls are unmarried, many are deserted or divorced or soon will be. Some are of low intelligence, most of low educational attainment.”
And in 2010, the former deputy chairman of Conservative Party, Lord Howard Flight, told the London Evening Standard:
“We’re going to have a system where the middle classes are discouraged from breeding because it’s jolly expensive. But for those on benefits, there is every incentive. Well, that’s not very sensible.”
These comments are not momentary lapses, nor are they unrepresentative of Tory views more generally. They reflect the true colours of the
nazi nasty party.
Pictures courtesy of Robert Livingstone
My work is unfunded and I don’t make any money from it. I am disabled because of illness and struggle to get by. But you can support Politics and Insights and contribute by making a donation which will help me continue to research and write informative, insightful and independent articles, and to provide support to others.
17 thoughts on “What will the Tories suggest next. “Compassionate” genocide?”
With the level of cuts being experienced by many disabled people it’s Eugenics through Poverty xx
Yes, killing people doesn’t require a gun or gas chambers, as Stalin found, starving people to death works and people debate for decades later if that constitutes an act of genocide…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Just when you think the nasty party and its loathsome characters can’t get any nastier, they prove you wrong.
Reblogged this on Same Difference.
Properly practised by a qualified therapist in extensive, one-to-one sessions, Cognitive Behaviour Therapy can be a valid treatment option for PTSD and other mental health problems. But reduced to the pound shop, comic book version this would-be kakistocracy has planned, it is even worse than Couéism (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Cou%C3%A9) which is – of course -utter nonsense.According to that quack, auto-suggestion could even cure diabetes, kidney problems or a uterine prolapse; not even Mansel Aylward would make claims like that of his bio-psycho-social model of disease, which seems to be the most recent version of such tom-fool mumbo-jumbo.
Unfortunately this is JUST what is happening in many Rheumy clinics. 5 years ago, the psychologist in my clinic asserted that his research proved that he could make people LESS disabled. I argued that people as ill as myself wouldn’t possibly be able to attend his 2 day a week programme (mornings in the gym; afternoon in lectures given by pain deniers, oops I mean pain specialists), so his research would be skewed.
He insisted that if I did not attend the ‘programme’ he would block all further access to the clinic (physio, psychology therapy, pain clinic). I left and sourced my own physio and counseling for the new severe symptoms I was experiencing.
3 years later, due to muscle deterioration, my knee cartilages dislocated so I couldn’t walk. My GP sent of a referral, and 2 weeks later I received the appointment. The covering page said ‘What to expect in your PSYCHOLOGY appointment. It was obvious then that he was true to his word and had blocked access to any treatment. Again, I sourced my own physio and was walking again within 6 weeks.
Sadly then, psychologists are already dominating services for physical problems. I’m quite happy to have any therapy that helps me to cope with my illness, but I think it’s very dangerous to state that such therapy can cure illness. If I had been stronger I would have reported his unethical behaviour but I just haven’t the strength.
Reblogged this on patricknelson750.
I like the angle in this article, but let’s consider a society where the people on benefits were given the cash to live lives as if they were working, as well as them having the time and less expense…it’s obvious to see the terrible future that path would lead to.
Benefits were calculated to meet basic living costs only. They were also calculated on the assumption that unemployed people would not have to find housing costs or council tax. But now they do. Rising costs of living and the fact that benefit hasn’t increased to keep pace has led to the return of absolute poverty in the UK – not seen since before the 1940s. Until now.
Most welfare cost is actually because of people in work being paid wages that are insufficient to live on, by the way. Reducing welfare clearly does not ‘make work pay.’ I can already see the ‘terrible future’ this path has led to.
Access to food is a basic human right. Benefit sanctions remove access to food. Ergo – the tories are in breach of human rights. http://www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/Food/Pages/FoodIndex.aspx
Reblogged this on Lindas Blog and commented:
Well Said Kitty……