I want to write that I think one has to be deeply insinuated with ablest bigotry to claim that it is "undeniable" that Tracy Latimer "suffered horribly because of her horrible condition" or that it is "undeniable" that Tracy was in "constant pain". The notion that the disabled are in "constant pain", that they "suffer horribly" or that their life is a "hopeless tragedy" is the typical demagoguery of ablest bigots. In fact there Nazi executioners, ones who killed the disabled, (of course there were plenty of other groups who were targeted by the Nazis), who said that they killed the disabled "only to relieve them of unnecessary suffering". Robert Latimer defends his actions on the same grounds.
Also, the arguments people in the ICL who support Robert Latimer, Robert Latimer's more mainstream supporters and the arguments by outright fascists in support of Robert Latimer are all, I think, virtually identical (except perhaps that crap spewed by fascists about Jews controlling the government). I would also like to state again that Robert Latimer has sat back and allowed outright fascists to make his case. The fact that Robert Latimer has never disavowed the outright fascists who support him, I think is a pretty damning indictment of his own political leanings. If Robert Latimer truly was about relieving Tracy of pain and not about killing the disabled he should have stated categorically that the fascists don't represent his views. Robert Latimer to this day has not said a word against the fascists who support him. Also, Robert Latimer's behavior to the Fascists is in complete contrast to his attitude to those who stand in his way. He has referred to disability rights activists as being "abusive", he describes those who criticize him as "slanderers", who said before his first trial that "anyone who supports the charges against him is a torture-monger". Yet he and robertlatimer.net have nothing negative to say about the Fascists who support him.
Andrew said that by "all" accounts Tracy was said to be in "constant pain". All the disability rights groups I have come across refute this claim. So basically a disabled person is murdered. Andrew has the nerve to sit on his high perch and judge me on this issue but hasn't even bothered to read the perspectives of those in the disabled community. He says he doesn't know enough about the issue (boy I'll say) but that he knows enough to "know" that I am "wrong" to call Latimer's acts lynchings. Well he was only right about the first part. Frankly, the fact that he thinks Latimer was acting out of "compassion", is a testament to his own ignorance about the issue. I think if he had said that he did not know enough about the issue and left it at that he would be more accurate. I think the fact that Andrew thinks I am wrong for calling Latimer's acts an act of terror and think makes it clear how ill-informed his is. He hasn't even bothered to hear the perspectives of the disabled. It would be like in the Jim Crow South if one only heard the perspectives of whites (most of whom were racist) on the lynching of Emmett Till and based on that came to the conclusion that they "knew" that it was wrong to condemn the KKKs acts as acts of terror. I think if Andrew admitted he was ill-informed about the issue and didn't disgustingly defend Latimer he could have saved his integrity. It no crime to plead ignorance. However, Andrew has clearly chosen to destroy his integrity and credibility beyond repair.
Also, I am really at a loss at Andrew's allegations that I am "vile and hypocritical" for saying I defend the rights of the disabled. Perhaps in the tightly controlled world of Jimstown, where black is white and white is black, where war is peace, where freedom is slavery, where ignorance is strength such slanders make sense. However, I think the real world is quite different.
I think it would be too simplistic to describe Andrew and simply evil. Honestly, I think he as much the victim of his cult and its peerless leader as he is an aggressor towards me.
Comradely,
M.G.
P.S. Andrew is referred to Andrew M. is different from the Andrew referred to in On Comrade Andrew's Shameful Conduct. They are, however, both in the same cult.
No comments:
Post a Comment