Regarding "civility" - WikiEN-l

8 May 2006

I was disgusted, but not terribly surprised, to see that six members of the
Arbitration Committee -- Dmcdevit, Fred Bauder, JamesF/James D. Forrester,
Sean Barrett/The Epopt, Charles Matthews and Jayjg -- condone hate speech
and hateful epithets directed at the mentally disabled, and consider
condemnation of that hate speech to be unacceptable behavior on Wikipedia --
behavior, in fact, so unacceptable that they say they find it a compelling
reason to punish me.

I was a bit more surprised when an earlier form of this letter (differing
only in describing the status of the pending arbitration, aside from this
paragraph) was banned without explantion from the Wikipedia mailing list
where such topics could supposedly be discussed. But I was appalled when
discussions on that list, regarding a named editor, turned to open derision
of the editor's supposed emotional/mental impairments, and that one
Arbitration Committee member participated in the abuse.

As someone who has been involved for more than thirty years, professionally
and nonprofessionally, in attempting to protect and to advance the rights of
the mentally disabled, and as someone who for many years has served, and
continues to serve as a guardian for such disabled members of my community.
I find the use of such epithets grossly offensive; they are clearly
inconsistent with Wikipedia's supposed commitment to civility. They form no
part of civil discourse in any circumstances. They are particularly
deserving of condemnation because they are directed toward, in very real
terms attack, and have the greatest tendency to injure, a class of people
who are less able, sometimes unable, to defend themselves, to resist the
impact, or to respond on equal terms. [And, as a note to the politically
correct, it is for that reason that I will not use the abominable term
"mentally challenged," because it denies (sometimes grossly minimizes) the
imbalances of social power that inhere in the relationships between the
mentally disabled and the "unchallenged" elements of any community.]

It should be no secret, no obscure facet of social fabric, that the mentally
disabled, particularly the mentally retarded, are at greater risk than
almost any other segment of a society.  More likely to be the victims of
physical attacks. More likely to be neglected by governments, particularly
when their needs are greatest.  In the relatively rare instances when they
have substantial assets, they are more likely to have their assets stolen,
particularly at the hands of those actors on whom a government has conferred
power over them. They are more likely to be degraded and exploited by
industries which purport to protect them and to serve their interests. More
like to be the victims of sexual assaults, particularly of organized, group
sexual assaults.

The casual use of such hateful epithets does not only harm the individuals
it targets. It causes pain, often great pain to many others. It regularly
inflicts pain on those with brothers and sisters, with parents, with
children, with friends, with acquaintances, even with clients, who are
abused and dehumanized by such behavior. It regularly inflicts pain on so
many of those who deal, day by day, with lesser mental and emotional
impairments, whether they choose to acknowledge those impairments, publicly
or privately, or not.

I am quite proud that a self-styled community which apparently condones such
behavior and condemns opposition to it finds me such a danger to it and its
values that it is preparing to forcibly separate me from it. Nothing I have
contributed to this curious place makes me more proud, and I doubt anything
else could.

User: Monicasdude

Not licensed, no rights released