I recently came across an article in a local newspaper that scared me. It scared me because the stigmatizing attitudes it conveyed - attitudes, I know, that are not unique - came from an elected official in a small town. While those of us in large urban cities often plug into politics and politicians, I know that there are a lot of people who look to their elected officials to shape their thoughts. In the least, it is these elected officials who are shaping policies.
The article I'm referencing is: Gun bill targets mentally ill in KnoxNews. It quotes Rep. Frank Niceley, a Republican from Strawberry Plains - and opens with him saying "Right now, you can get out of a mental institution in the morning and buy a gun that afternoon. I'm a so-called gun nut, and I think that's just wrong." The article goes on to convey continually more stigmatizing views: "Niceley said he sees it as arguably more important to provide mental illness records than criminal records. 'A criminal may rob you and may shoot one person,' he said. 'A crazy person may be trying to set a record for how many people he can kill, like at Virginia Tech.'"
While the author of the article does a good job at balancing Nicey's quotes with those of NAMI, a national mental health organization that explains that people with a mental illness are no more likely to be violent than those without; his quotes, and his attitudes, are harmful enough. We elect officials into office because we feel they can best represent us, our opinions, and our needs. How do we make sure that they are the most educated on any given topic they can be? I wouldn't be surprised if someone who didn't already have that stigmatizing view has it now, as a result of the crass words of one elected official.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Great post- very timely and thought provoking. Here are my reactions-
1. I believe people do elect the person they feel best represents them- in this case I am worried about the whole area he represents. We need to help educate him and them- and before the next election!
2. I really hate his quote-a criminal may rob and shoot one person vs. a crazy person may shoot a record # of people, etc. I think anyone who shoots anyone is a criminal. If someone has a mental illness and shoots 30 people- that person is still a criminal- right? There are too many reasons why I don't like what he said, I'll stop there.
That is shocking--and upsetting. Shudder inducing. So glad you posted.
A few reactions-
1- As advocates, we really need to address the roots of violence and the roots of mental illness--when they intersect, and how for the majority of people with mental ilness, that they do not intersect.
2- The shocking part of the language for me is that it rings with a kind of faux-country-common-sense-of-the-people that georgie bush has mastered.
3- Is it possible that "gun nuts" are going to be particularly phobic of people with mental illness in the same way that closeted gay men are often the most expressively homophobic?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ross-szabo/mental-health-advocates-w_b_51662.html
"As someone who travels the U.S. speaking to nearly 100,000 young adults every year about the stigma surrounding mental illness" compares precisely with "As someone who travels the U.S. speaking to nearly 100,000 young adults every year about the stigma surrounding rape." Editors would not run the latter, reinforcing the suggestion, would not consider it, why reinforce the former?
Post a Comment