This
offensive advertisement, shamefully, was published in the Irish Times,
the 'quality' newspaper, on Wednesday August 22, 2007. You are invited
to make your comments to the Managing Director of the Irish Times,
Maeve Donovan, The Irish Times Building, 24-28 Tara Street, Dublin 2,
and to the Letters Editor (for publication) at the same address or
lettersed@irish-times.ie
See below the advert for more information
The Wellbeing Foundation, MindFreedom Ireland, and several individuals and organisations made immediate and emphatic complaints to the Advertising Standards Authority, the NNI itself, the Equality Authority, and other bodies, as well as to the Irish Times.
Thanks largely to contacts initiated by the chairman of the ASAI, the NNI has now agreed ( 24 August 2007) to 'pull' the advertisement from the series of three. It will not appear again in any of their publications, we have been informed by an officer of the organisation. We appreciate this swift action to remove this offensive and potentially damaging advert from publication. We are still at a loss to understand how the Irish Times even considered running it: perhaps the editor or the md will explain this in the coming days.
For their and everyone's information, John Redican, chair of the Irish Advocacy Network, wrote an illuminating article on 'Mental Health and Equality' for the Equality Authority's magazine, Equality News. It focuses on the denigrating and insulting terminology around mental health, and the extent to which it both expresses and reinforces prejudice against those with a mental health problem.
Editors, journalist, and the 'creative' copy-writers in advertising agencies would do well to educate themselves by reading it, and to realise that the use of abusive and insulting speech may fall within the terms of the Equality Acts as an actionable matter or an offence.
Mental Health and Inequality
By John Redican, Chief Executive, Irish Advocacy Network
People
who have mental ill-health often try to conceal their illness for fear
that others may treat them unfavourably or discriminate against them.
There is ample evidence that this fear is well founded. A recent report
by the UK Employers' Forum on disability states: "despite gradually
changing attitudes there continues to be considerable discrimination
against people with mental health problems". Employment is not the only
area where such discrimination occurs. Problems in accessing suitable
housing or in availing of the same level of financial services as the
rest of the population are a commonplace experience, while some level
of social rejection is almost universal.
In order to bring an end to discrimination against those who have poor mental health, we must challenge not only the acts and beliefs which result in such treatment, but also the notion that they are "different". Mental illness, just like any other illness, is part of the human condition. Not all of us contract cancer or diabetes, for example, but there is a broad risk. The same is true for mental illness. What is different, however, is the way in which treatment for mental illness may be given. A diagnosis of mental illness is one of the few diagnosis for which treatment may be forcibly administered, and for which people may be removed from society without their consent and detained without judicial review. The long delay in implementing the 2001 Mental Health Act, which addresses these anomalies, serves to illustrate how extraordinarily difficult it can be for those with a mental illness to gain even limited protection of their most basic human rights.
The Equality Authority has proven its effectiveness in supporting casework in relation to discriminatory acts. Stereotypical beliefs and misconceptions about those who are diagnosed or labelled as mentally ill, however, cannot be easily addressed, and continue to fuel the stigma which attaches to people who suffer mental ill-health, which in turn diminishes their status as citizens. If the Equality Authority is to succeed against all forms of discrimination, then it must define for itself its role in challenging stigma, the root cause of many acts of discrimination against those with mental health problems and a major factor in defining them as different.
Antilocution, or the way in which misconceptions and stereotypes are unwittingly promoted and reinforced through the language commonly used in connection with mental ill-health, contributes to stigma. This issue goes largely unrecognised. The language used within treatment facilities is an example. Consider the following:
The language of everyday life is no different. The best way of defining someone's status in a community is often to listen to the things that are said about them behind their backs, and most of us have heard the objectionable and insulting terms by which people with poor mental health are likely to be described.
Societal misconceptions make it difficult for people with mental health problems to get a job or to find good quality accommodation. People with mental health problems are then generalised as unemployable or living in squalor. It becomes extremely difficult for these people to live ordinary lives and then it is said that they are in some way abnormal.
In sections of the print media, inappropriate language is used in a way that would not be tolerated if it were applied to other groupings. A newspaper article, for example, in the last few weeks was headlined: 'PSYCHO DRUG DEALER'
Examining the story from a different perspective revealed that the individual in question was attempting to obtain the largest market share possible for his product, he promoted it as desirable and
trendy, he capitalised upon his competitors' weaknesses and he was ruthless in his pursuit of bad debts. He wanted to become the sole agent for its supply. In fact, he displayed more of the attributes of a successful businessman than he did those of a person suffering poor mental health. Yet imagine the outrage if the headline had described him in entrepreneurial terms!
This casual use of terms like "psycho" or "crazy" belittles and offends those who experience mental ill-health. I accept that this is mostly unintentional (although intentional ignorance also exists), and reflects back to times when little heed was given to the "correctness" of our language. Other "different" groups are no longer so frequently described in terms that offend them and it is time that this understanding and awareness was extended to those with a mental health problem. This is vital since there is an insidious effect that occurs. Constant use and acceptance of discriminatory language makes people feel bad about themselves and the way they are. It strikes at the heart of self-esteem and makes people with poor mental health begin to internalise the discrimination and to collude with it. It is the beginning of the road to selfstigmatisation and despair.
This is not an exhaustive examination of the discrimination and inequality faced by people with poor mental health, it is more an introduction. In order to progress we need to abandon the language of disability and difference, and embrace the notion of diversity and inclusion. Bodies like the Equality Authority can attack discriminatory practice in other ways than through casework. All leading independent statutory bodies need to design progressive programmes for using their resources to advance the right of all marginalised groups to inclusion and full participation in society on a truly equal footing. We have much to be proud of in Ireland; let us begin to be proud of the way that we treat our most vulnerable citizens.
I am indebted to the late Kieran Crowe for the many lively discussions we enjoyed on this subject, and his insight and understanding contributed in large part to this article.
This article is taken from the Spring 2006 edition of Equality NewsIn order to bring an end to discrimination against those who have poor mental health, we must challenge not only the acts and beliefs which result in such treatment, but also the notion that they are "different". Mental illness, just like any other illness, is part of the human condition. Not all of us contract cancer or diabetes, for example, but there is a broad risk. The same is true for mental illness. What is different, however, is the way in which treatment for mental illness may be given. A diagnosis of mental illness is one of the few diagnosis for which treatment may be forcibly administered, and for which people may be removed from society without their consent and detained without judicial review. The long delay in implementing the 2001 Mental Health Act, which addresses these anomalies, serves to illustrate how extraordinarily difficult it can be for those with a mental illness to gain even limited protection of their most basic human rights.
The Equality Authority has proven its effectiveness in supporting casework in relation to discriminatory acts. Stereotypical beliefs and misconceptions about those who are diagnosed or labelled as mentally ill, however, cannot be easily addressed, and continue to fuel the stigma which attaches to people who suffer mental ill-health, which in turn diminishes their status as citizens. If the Equality Authority is to succeed against all forms of discrimination, then it must define for itself its role in challenging stigma, the root cause of many acts of discrimination against those with mental health problems and a major factor in defining them as different.
Antilocution, or the way in which misconceptions and stereotypes are unwittingly promoted and reinforced through the language commonly used in connection with mental ill-health, contributes to stigma. This issue goes largely unrecognised. The language used within treatment facilities is an example. Consider the following:
* Patients have dance therapy, they have art therapy, they have group
discussion therapy; they do not hold dances, go to art classes or
gather for a social chat;
* Managers use strategies to get what they want; patients are manipulative;
* Staff may assert themselves; patients get aggressive;
* Nurses often daydream; patients withdraw; and
* Perhaps someone could also explain what is so different about the bodily functions of staff that they require separate toilet facilities?
* Managers use strategies to get what they want; patients are manipulative;
* Staff may assert themselves; patients get aggressive;
* Nurses often daydream; patients withdraw; and
* Perhaps someone could also explain what is so different about the bodily functions of staff that they require separate toilet facilities?
The language of everyday life is no different. The best way of defining someone's status in a community is often to listen to the things that are said about them behind their backs, and most of us have heard the objectionable and insulting terms by which people with poor mental health are likely to be described.
Societal misconceptions make it difficult for people with mental health problems to get a job or to find good quality accommodation. People with mental health problems are then generalised as unemployable or living in squalor. It becomes extremely difficult for these people to live ordinary lives and then it is said that they are in some way abnormal.
In sections of the print media, inappropriate language is used in a way that would not be tolerated if it were applied to other groupings. A newspaper article, for example, in the last few weeks was headlined: 'PSYCHO DRUG DEALER'
Examining the story from a different perspective revealed that the individual in question was attempting to obtain the largest market share possible for his product, he promoted it as desirable and
trendy, he capitalised upon his competitors' weaknesses and he was ruthless in his pursuit of bad debts. He wanted to become the sole agent for its supply. In fact, he displayed more of the attributes of a successful businessman than he did those of a person suffering poor mental health. Yet imagine the outrage if the headline had described him in entrepreneurial terms!
This casual use of terms like "psycho" or "crazy" belittles and offends those who experience mental ill-health. I accept that this is mostly unintentional (although intentional ignorance also exists), and reflects back to times when little heed was given to the "correctness" of our language. Other "different" groups are no longer so frequently described in terms that offend them and it is time that this understanding and awareness was extended to those with a mental health problem. This is vital since there is an insidious effect that occurs. Constant use and acceptance of discriminatory language makes people feel bad about themselves and the way they are. It strikes at the heart of self-esteem and makes people with poor mental health begin to internalise the discrimination and to collude with it. It is the beginning of the road to selfstigmatisation and despair.
This is not an exhaustive examination of the discrimination and inequality faced by people with poor mental health, it is more an introduction. In order to progress we need to abandon the language of disability and difference, and embrace the notion of diversity and inclusion. Bodies like the Equality Authority can attack discriminatory practice in other ways than through casework. All leading independent statutory bodies need to design progressive programmes for using their resources to advance the right of all marginalised groups to inclusion and full participation in society on a truly equal footing. We have much to be proud of in Ireland; let us begin to be proud of the way that we treat our most vulnerable citizens.
I am indebted to the late Kieran Crowe for the many lively discussions we enjoyed on this subject, and his insight and understanding contributed in large part to this article.
Back to top