Last night on 3News, a story was screened covering the recent discovery that a whole bunch of police officers over in New York had been apparently fraudulently claiming pensions and other financial assistance they weren't entitled to, after having comprehensively faked (or, depending upon whom you believe, exaggerated) serious mental disorders, chiefly as a result of (according to hte forms) PTSD brought about by 9/11.
Now, clearly, I'm not going to sit here and type up something exculpating potentially crooked cops for claiming to be mentally ill; and especially not until we've got some rather more comprehensive facts.
But what I am going to note, is that while, yes, there is an element of bathos inherent in accompanying a story about police officers who're claiming to have been too depressed to head outside, lead normal lives etc. with photos of said police officers outside, on jet-skis, going fishing etc. ... it does occur that people with mental issues *also* can enjoy outdoor recreational pursuits, potentially as a rare respite from one's condition, and that this is basically another example of the same sketch presentation of persons with different capacities as that contained in David Shearer's now-famous "Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof" story.
Now, some elucidation may be required as to what I meant by "and that this is basically another example of the same sketch presentation of persons with different capacities as that contained in David Shearer's now-famous "Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof" story."
Well, let me put it this way. Once upon a time, there was a Labour politician called David Shearer, who decided that the best possible thing he could do as leader of a nominally compassionate, left wing party that basically built large chunks of our modern wellfare state ... was to go soft-bene-bashing in a questionable bid to win over the mythical Middle New Zealand voter, who apparently cares mostly about tax-cuts and boat races.
Mr Shearer therefore made a speech which made use of an example supposedly drawn from his own constituency - of an ordinary, salt-of-the-earth, gainfully employed Kiwi raising a complaint with the then-Leader of the Opposition about a situation of manifest injustice. Namely, that the State seemed powerless to help HIM (the able-bodied worker with a job), but could nevertheless afford to fork out a sickness benefit for a dude who was apparently visible up on the roof of his house, painting it.
Now, we'll leave aside the bit about it later turning out said Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof (yah-dah-dah-dah-dah dada-dada-daaa da-dada-daa-da-daaaaaaaaaaa [that's supposed to be me humming Fiddler on the Roof, in case you can't tell]) didn't actually exist, and just focus on two things here:
First up, sickness benefits get allocated for an incredibly broad array of conditions, including mental health ones, specific impairments, non-visual impairments ... and, generally, a whole lot of conditions that, while they prevent the sufferer from actually holding down a regular 40-hour-a-week-job, may not actually prevent them from heading up on the roof of their house to carry out some essential maintenance.
So, by implying that sickness beneficiaries had no place on roofs unless they were rorting the system, Mr Shearer very unfairly stigmatized an activity which may be quite vital to the upkeep and maintenance of a home - quite literally keeping a roof over one's head. I suppose it's possible to write it off as a mere rhetorical flourish ... but there was a very real sense that if you were a known sickness beneficiary who was carrying out repairs to his or her home, you might attract some level of opprobium for it.
So ye. Labour wound up further demarcating the "acceptable" behaviors of sickness beneficiaries.
Now, I feel that the analogy with "photos-of-cops-having-fun-in-the-outdoors" is pretty self-evident ... but just in case it isn't, I'm vibing that displaying pictures of people who are theoretically depressed etc. having outdoorsy fun and implying "THIS IS NOT TYPICAL, NOR NORMAL! SCAM AFOOT!" sorta again demarcates what is and isn't acceptable behavior for somebody experiencing that mental state.
Which, when your mind's imposing enough limits on you at the time, does not need additional help manufacturing manacles through the media.
Well, let me put it this way. Once upon a time, there was a Labour politician called David Shearer, who decided that the best possible thing he could do as leader of a nominally compassionate, left wing party that basically built large chunks of our modern wellfare state ... was to go soft-bene-bashing in a questionable bid to win over the mythical Middle New Zealand voter, who apparently cares mostly about tax-cuts and boat races.
Mr Shearer therefore made a speech which made use of an example supposedly drawn from his own constituency - of an ordinary, salt-of-the-earth, gainfully employed Kiwi raising a complaint with the then-Leader of the Opposition about a situation of manifest injustice. Namely, that the State seemed powerless to help HIM (the able-bodied worker with a job), but could nevertheless afford to fork out a sickness benefit for a dude who was apparently visible up on the roof of his house, painting it.
Now, we'll leave aside the bit about it later turning out said Sickness Beneficiary On The Roof (yah-dah-dah-dah-dah dada-dada-daaa da-dada-daa-da-daaaaaaaaaaa [that's supposed to be me humming Fiddler on the Roof, in case you can't tell]) didn't actually exist, and just focus on two things here:
First up, sickness benefits get allocated for an incredibly broad array of conditions, including mental health ones, specific impairments, non-visual impairments ... and, generally, a whole lot of conditions that, while they prevent the sufferer from actually holding down a regular 40-hour-a-week-job, may not actually prevent them from heading up on the roof of their house to carry out some essential maintenance.
So, by implying that sickness beneficiaries had no place on roofs unless they were rorting the system, Mr Shearer very unfairly stigmatized an activity which may be quite vital to the upkeep and maintenance of a home - quite literally keeping a roof over one's head. I suppose it's possible to write it off as a mere rhetorical flourish ... but there was a very real sense that if you were a known sickness beneficiary who was carrying out repairs to his or her home, you might attract some level of opprobium for it.
So ye. Labour wound up further demarcating the "acceptable" behaviors of sickness beneficiaries.
Now, I feel that the analogy with "photos-of-cops-having-fun-in-the-outdoors" is pretty self-evident ... but just in case it isn't, I'm vibing that displaying pictures of people who are theoretically depressed etc. having outdoorsy fun and implying "THIS IS NOT TYPICAL, NOR NORMAL! SCAM AFOOT!" sorta again demarcates what is and isn't acceptable behavior for somebody experiencing that mental state.
Which, when your mind's imposing enough limits on you at the time, does not need additional help manufacturing manacles through the media.
[Elements of this post originally appeared on my fb on Thursday 9th January]
7 months ago
