Speaking to The Guardian, Mr Lellouche said Cameron's approach was in line with the Conservative’s decision to abandon the main centre-right EPP grouping in the European parliament, of which Mr Sarkozy's UMP party is a member. 

Mr Lellouche said: ‘They are doing what they have done in the European parliament. They have essentially castrated your UK influence in the European parliament.’ 

He accused Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague of 'autism' in their talks.

'They have one line and they just repeat one line,' he said. 'It is a very bizarre sense of autism.'

The National Autistic Society Media response: use of the terms autism and autistic

Thursday 5 November 2009

Autism (including Asperger syndrome) is a serious, lifelong and disabling condition. Comments such as those attributed to Pierre Lellouche, France's Europe Minister, in which he seemingly suggests the Conservative Party, and in particular, William Hague, demonstrate a bizarre sense of autism are therefore extremely unhelpful.

To use the terms 'autism' and 'autistic' in a derogatory or flippant manner can cause deep distress and hurt to people affected by the condition. The National Autistic Society (NAS) is keen to address this issue, in order that these terms are not used lightly, particularly by commentators or people in positions of power or influence.

Autism is much more common than most people think and affects over half a million people in the UK. To use the terms as a criticism, for dramatic effect or to try and gain political advantage only perpetuates the confusion and misunderstanding which people with autism have to cope with everyday. This is simply unacceptable and must stop.

well, that wasn't correct use at all since autism is a lifetime thing. One instance of repeating the same thing doesn't make a person autistic.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as choosing your battles and being offended isn't the end of the world. With Pluto squaring Libra I think people are beginning to see that they don't have time to worry about niceties and not offending people when there are much more pressing survival concerns.

Life is never easy for anyone.

My twin brother has autism.

That guy saying that just doesn't look very intelligent. That's just my two cents, though. How is someone "autistic" in their remarks, anyway? Does he know anyone with autism?

Maybe people will start adopting that word as something derogatory just like they have adopted "gay". 

My son is on the autistic spectrum and I don't appreciate the derogatory vein in which it was used. I also agree with the NAS when they say that it perpetuates misunderstanding of the condition.

While I am symapthetic and normally I'd question it, too, I had to do some research:

The Dictionary (www.dictionary.com in this instance; as it was readily availible)  defines "autism" in three ways:

• 1. The psychological affliction - and symtoms are described in detail
• 2. "a tendency to view life in terms of one's own needs and desires."
• 3. "Abnormal introversion and egocentricity; acceptance of fantasy rather than reality."

He likely did not even MEAN the pscyhological affliction, but instead was using definition #2.

I also thought the use of 'autism' was unnacceptable too, I heard the newsreader quote Mr Lellouche and I remember thinking at the time that it was odd, I figured he meant it was 'nulled' but it still didn't seem apt. I used to work for an autism charity and I think Lellouche should be embarassed and apologise especially since he was probably trying to sound original.

Sometimes I worry about the faulty kind of thinking, the missed points and poor judgement politicians have. The chief health advisor David Nutt was recently sacked for saying alchol and tobacco were more harmful than canabis, LSD and heroin by the Home Office and sent a letter by Alan Johnson who said he was dissapointed at professor Nutts comments which undermined the dangers of drugs.

Obviously Prof. Nutt was going by the statistics that alcohol and tobacco cause far more deaths than illegal drugs, whats worrying is that the Government have seen that the paper doesn't agree with their policy against illegal drugs and see it as a slap in the face and sack him publicly believing they've been wronged. Or they don't realise that drinking and smoking DO cause more deaths, they've have to be stupid to not grasp that drinking and smoking are more common and therefore more likely to kill than hard illegal drugs. Or maybe, it's about money 'we paid you thoudands for research and you come back with results that disagree with us?'.

I'm with Luci on this one - after all it's not called the autistic 'spectrum' for nothing.  There are degrees of the condition and the dictionary definitions show this range or spectrum.

Any word can be used creatively to express a range of ideas, but in a situation where enough people stand up and say "hey, I find that offensive"  then we should respect that and discontinue other usages. Its just common decency.

Gee luci, and opal, dictionary aside, trying being the parent of a child in the autistic spectrum, oh, maybe for an hour or two, and then we will see if you are still so unattached to stories such as these. 

Like Notatirem said, it is just common decency.  And if I am being ultry bitchy, so be it.  I too am a parent of a child in the spectrum - her life is hard enough.  She is a person - not a definition in the dictionary.

Even if William Hague was Autistic, it is completely fucked to insult him based on this condition. 

I do not find this acceptable. Would it be okay if someone messed up their words to say "way to go dyslexic boy!" Umm....NO. 

I'm not trying to upset anyone. Let me clarify:

What I'm saying is that the word has two more meanings aside fro the the physical condition.

As it was used in this instance, it's not meant to imply that this person HAS Autism, nor that he's acting like he does. They're using a different definition of the word; and it's got a legitimate base in the English language separate from the other meanings of the word.

You can compare the situation with the word "retard". Most people find that horribly offensive, and it is:  when it's used to describe someone with a mental handicap.

But if you accuse  an inefficient contractor of "retarding" your home upgrades on purpose for monetary gain, you're not saying that you think he's acting like someone with a mental handicap; you're instead using the word as it's definition of "to make slow; delay the development or progress".

Thing is, if you consider the emtomology of words and that most things meant something similiar before they were applied to conditions and diseases and other terms. It was a word BEFORE it was a lable/name for a condition.

I can understand how there's confusion. If it sounded at all to me like he was implying "autism" or "autistic" as a negative connotation of the diease/condition, I'd agree with you. But in this case I personally don't see that - it sounds like a misunderstanding to me.

well i for one had no idea that there were multiple definitions of this word, though it doesn't surprise me because loads of words do. 

so...i can't be alone, yes?? the thing is, shit loads of people are going to hear it and i'm willing to bet they aren't going to look the word up. they're just going to feel alienated. 

luci if i remember correctly you have Mercury in Aquarius/8th?? maybe this contributes to your ability to see another angle that other people are not? i just think, well there is an offending word, and then there is an Offending Word...

Kash: Yep, you're correct about my Merc. Aquarius/7th, though. :)

Anyway, that's just my take on it. This situation is in the UK - consider also that in the UK, a "fag" is a cigarette; vs. in the US where it's a derogatory word for "homosexual" (UK version? "Poof" or "Sod").

I guess I do see things differently than everyone else.

The word autistic is used in general parlance here in the UK quite separate from any reference to Autism, the condition.  For instance 'That person is emotionally autistic', meaning either definition 2 or 3 as described by Luci. One of my best friends has a son on the Autistic spectrum and we use the word in this other way all the time.  I think this is a case of the media trying to whip up emotional frenzy in any way they can, personally.

BTW I have Mercury in Aquarius also

Sorry, but it is ignorant to assume that all people on the autistic spectrum are the "same" - they are not.  Therefore, saying someone is "emotionally autistic" is absurd - this is supposed to mean I assume that people in the spectrum do not have any emotion?  Anyone who thinks that has never spent any time whatsoever with someone on the spectrum.  I am done here - some things simply cannot be explained, they have to be experienced.  I accept that not everyone can get it - all that matters is that the people who do keep standing up for those who cannot stand up for themselves.

I personally have a brother under the Autistic spectrum, a close friend whose child is completely Autistic and 2 other friends (including me) who work with special needs children. I must agree with Luci, I am sure he meant what he said as a different definition and not making fun of those who are born with special needs. I find that I am a free thinker and I don't let my panties get in a wad when someones uses a term I don't agree with. ( conjunct )

We are in control of our emotions, we have a choice to take what another says as an insult. They are not insulting us, we just choose to see it that way.

Luci, I agree that many words have more than one definition and I think your example of the use of retardation is relevant however your etymology argument does not hold up when applied to the word autism.

Since we are using dictionaries as authoritative references here, I consulted my desk copy of the Barnhart Dictionary of Etymology, The origins of American English Words, edited by Robert K. Barnhart, Harpercollins Publishers, 1988.

Autism was borrowed into English in 1912 from the relatively new German word Autismus. (Obviously cobbled together from Greek and Latin morphemes popular in scientific nomenclature.)   The German word is documented as having been coined by a Swiss psychiatrist named Paul Bleuler (also famous for coining the word Schizophrenia) to refer to the psychological disorder.

But that's just a fun fact for you, the real issue is people are not misinterpreting the comment and getting all up in arms because they feel the first definition was being used inappropriately.  People are upset because words and their definitions operate in gestalt.  You cannot divorce one meaning from another so cleanly.  The other unintended meanings of a word are always subconsciously present no matter how it is used.  

People whose lives are affected by Autism are working to dispel negative images of this disorder by claiming the word as their own and fighting uses of it that can be seen as derogatory. This is a situation where intent does not matter.  The user may not see the term as derogatory but there is a large constituent that finds it offensive, therefore, it is offensive.

There are millions of words available to describe something and no matter how innocent it may seem to you, if it becomes public knowledge that the word is taboo, please, just pick another word.

Notatirem:

Absolutely. Anyone can be offended for any reason they like; I'm not trying to take that away.

After reading the quote, my first thought was:  "That doesn't sound the same to me".

Just sayin'.  

where there are multiple meanings of a word, the pejorative meaning of the term almost always completely supersedes others over time. in a case like this, where the word is most commonly used to describe a particular condition, the currently secondary, negative meaning of the word is problematic, as it will ultimately become associated with the condition the word is most often used to describe.

Well, which is it?

If you want people to stop using it inappropriately, then you can't say that "the only way to view the word is negative", because that's exactly what you're fighting against, right?

Let it be what it is - a word that doesn't have to be negative unless you choose to allow it to be.

I vote for not insulting people based on conditions which people are born with. Using 'autistic' in an insulting context (one thing we can agree upon is that this man wasn't intending on being complimentary, yes?)--that is negative. He INTENDED on it being negative.