Implication by Association?

Everyone else is blogging about this, so I figured I might as well get in on the act.

Basically, it would appear that unreasonable demands are being made of Kathleen Seidel (pictured here with Amanda Baggs, at AutCom in Edmonton 2006), in the form of a subpoena to produce an incredible array of records for a court case with which she has little to no connection save for having written about it a couple of times, largely to explain why it's a foolish waste of time.

Or, at least, that's the impression I got. I'm not one who follows this kind of thing closely (as I have probably noted in the past), and I don't pretend to understand either law or science all that well, but I've read most of the posts about this particular issue and I can say, with a fair amount of certainty, that the subpoena is even more pointless than the case to which it pertains.

What is particularly interesting is point #5 in the subpoena, which asks for all records and correspondence Kathleen has had with people whose blogs are listed in her blogroll. In fact, the entire blogroll is reproduced in the subpoena. Including my own blog - this one you are reading right now.

I actually didn't know that Kathleen had linked here, and I'm rather honoured to learn of my inclusion in her blogroll, especially since I'm not really about "facts" and "science" but "humanity" and "emotions". The subpoena, I guess, is attempting to implicate those of us in her blogroll as aiding and abetting Kathleen in her blogging? This makes little to no sense to me. (And I do wonder if the subpoena will be able to have much impact on me anyway, given my Canadian citizenship.)

There are two main reasons I decided to post about this, though: online handles and religion.

Ralph at Homo Autistic makes a good point when he says, "I don't know if the transcript of legal cases such as "Sykes v. Bayer" are public domain but the intention (or part of it) seems to be to *out* everyone, including or maybe especially those who use nicks or pseudonyms." Now, like Ralph, I use my real name for most things online, and where I use a pseudonym to log in I am just as likely to use my real name as a signature to my posts. I've been "threatened" (unrelated to autism advocacy) with exposure online in the past, and to be perfectly honest it did not intimidate me because I've been a public figure for years; if you google my full name, you will see just what kinds of things I'm about and have been doing online over the years. So such a possibility is not exactly a concern for me, though it may well be for other people on Kathleen's blogroll.

As for religion, I find the subpoena to be concerning because of its specific mention of Islam ("religious groups (Muslim or otherwise), or individuals with religious affiliations,”). The Rev'd Lisa Sykes is a United Methodist reverend. She and her husband are seeking retribution from the drug company Bayer for reportedly causing their son's autism. Or, at least, that's what I gather.

At the same time as this trial is going on, the couple are using untested, dangerous medical interventions with their child, in the hopes that they might cure him. Again, that's what I have figured out from my reading.

I am a Christian - an Anglican, to be specific - and I am appalled at the conduct of this woman. My father is an Anglican priest, as is my uncle and one of my brothers, and this kind of abuse of the legal system is not something that makes sense in our (well, in my) understanding of Christianity. Of course, I am coming at things from the angle that autism is present at birth, which means that God either "caused it" or "allowed it", so the drug companies can't be at fault, and obviously the Rev'd Sykes is of a different opinion.

However, the subpoena is clearly an unChristian act of intimidation on the part of the Sykes' lawyer, and its specific mention of Kathleen's religion as potential cause for concern at her blogging activities is prejudicial and should not be allowed. In other words, "shame on you!"

My most recent Biblical study has been on the Creation story, as I was asked to tell it at the Easter Vigil service at the church I used to work for. But I have also recently been reading a book about confidence in women, and how we gain that through our faith and close relationship with God. When I read about Christians (and those of other religions) doing such untenable things, I wonder what their relationship with God is really like.

And that's all I have to say about that.

In other news, I would like to link you to another awesome post by David Wolman.

Oyah, the disclaimer:

• I am not involved in the production of the blog at neurodiversity.com in any way, shape, or form.
• I know nothing about US law.
• I am fairly uninformed about the case in question.
• I don't actually know a lot about biotreatments in autism.
• I am not affiliated with the Anglican church in any official capacity, unless you count my membership with my church's music team.
• I am not affiliated with David Wolman in any way, either; I just like reading his blog.
• I have met Kathleen Seidel exactly once, at AutCom in Edmonton in October 2006. That was cool. That was when I met Joel Smith, Amanda Baggs, and Kassiane Sibley (I probably spelled your name wrong, Kassi; sorry!). I've been working on a blog entry about it for a while; eventually it'll get posted.

I think that about covers it. If I've missed anything, let me know!