Our Civil Rights

I'm interested in the idea, but I have a few concerns, the first is around establishing a clear identity

At present, to get protection under the Equality Act, you usually have to show that you have a disability. And the most common way is to provide evidence of diagnosis, or treatment (and/or medication) from your GP, or another medical professional. Evidence must clearly state whether they think/suspect you have a disability as it relates to the Equality Act. They must show that:  you have a physical or a mental impairment; it is long term and your  daily life is substantially effected in an adverse way. Sadly, the current legal advice given to clients is that 'self-diagnosis is officially discouraged by governments, physicians, and patient care organisations, because it is deemed an unreliable form of diagnosis, prone to error and may be potentially dangerous if any inappropriate decisions are made on the basis of a self-misdiagnosis'. Whether we agree with this or not, and whatever the reasons for people not seeking an assessment (for valid reasons such as infringement to civil liberty, no access to assessments, or simple assessment-hesitancy) that's how things stand. So any campaign would first have to lobby for a change to the equality act, which would be a mighty challenge in itself in view of the fact that none of the key players in the field are sympathetic to self-diagnosis. 

The next one is around the appropriation of Autism Denial, which, to my knowledge, is a term reserved for people with autism who deny their own diagnosis.  We would need a very strong argument to appropriate this term as a form of discrimination, or  hate crime, and could risk exposing autistic adults to having to defend their identity and prove that failure to comply with the EA  was NOT the result of their failure to disclose for reasons of autism denial. 

Thirdly, the idea of equating alleged failure to adhere to the equality act as a criminal act of a hate is fraught with legal and ethical complications. In order for the CPS to being a criminal case to court, they are required to provide enough evidence for a charge of criminality (via investigations from police officers).  This would mean that employees were now responsible for reporting any instances of workplace discrimination to the police, and the police would need to attend someone's workplace to pursue a criminal investigation. Can you even begin to imagine the implications, the stress and the repercussions of such a change in the Law? A dream scenario for commercial litigators, but a nightmare for employers, employees and the entire legal system.

Lastly, it is impossible to fundamentally and qualitatively change people's perceptions and behaviours with attempts to criminalise large sections of society for their previously normal behaviour.  As we have seen all to clearly, heavy-handed activism can be counter-productive and quickly be the cause of a loss of public empathy, sympathy and support. Education and visibility is always the most effective way of leading a society to self correct its outdated societal norms. Apart from in national emergencies, no government can hope to introduce new legislation without perceptions without widespread public support.

If you watch Autistic content creators on Youtube, they are raise awareness by normalising their autism in the context of current public perception and discourse, and not by advocating aggressive forced behavioural changes. And so, for me, it would mean that these societal self-corrections need to be generally accepted across all sections of a society through education and awareness and logic.

As you say, we already have protections under the Law (although there are issues with access and application). But for me, lasting positive change should have its focus on normalising autism, presenting autistic people as human beings, giving us visibility to strip away, naturally, any negative perceptions and stereotypes.  This would be my preference as opposed to a hostile reactionary movement that alienates potential allies and causes an equal and opposite pushback.

These are just my initial thoughts. 

I'm interested in the idea, but I have a few concerns, the first is around establishing a clear identity

At present, to get protection under the Equality Act, you usually have to show that you have a disability. And the most common way is to provide evidence of diagnosis, or treatment (and/or medication) from your GP, or another medical professional. Evidence must clearly state whether they think/suspect you have a disability as it relates to the Equality Act. They must show that:  you have a physical or a mental impairment; it is long term and your  daily life is substantially effected in an adverse way. Sadly, the current legal advice given to clients is that 'self-diagnosis is officially discouraged by governments, physicians, and patient care organisations, because it is deemed an unreliable form of diagnosis, prone to error and may be potentially dangerous if any inappropriate decisions are made on the basis of a self-misdiagnosis'. Whether we agree with this or not, and whatever the reasons for people not seeking an assessment (for valid reasons such as infringement to civil liberty, no access to assessments, or simple assessment-hesitancy) that's how things stand. So any campaign would first have to lobby for a change to the equality act, which would be a mighty challenge in itself in view of the fact that none of the key players in the field are sympathetic to self-diagnosis. 

The next one is around the appropriation of Autism Denial, which, to my knowledge, is a term reserved for people with autism who deny their own diagnosis.  We would need a very strong argument to appropriate this term as a form of discrimination, or  hate crime, and could risk exposing autistic adults to having to defend their identity and prove that failure to comply with the EA  was NOT the result of their failure to disclose for reasons of autism denial. 

Thirdly, the idea of equating alleged failure to adhere to the equality act as a criminal act of a hate is fraught with legal and ethical complications. In order for the CPS to being a criminal case to court, they are required to provide enough evidence for a charge of criminality (via investigations from police officers).  This would mean that employees were now responsible for reporting any instances of workplace discrimination to the police, and the police would need to attend someone's workplace to pursue a criminal investigation. Can you even begin to imagine the implications, the stress and the repercussions of such a change in the Law? A dream scenario for commercial litigators, but a nightmare for employers, employees and the entire legal system.

Lastly, it is impossible to fundamentally and qualitatively change people's perceptions and behaviours with attempts to criminalise large sections of society for their previously normal behaviour.  As we have seen all to clearly, heavy-handed activism can be counter-productive and quickly be the cause of a loss of public empathy, sympathy and support. Education and visibility is always the most effective way of leading a society to self correct its outdated societal norms. Apart from in national emergencies, no government can hope to introduce new legislation without perceptions without widespread public support.

If you watch Autistic content creators on Youtube, they are raise awareness by normalising their autism in the context of current public perception and discourse, and not by advocating aggressive forced behavioural changes. And so, for me, it would mean that these societal self-corrections need to be generally accepted across all sections of a society through education and awareness and logic.

As you say, we already have protections under the Law (although there are issues with access and application). But for me, lasting positive change should have its focus on normalising autism, presenting autistic people as human beings, giving us visibility to strip away, naturally, any negative perceptions and stereotypes.  This would be my preference as opposed to a hostile reactionary movement that alienates potential allies and causes an equal and opposite pushback.

These are just my initial thoughts.