Published on 12, July, 2020
So I’ve been thinking about a hypothetical charity that could help protect autistic people from discrimination. I’d like to hear peoples thoughts about my idea. Does it seem plausible. If it existed would you personally use it?
As mentioned in other threads if you are discriminated against because of your autism and it isn’t something that would end up in a judicial review or employment or special educational needs tribunal you will only be able to enforce the law by suing the person or organisation discriminating against you.
What’s worse you will usually not be able to claim any legal aid. Unlike physical disability cases, cases involving discrimination against autism can be quite complex, you’re often primarily seeking an injunction not damages, so you may end up on the fast or multi track at the county court instead of the small claims track. If that happens and you loose you have to pay for the other sides lawyer. It can be hard to find a lawyer to represent you on a no win no fee basis since even if you win the damages could be quite small for them to claim a share of.
As Doug Paulley (who has brought a number of disability discrimination cases to court on his own without a lawyer) put it, “Nowadays, it’s almost impossible to find money for legal representation (i.e. solicitors etc.) Thanks to the Government, the Legal Aid system is on its knees, and even “No Win No Fee” solicitors struggle to take on Equality Act cases due to poorly thought-out changes in funding rules.”
Consequently I propose a new access to justice charity with the working title autism 114. Section 114 of the equality act is the section that covers all the discrimination that isn’t covered by a special case like employment tribunals. The kind of cases you can’t usually get legal aid for.
And many many more.
The fastest way is probably to approach notable philanthropists who might be sympathetic to such a cause. Long term, public fund raising is the only way to keep something like this going, but once you’ve pushed a few cases through the courts you’d have a track record you could use to fund raise with. Initial funding to push a handful of cases through court would start things going. Especially if one or two of those cases went on to make notable caselaw.
In principle, yes. Fundraising is difficult, though, particularly right now. You're not talking about can- shaking and a few sponsored events. Don't underestimate it.
"Notable philanthropists" get bombarded with stuff and generally don't work that way - they set out with a plan of their own and are effective at protecting themselves against such approaches, unless you have personal contact. They tend not to be sitting there waiting for someone to crop up with a great idea; they go into it because they're already fired-up about something.
They're usually very "well protected" by the mechanisms they put around themselves. Even if you have a personal contact, they can be highly resistant to ad-hoc 'great causes' because they can't support everything.
Companies generally only provide money if there's a clear link to their branding, key messaging etc.
You used to be able to get directories of companies that sponsor things and profiles of the kind of thing they'd look at, and who to approach (doubtless all online now). You had to buy the directories (not cheap), so doubtless a paywall, now. I can't offhand think of any company with deep pockets that would have a close-enough link to the issue to come-up with the relevant cash.
I did it for Olympic level sport, an environmental campaign, and a military charity in the 90s and swore 'never again'. Those campaigns were all highly targeted, skilled, well resourced, with team members who were experienced professional fund-raisers, major PR and advertising agencies on board, all that; but it was a dispiriting experience that absolutely soaked up time, energy and cost.
We got millions of words in news print, loads of TV and radio, even millions of words / hours of coverage in provincial and regional media. We got interviewed by US, European & Japanese media. We got some money in - more than six figures - but it wasn't worth it. Given what was spent, over about two years in each case, it barely washed its face.
Even back then it was considered the mark of amateurs to approach people without knowing their sponsorship strategy, including the outcomes they wanted (it's sponsosrhip, at that level, not philanthropy - it's a deal, with a detailed contract, including get out clauses for them).
For a major sponsor you had to redesign your operating model to match their requirements. Each approach had to be individualised and you had to do hundreds of them to get a bite.
People like the RSPB, the RSPCA, the Lifeboats, cancer charities, ex servicemens' charities, even the NAS, are extremely well 'storied' and have become highy skilled at this; they can prove, with hard data, that their demographic is a close match to that of a brand sponsor; they have huge membership bases that sponsors can do 'relationship marketing' with etc. The money for campaigns like that would come from the same pool you'd be fishing in, so however different you think you are, that's who you're competing with.
The storytelling on a thing like this wouldn't have the pull that most of these folks have. You need emotion. The ability to do that can be restricted with legal issues, and suing people (for whatever reason) is one of those things that can cut two ways with the public.
It might be better to campaign for something like this within an existing infrastructure, such as the NAS perhaps.
My bet is that NAS wouldn't touch this with a barge pole. I expect a lot of the cases to be controversial as mine was. As you say that cuts both ways with the public. But it might appeal to philanthropists who themselves hold controversial views. My tactic would be to target philanthropists who have already put money into controversial projects.
I expect the majority of 114 type cases to be autistic people being thrown out or being otherwise threatened with being thrown out for their autistic behaviour. Think scenarios like:
Cases like these that divide opinion are likely to appeal to philanthropists with traditional liberal / pro free speech positions. That is the story and the demographic we'd be advised to target. It doesn't really fit with corporate fund raising. Corporations don't like controversy.
But one of the reasons I’m asking for people’s personal experiences of discrimination is I want to test my assumption that the majority of cases are going to fit that mould. That is section 15 cases (discrimination arising from disability) where an autistic person is penalised for something their autism caused them to do. Or section 20(3) cases (reasonable adjustments to policies, criteria and practices) where there is a rule or policy that places an unreasonable expectation upon autistic people.