Trigger warning: Girl gets arrested, seemingly for being Autistic in a built up area.

I agree, what worries me the most is how autistic people are viewed by the state.

I had recently read about how Canada and the Netherlands had been coercing autistic adults into euthanization.

Scary to think that Aktion T4 was not learnt from at all by so called civil state services in the western world.

And as much as I don’t want to be vindictive if there are no consequences with this sort of thing really they’ll just keep on happening

From what I observed, it really was a show of power from the female officer.

I think the other officers are more responsible though as they should of pulled the female officer away from the situation.

Just a thought, maybe the fact that the female officer was a woman and possibly gay, the male officers where intimidated by her and felt they would get in more trouble pulling her away from the situation then just letting it play out.

From the fact the female officer has walked away from this without any disciplinary action against her, shows that maybe the case.

In this context the term protest seems more appropriate than pride. However if we call it autistic pride it’s that much harder for the police to deny us the right to close the roads and March.

Peter said:

maybe pride isn’t the best terminolog

We could have a Seculsion of autists - that feels about right ;)

If I may say so it’s been my observation that when campaigning groups and political pressure groups start getting too wide and making it about everything it starts becoming about nothing.

The issues get lost in the noise. People get overloaded and confused by the number of different issues the movement is ‘about.’ This would be about one thing, autistic people’s rights not to be persecuted, criminalised or excluded for giving incidental or unintentional offence.

maybe pride isn’t the best terminology for that but it’s a quick and easy handle for people to get their heads around and it’s already being used for similar sorts of parades.

Sums up my political experience rather well.

I don't find "pride" to be a very useful attitude myself, anymore than I've found my own Autism engenders respect in other people. 

I also think this video shows a much wider, more serious societal problem than Autism. Even if the girl had been a lippy, nasty, piece of work under the influence of drink, did our police handle her right?

IF we were going to march down the street complaining about the actual problem, (the inexorable transition from UK policing from the "dixon of dock green" model, to the IDF inspired methods used routinely to handle the public today, and showcased in that video) in unity with the NT majority, I'd be prepared to participate.

But that's just me, probably focussing on my own beefs and missing the point, tbf.

Like some sort of covid style socially distanced match maybe 2m between every person

Who said it has to be an OG Pride march, we could make it like a socially-distanced twilight funeral procession, we could have a cohort of close-carers form a wide air-tight phalanx around the whole perimeter..

Peter said:

should we have an autistic pride march in Leeds?

Remember the people you are trying to get together often hate crowds, loud noises, changes to their routine and having to socialise so as a collective we are particularly unsuited to this tactic.

Ironic, isn't it.

Do you know what we should do. We should have a march. They have been autistic pride march’s before. But we should have one in Leeds specifically about this. A celebration of autistic insensitivity and plain speaking. If we timed it right it might even coincide with the discrimination hearing assuming this case actually comes to court.

I know there’s a broad range of different views but I think there is at least some consensus here but what happened was unacceptable and that culture in the police and society at large needs to change regarding dealing with autistic people who say things that make others uncomfortable. Maybe we don’t have consensus on what that change should be but I think we all agree on most of us agreed that change is needed.

would people here be interested in organising an autistic pride march in Leeds to protest this sort of thing?

Also unfortunately society has a long history of celebrating terrorists after the fact. The suffragettes committed acts of violence they would be considered terrorist today.

Nelson Mandela was on the United States terrorist watchlist until 2008. he was considered a terrorist in South Africa he was involved in organising the militant wing of the anti-apartheid party. They systematically sabotage the government property.

like it or not history has shown that it is forgiving of terrorists if the change they affect is generally viewed as being for the better. If it has made the world a fairer place.

now for myself personally the weight of a human life is far too heavy a thing for anyone to have on their conscience. But when you are a tiny minority and society ignores your needs and your voice I can absolutely understand why some people might feel driven to creating a shocking spectacle in order to have their voice heard.

I’ve always disliked the word extremism. It inherently suggested anything outside of the norm is somehow dangerous or wrong.

also as a label it’s largely used to lump people who have political views similar to terrorists, but who do not necessarily advocate violence, in with actual terrorists. It’s an extremely dangerous thing to do to portray people as if they were terrorists because their political views are far outside of the norm.

I Sperg said:

I find I'm as isolated in my thinking here, politically speaking as I am in most public places.

Then thinking from a society perspective, should the majority accept you as a radicalised minority to exercise your opinions and radicalising others?

Put in those terms it starts to look a lot like extremism, so you have to ask - is it?

I'm not talking about autism, but the brand you are talking about of "weaponised autism".

This should make for an interesting discourse of "do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few".

That said, we do get a rough deal in society so I entirely get where you are coming from.

"Whole squadron of rainbow hatted rozzers" - Priceless! 

5:00 to 5:29 is exactly my kind of Autism.

I've been totally stymied to find how rare it seems to be here.

I thought I'd find many more kindred sprits, and maybe we could try and organise, and maybe whomp up some durable solutions to the big problems that don't involve massive loss of life, or criminalising the population but I find I'm as isolated in my thinking here, politically speaking as I am in most public places. Occasionally another half demoralised kindred spirit appears, but no Autistic "Eureka moment".

Even the ones here who seem to understand the concept and application of "Weaponised Autism", (My kid bought me the tee shirt, bless!) seem to have no idea how to use it sensibly... (myself included, probably)

I don’t normally share opinion piece video essays here. But since it’s relatively short and since the creator identifies him self as being autistic i’d like your opinions on what he says towards the end of the video about weaponised autism saving the world.

https://youtu.be/4qpNlMUoqKc

so what do you guys think? is autism the solution? the antidote? to conformist totalitarianism?

So we have more news. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12399911/Revealed-Mother-autistic-daughter-16-dragged-home-police-saying-female-officer-lesbian-like-nana-set-SUE-force.html

First hugely pleased to see the police are likely to get sued over this. Secondly we now know the domestic setting clause of section 5 does not apply. The police women was stood outside of the house when the alleged comments were made. The exemption for domestic activity only applies if both parties are inside a house. The logical conclusion then since the police are taking no further action is that they have determined that the comments themselves (by virtue of the context and content) were not actionable which is what I would expect and the question now arises as to why the police on the scene thought they were actionable.

In terms of the equality act there are likely to be 2 torts (civil offences). One relating to section 15 Discrimination arising from disability and one relating to sections 20-22 failiour to make reasonable adjustments.

First people will ask, isn't the police exempt as they were only enforcing the law? Well probably not, section 29(6-7) clearly states "A person must not, in the exercise of a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public, do anything that constitutes discrimination, harassment or victimisation. A duty to make reasonable adjustments applies to <...> a person who exercises a public function that is not the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public."

Now schedule 3: 3(1)(d) says "Section 29 does not apply to <...> anything done for the purpose of reaching, or in pursuance of, a decision not to commence or continue criminal proceedings." And if they have a defence under the equality act that is likely to be it. However this is unlikely to work. The EHRC in its statutory code of practice identifies arrest as a situation in which reasonable adjustments must be made. Which suggests 3(1)(d) is not construed so widely as to cover all action taking place in criminal investigations but maybe just the narrower issue of the process of deciding whether or not to bring charges. For example the police / CPS could probably not be sued for failing to take expert advice from an autism specialist on whether or not to bring charges.

So the question of whether to make an arrest and when and how is likely subject to the equality act.

So section 15 is as follows

1. A person (A) discriminates against a disabled person (B) if—
   1. A treats B unfavourably because of something arising in consequence of B's disability, and
   2. A cannot show that the treatment is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.
2. Subsection (1) does not apply if A shows that A did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B had the disability.

In this case lets say the unfavourable action was the making of the arrest. We know subsection 2 does not apply we've seen the video evidence of them being told she was autistic. Does 1a apply? Well expert evidence will probably be called for but I think there is a clear argument that autism could cause someone not to realise that saying someone looked like a lesbian might be seen as insulting. The police might offer a defence that a neurotypical would also not have thought this offensive but if they do that they are likely to shoot themselves in the foot for a separate false imprisonment tort.

Assuming they assert and the court accepts that the statement could be reasonably interpreted as potentially offensive by most people, and assuming the court accepts that autism caused the girl to be unaware of this section 1a is satisfied.

Because of section 136 that says "If there are facts from which the court could decide, in the absence of any other explanation, that a person (A) contravened the provision concerned, the court must hold that the contravention occurred. ... But subsection (2) does not apply if A shows that A did not contravene the provision." In short once there is enough evidence for the plaintiff for the judge to decide the defendant did it, in the absence of their defence, the defendants now effectively has to prove their innocence with their defence."

What this usually means is once 1a is satisfied its upto the defence to come up with an excuse in section 1b. Case law (Akerman-Livingstone v Aster Communities ) indicates that the objective test has 4 components

1. was there a legitimate aim (enforcing the law is clearly legitimate)
2. was the aim logically connected to the action taken
3. was the action taken as minimal (in terms of being unfavourable to the disabled person) as possible
4. was the impact of the action on the disabled person outweighed by other benefits.

The police are likely to struggle with points 2 and 3. 2 because they didn't charge the disabled person and arguably should have known the statements weren't likely to rise to the level necessary for charges at the time. Especially in the context of the girl being autistic (because state of mind does have baring on a section 5 public order offence). Again on point 2 there is overlap with false imprisonment although the standards of proof are likely to be different. They will struggle with point 3 because there may have been other options open to them. There was no urgency to make the arrest. The principal physical evidence was on the body cam footage already acquired. The girl could have been arrested the day after after calming down, questioned under caution in her own home or asked to attend interview under caution voluntarily. At the very list the officers present could have waited until there was an officer with suitable training present to make the arrest.

This dovetails neatly into reasonable adjustments. There are plenty of reasonable adjustments that should have been made regarding the way she was arrested. section 20(2) says "The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage."

I think there is a clear argument that being manhandled in an arrest is more disadvantageous to an autistic person who finds physical contact with strangers distressing. Also deciding how physical force or restraint is or isn't used in an arrest is clearly a form of provision, criterion or practice. Section 20 is likely to apply. So what reasonable steps could they have taken? Again the lack of urgency will work against the police. They could have taken more time to calm her down. Found an adult who might be able to talk her into voluntarily going with the police with out restraint / force. They could have waited for a police officer with suitable training to be available to advise them how to make the arrest.

In this case the relevant mater is determined in schedule 2 2(4) "In relation to each requirement, the relevant matter is the provision of the service, or the exercise of the function, by A." In this case the function being making an arrest.

As mentioned the family will also likely bring a false imprisonment claim. Here the baseline is to prove the girl was imprisoned (which is trivial) and it is then for the police to justify the arrest. There only real defence to this is likely to be that it was a lawful arrest under the pace act section 24(2) "If a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that an offence has been committed, he may arrest without a warrant anyone whom he has reasonable grounds to suspect of being guilty of it." Is it reasonable to infer someone saying 'she's a lesbian like my nana' as an offence especially when you are told the person is autistic. If not the arrest is likely to be illegal in and of itself.

I'm looking forward to this case.

I thought strictly speaking it was an adverse inference from saying something in court that you didn’t say previously. For example if you say ‘I couldn’t of stabbed him because I was in such and such a place’ in court when you never said it in the police interview.

this is why lawyers will have their clients go to the police interview read a statement that covers all of the facts that might be useful in their defence and then refuse to answer any questions. Because that way they have actually mentioned at interview things they rely on later at court. 

Plus the twelve favours they hire for staff, wouldn’t want their pillows to go unfluffed, or their teacups to run dry.. twelve more pinches of earth..