Whatever happened to the AFF declaration on minority status?

Post Reply New Topic

Sir, you still haven't answered any of my questions: Why do you think that you are entitled to what other people worked for even if only for "one program"? Nor have you been specific on how the UN has ever done anything good for regular people. How has the World Health Organization or the Atomic Energy Commission helped me? How have they helped you?

As far as the global warming hoax goes, you are being a typical liberal. If you really believed in that nonsense, you wouldn't be on a computer; you would be in a cave somewhere shivering in the dark. Liberals, being hypocrites, are only moral and generous when it costs other people--not themselves.

Finally, I find it humorous that someone who thinks he is entitled to everyone else's possessions, or at least takes it upon himself to decide who has too much, points the boney finger of moral indignation at me for pointin this out. I hope you get your thinking straight.

What about if people who support doing something constructive, to have official UN recognition of minority status, move forward with a formal discussion about how this can be done and what we want in the document? Those who oppose such a document need not join in this formal discussion.

Sir, you sound as if you're really full of yourself. That's your business. But if you think you are going to take it upon yourself to determine who is permitted to participate in this discussion and who is not, I will make that my business. I assure you that you will do no such thing.

As far as your point goes, you haven't shown that anything the UN does is constructive. Since the proposal under consideration wouldn't be binding upon sovereign countries, I would argue that it is in fact a waste of time. If you want to do something constructive, I would suggest your carry your proposals to the government of the country in which you are a citizen. That is the only organization who can give any document force.

Please stop using 'Sir' as a qualifier for your own moral indignation. Need I remind you this is a support forum for many vulnerable individuals and the last thing we need is this brand of negativity? I won't dignify your presumptions about anything because as a programmer I've spent my life's work 'getting my thinking straight'. The IAEA, WHO & WFP are quite helpful because they support a population figure of seven billion, I'm unconcerned with what they do for me personally because they maintain a planet for us to live on. As a greenhouse effect denier you're effectively suggesting that all you need to survive on mars is an air compressor and a diving bell.

I didn't say I was a liberal anyway. I'm sorry that you're offended by my pragmatic collectivism. I am offended by your greed. Ascribe all the political labels you want to me, I'll wait.

It seems that being seen as a minority offends the sensibilities of some members residing in places with histories of violence towards minorities, Australia notwithstanding.

Two thoughts:

1. Straight thinking means being sure that this AF proposal is really needed. That means at least one person arguing against it and at least one arguing for it.

2. You still haven't shown how the IAEA, WHO, and WFP are beneficial to me. I'm part of that seven billion. And if you do come up with something good they are doing, is it something that can't be done by a national government? And since I'm paying for these organizations with my tax dollars, I do have more than an academic interest in the matter.

It is also the case that the UN is anti-democratic. Nobody votes for who heads the UN, average citizens have no say in its deliberations, and it is also the case that government closest to the people is most responsive to the needs of the citizens whose interests it represents; the UN is the most removed of any potential governing body I know of.

I'm not aware of what countries are particularly accommodating for anyone on the Autism spectrum, but I can say beyond a shadow of a doubt Texas is not among these. From the lobbyist's standpoint, the U.S. would be as good a starting point as any, due to the UN headquarters' location and precepts for political bribery, something that's basically par for the course all over the world anyway. I think forming a consortium with rights groups for other conditions would be the fastest way to achieve these goals.

The UN, however, still is not hegemonic or totalitarian. The secretary general, once they're elected by the Security Council, controls a group of representatives representing all forms of government, representative or not. UN forces are supplied ad-hoc, they have no permanent cache of military resources. They control no nuclear arsenals, they merely contain them. The UN is every bit as democratic as China, and China only has one less party than the United States. Officially, both countries operate on a representative democracy. That doesn't mean political independents such as myself are represented. Apart from the League of Nations there has never been any precedent for stateless government. The UN merely sets guidelines conducive to the peaceful resolutions of logistical and human conflicts, including reactors and weapons that could kill us all on a moment's notice. What matters about the UN alphabet agencies is that they fill roles unoccupied by national governments, if the U.S. were interested in feeding people rather than stealing their oil wealth, the UN would be obligated to shift their resources to countries irrelevant to those aims and working to feed them.

Yes.



So, please, feel free not to participate in the discussions here. Don't try and stop everyone else from discussing it just because you think it would be a waste of time.

My idea is not so much to write another document as to set up a Geneva-based NGO that starts this campaign at the UN, but could then also promote the establishment of local chapters in individual countries that lobby their respective governments along the same lines. I started the discussion with the UN in mind because I think it's the right starting point, and because it fits my special interest, experience, and geographic location. I'm sure there's autistics in the UK, the US, Canada, Australia, and other countries that could do the same at country-level.



How so? Have there been discussions about this in the past on WP?



For one thing, without the WHO many of us would have no diagnosis. The DSM-5 only applies in the US and a few other countries, the rest of the world uses the ICD-10 diagnostic manual that is published by the WHO. The WHO held a consultation on autism in Geneva only last month. Unfortunately, it was by invitation only, otherwise I would have gone. Not sure if they got any input from people living with autism. This may not affect you in the US, but please show some solidarity with the rest of us.



Oh, come on, you said you're a fan of the Swiss system. Nobody here has ever voted for our government. They're elected by parliament with absolutely no input from the average citizen. They're an all-party collective of seven ministers (secretaries, in US terminology) and the presidency rotates among them every year. Despite all this, Switzerland is still considered one of the most democratic countries. The Secretary-General of the UN is elected very similarly. Citizens vote for their national governments (except in Switzerland) and the national governments of the world elect the UN Secretary-General as well as, separately, the heads of all major UN organizations and agencies. Yes, the UN is removed from the people, but it also doesn't deal with your local building permits. Surely you don't want it to.



With regard to autism New York isn't all that relevant for lobbying. The European UN headquarter in Geneva hosts the WHO, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (includes rights of the child, rights of persons with disabilities, and minority rights, among others), and the UN Human Rights Council. This also means that many other NGOs that represent minorities, disabled people and other relevant groups are already based here and might be amenable to cooperation.



Actually, the Secretary-General is elected by the General Assembly at the recommendation of the Security Council - which means that for example the US can veto someone they don't like. He also doesn't "control" anyone other than the UN bureaucracy, really. He certainly doesn't control national governments. (Don't put wrong ideas into Thelibrarian's head.) The General Assembly is the highest decision-making body and the presidency of the GA changes every year among the representatives of all national governments. The presidency of the Security Council even rotates monthly(!) among its members. The same principle applies to pretty much every body of the UN - it's all in the responsibility of national governments.

Aspendo and cberg, as far as me challenging you on the advisability of globalist bullying about anything goes, there are names for those who decide how to do something while excluding the question of whether that action should be done. Since none of those names are flattering, and I don't care to stoop to that level, I will let you use your imaginations.

As far as the UN not having any power, if that were the case, then why are you even bothering with such a thing? I would add that almost since its inception, the UN has been vying for the right to levy taxes and raise an army. What US history shows is that in a federal system, when one branch is allowed to levy taxes and raise an army, it is only a matter of time before that branch controls all meaningful power. Whereas the states used to exercise the bulk of power in this country, today they are only conduits for a distant federal government that is both tyrannical and unresponsive to the needs of average citizens.

As far as the Swiss model goes, technically you are right that rank-and-file Swiss don't vote for the Swiss government. But since most meaningful power still resides in the cantons, where citizens do have a vote, your statement is somewhat disingenuous. The cantons are an example of what I am talking about: bringing meaningful power closer to the people it governs; the UN is just the opposite. It is also the case that what I admire is the old Confederation Helvetia rather than what is going on now, though Switzerland still has the best system in Europe.

I will grant your wish and leave you be, but not before I say that we should all be working on changing ourselves for the better rather than trying to force other people to change. I can't think of a more hated and feared organization than the UN, and I strenuously object to having my condition associated with it in any way. We have problems enough with acceptance without associating our condition with an organization about as popular and dangerous as rabies.

Rather than wish you luck, I will only hope both of you begin to think this thing through and realize that discretion is the better part of valor.

The problem is that we both have given you answers over and above our responsibility to engage you on a forum, you just refuse to accept them, and ask the same question again. It would be tiring even to people who are not on the spectrum, and I for one don't understand why you're doing it. You don't like the UN. Point made, point taken.



Because they do have the power to change public perception of things they choose to get involved with. And a change in public perception may lead to changes at the national level. For example, while the UN Forum on Minority Issues does not address sexual minorities because a lot of national governments still outlaw homosexuality, the High Commissioner for Human Rights has made it a priority of her agenda to advocate for LGBT rights. One of the problems with your generalized statements is that the UN is a vast organization, and even most people who work there don't know every detail and most aspects of it. So one UN organization may very well do something that another (or its member national governments) objects to. The point for autism advocacy is to find allies within that system that can help us promote our interests.



Sorry, but this is the kind of stuff that seems to derail this thread. No one here is talking about allowing the UN to levy taxes or raise an army. What has either of this got to do with minority status for autistics?



I don't know what you mean by "Confederation Helvetia". "Confoederatio Helvetica" (Swiss Confederation) is still the official name of our country. That's why our country abbreviation is CH. Our political system - all-party government - hasn't changed since 1848 (even if the political parties involved have changed). The US states have just as much - or as little - power as the Swiss cantons. So saying that the Swiss federal system is admirable, while the US federal system is an abomination is disingenuous. The Swiss system means that a country with 8 million people has 26 different school systems and a teacher who trained in one canton cannot work in another. On the national level, our government is like a coalition between Republicans and Democrats. I bet that's not what you want for the US either. But, again, this is not the topic of this thread.



We're not forcing anyone to change. We demand acceptance, and I for one believe we deserve it.



As long as you advance the discussion in a constructive way - rather than all-out opposition - you are very welcome to stay.

At this point in time, people in favour of minority status outnumber those against - at least in this thread.

The problem is you haven't given me any reasons for AFF that will withstanding even superficial scrutiny. But suit yourself and believe whatever you want. I won't be able to wish you any luck though. I will bid you a good day.

Hi Aspendos and everyone else interested in a constructive discussion, I would like to start hearing and putting forward some ideas that could be on such a UN Charter or Declaration of the rights of people on the autism spectrum. I wonder about the procedure for drafting or presenting such a document and I would be interested in hearing from someone with such experience. I think we could maybe put forward some ideas in this forum. Then ask a small group of people to develop these ideas further with more precise wording. Then perhaps we can present a draft document for discussion within a wider forum and ask for suggestions and amendments. Then we re-write the document and, if it has widespread support, then a group of us submits it for ratification. These are my ideas on how we would go about preparing and presenting such a document. I would be interested in constructive feedback from people who support the UN initiative.

That's why I asked in the beginning if someone had information on how the AFF declaration came about. I find it hard to imagine this (as described above) happening with only people on the spectrum involved - but maybe I'm overly pessimistic. It already sounds so exhausting. I've been involved in organizations that functioned on the consensus principle and it was torture. Personally, I also don't do well as a team member; I have to be in charge. I'm more interested in making things happen then in discussing them. So, yesterday I bought a bunch of domain names and the plan for today is to get started on the website of a Switzerland-based NGO which will be lobbying the UN in a variety of ways. Maybe we can start the process by you giving me input on what to write on the website?

Unfortunately, the UN won't ratify a charter or declaration submitted by civil society. Anything of that sort would have to be initiated by a country (although an NGO might propose a draft to them and/or collaborate on a proposal).

In the meantime, I found out that Autism Speaks is involved with the UN. The major UN initiative to date to highlight autism is World Autism Awareness Day on 2 April every year, which was unanimously designated by the UN General Assembly in 2007. The proposal was introduced by the State of Qatar and the next year the State of Qatar and Autism Speaks jointly it seems organized an event to celebrate it at the UN. So far, that's fairly common. I can't say who took the initiative, Qatar or Autism Speaks, but obviously their agenda is rather different from what we are discussing here - focused on research and a cure rather than acceptance and on families rather than autistics. Autism Speaks also associated themselves with the UN's Department of Public Information in 2008. In real terms, an official status with DPI means nothing other than that they get invited to briefings, but apparently Autism Speaks follows the strategy to get involved with everything autism related that is "public" and has the potential of reaching a wide audience outside the UN. Also, DPI is based in New York, unlike most autism-related UN bodies. Here are a few links:

http://www.autismspeaks.org/news/news-item/united-nations-panel-discussion-global-awareness-autism-challenges-responsibilities-a

http://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/world-autism-awareness-day


The Wikipedia page on World Autism Awareness Day links to the above Autism Speaks site as if it were in some way official, but I don’t see how it might be.


http://www.autismspeaks.org/about-us/press-releases/autism-speaks-named-official-non-governmental-organization-associated-united


Recent UN initiatives include a May 2012 resolution adopted by the WHO: http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/who-adopts-autism-resolution

Apparently, the daughter of the Bangladeshi prime minister is chairperson of their National Advisory Committee on Autism and once, more, Qatar is named, as are India, Albania and Panama.


A General Assembly resolution in December 2012 was also proposed by Bangladesh - and Autism Speaks, or so they claim: http://www.autismspeaks.org/news/news-item/autism-speaks-applauds-unanimous-passage-new-un-resolution-autism


Resolutions really are a dime a dozen at the UN and, again, they're often more about publicity than anything else.


Also, in 2012 Autism Speaks was involved with a New York UN conference on World Autism Awareness Day: http://www.autismspeaks.org/about-us/press-releases/un-conference-proclaims-inclusive-international-cooperation-key-autism

Again, Bangladesh, Qatar and the US are mentioned.


As far as I can see none of the initiatives or events Autism Speaks was involved in at the UN ever included anyone living with autism actually speaking.

That's what we need to change.

Hi Aspendos
It seems you are getting things started. In reality, even in teams and consensus groups. there is often a key person who shows leadership skills. I believe good leaders often have autistic-like traits. So don't be pessimistic as you may be the right person for this job. You have put yourself forward and have a lot of information. Thank you for the information. It will take me a while to read all of it!

I would like to see a good declaration of autistic rights coming from autistic people. The process of discussing and formulating this declaration brings people together and clarifies ideas and goals. This process is just as important as having it adopted by an NGO or the UN,

The disability rights slogan "nothing about us without us" is also very important in our cause. We have the ability to self advocate and co-operate. Let's believe in ourselves. We are good at discussing things when there is an inspiring topic of discussion. We are very focussed so we sometimes move more quickly than others do. We often get more passionate about our beliefs than others do, so this means we end up working by ourselves. We leave others behind because we are intense and focussed and get straight to the heart of the matter and sometimes we have a higher IQ. This can make some people feel like we are not team players but I don't support these pressures to slow ourselves down and conform. We are meant to be this way - yes we have our faults but people are jealous of our abilities and project their resentments on to us.

I would like to see a strong policy on women on the spectrum as there is still a pressure for us to adopt "feminine" interests, tastes and behaviour when in fact we have the "extreme male brain." Who made me autisitc? God made me autistic and anybody who doesn't like the autistic brain can complain to the manufacturer I believe society is more tolerant of men on the spectrum as it is more "normal" for a man to excel in maths, avoid small talk, wear comfortable clothes and have a strong focussed interest. The social pressure on women to adopt "feminine" behaviour does help us develop more social skills but also puts a lot of personal pressures on us.

I would like to see any such document define autism primarily as a variation rather than a disorder, as autism is only disabling in its extreme form, when combined with very low IQ, lack of social acceptance and lack of social skills training opportunities. Social skills training is an educational need and our educational needs are just as valid as anybody else's educational needs. In fact I would like to see autism defined as a vital component of human society because of the contribution that autistics make to creativity and science.

So respect, acceptance, non-judgemental accommodation of our needs, recognition of our abilities and encouragement of self advocacy are the key issues, I feel. Educate the public to understand and accept the differences.

I hope others will read the websites you supplied and contribute to the discussion also. We have just started daylight saving in Australia and I need to try and catch up an hour of sleep, but I will try and do a bit of this reading tonight and look forward to the replies tomorrow!

I think any declaration of our rights should state something like this:

"Autistic minds are essential to the survival of humanity. In a world facing increasing environmental, social and military problems autistic people are uniquely placed to think outside the square and pursue original solutions. Autistic minds should be nurtured and encouraged. But instead autistics are often pressured to conform and socially ostracised."