Democracy - A New Self-Advocacy Group Standard?

Post Reply New Topic

Where I live there is a law called the Lanterman ACT. I've tested this law and while the system is not perfect any service including groups homes and day programs where people with developmental disabilities including autism convene businesses receiving funding must comply with civil rights law. While professional agree with me the support worker mommy and daddy complex gets in the way of this at times there is always a way to preserve the rights of individuals should someone understanding and without bias see violations and raise a fuss. That is kind of my job and I am working on one case where a government funded organization removed the phone privileges from a women because religious people in the supportive employment environment did not like her lifestyle of having a boyfriend. So they would no longer allow her to receive phone calls, remove the phone from her at times and even disallowed her to use the telephone in her own room removing privacy. The great thing about the Lanterman ACT is the consumers guide to the Lanterman ACT is simple and explicit and now I can take the issue to court, me second time ever.

However in non-protected circumstances in advocacy groups claiming to speak for myself and others with autism and other developmental disabilities the same sort of equal participation standard is not present. People have points of view and to protect those points of view simply don't allow others to participate and they can under the law. Yet ethically and morally should media and society embrace this kind of formula or should it begin to seek a new kind of formula that allows people to vote in these groups and raise the issues it wants to collectively and individually? I think this sort of organizational model removes conflict of interest, bias and is a TRUE civil rights facilitation that is indifferent to opinion but behaves simply to empower the participants opinions more equally. Also the ability to figure out why people think certain ways like being anti-cure can more readily be understood with mutual discourses that is required prior to vote and sees more progress because of a lack of externalizing strategic confusion in benefit to special interests of any kind at times.

Nathan Young

Interesting idea, there is also: National Initiative for Democracy

Ooops I wrote it wrong.

women because religious people in the supportive employment environment

Should be supportive living environment.

Brain fart!

Oh my. I agree nearly entirely. But what if the people vote to want to know something that would more then likely cause grave harm and who would decide this? On the other hand bringing jobs back to America whereas special interest has shipped them oversees the people could vote to protect these jobs. I think this is great for the most part.

I believe that when one social group imposes their beliefs/biases/whatever on another for an activity that is not illegal is wrong... period. I don't think it is a stretch that it violates her 'freedom of speech'!

For the latter I I'm not totally clear what you mean. Often groups with an agenda try to speak for other groups; sometimes to that group's benefit and other times not. In many cases those groups don't have a central voice and if it were to go to a majority vote (with few of that group represented) they would lose.

For example - I doubt that Asperger's rights would ever gain foothold because NT's in the majority don't 'get us'. Only by having an emotional appeal would we sway those people I think to accept us.

So please explain more clearly what you meant by the second part.

Her you mean the case? The government funds the person to provide services and supports. They must agree by contract to offer the services while respecting consumer rights. The law must be followed or you don't get money. The law is the law and must be provided in the least restricted manner and if not must be validated as to why not. She has the capacity and is high functioning and so knows right from wrong choices and her rights were not facilitated for by the facilitator. She is not a conserved adult.

--

I believe in local advocacy as it is local that is more real then an over-stimulated macro-sphere. Locally I've been able to do allot of things. Democracy is truly empowering in that it empowers people to find that indeed they do have rights, choices and what they say matters. In fact more then that they have the power to manifest their own desires amongst one another and instead of depending on others and perhaps never even realizing the power they have. However limited models comprising advocacy groups are to easily compromised by common sense. This comes down to well hell does everyone agree and what about those that do not? For a singular model to comprise equally the entire will of the group is least restrictive, more empowering and does not compromise liberties so very easily as in more limited frameworks.