Whatever happened to the AFF declaration on minority status?

Post Reply New Topic

In 2004, Aspies for Freedom (AFF) released a declaration calling on the United Nations to recognize people on the autism spectrum as a minority group (similar to sexual or religious minorities):

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2004/11/prweb179444.htm

Can someone tell me how this declaration came about (i.e. was it written by just one person, Amy Nelson, by some AFF committee/board or was there wider input from the autistic community)?

How widely was the declaration circulated? Was it ever sent to the UN and if yes, to whom? (The first UN Independent Expert on Minority Issues was only appointed in 2005, and the annual Forum on Minority Issues did not come into being until 2008.)

What happened to the declaration after 2004? Was it ever discussed in any form at the UN? Was any lobbying undertaken and by whom? Was there ever any reply from the UN?

Which prominent autism "experts" supported the declaration (if any)?

On a more general note: Do people here agree that autistics (including those with Asperger's) should be recognized as a minority group just like sexual and religious minorities at national and international level?

It seems to have 'died' along with AFF.

Well, maybe it can/should be resuscitated (the declaration, not AFF).

UN minority rights are based out of Geneva, and I live in Switzerland. I've been to almost thirty UN system conferences over the past two years, including last year's Forum on Minority Issues, a WHO programme board and meetings of many of the human rights treaty bodies that might be relevant in promoting the declaration (rights of the child, rights of persons with disabilities, etc.).

I think who and what constitutes a minority group should be left up to individual countries.

Rather than the UN model, I much prefer the traditional Swiss model of nonintervention and nonalignment.

Well, this is obviously an international issue as all countries have autistic minorities. So it's something that might reasonably be started from the top and spread downward to the national level.

Not sure what you mean by the Swiss model. Switzerland has strong protections in place for all its minorities (except, as of yet, people on the spectrum).

Why do you think the UN is more qualified to make decisions for the citizens of a country than those citizens are? Are those in the UN smarter? Morally superior? What is it about the UN that makes you think they have a unique right to violate the principle of self-determination for all peoples and exercise liberal imperialism?

What do I mean by the Swiss model? I'm talking about when the Swiss used to mind their own business, and refuse to countenance foreigners telling them how things should be done. It's about how they avoided European wars for centuries, not least WWI and WWII, and avoided international alignments and organizations. Do they no longer teach about these things in Swiss schools?

The UN doesn't "make decisions" (certainly not in this regard). If something like this would ever come about, it would have to be enacted by each country individually. However, the UN are a place where almost all countries come together. So rather than introducing the idea in 190+ countries separately, it would be possible to raise awareness of autism in one place, among people who work on relevant issues in their respective countries on a daily basis.

Swiss neutrality is about relations with other countries, not about the rights of minority groups. You are comparing apples with shower curtains.

Historically, the Swiss didn't avoid wars. They sold their services as mercenaries to whatever European power paid the most.

Personally, I want the UN out of the US. I don't want them here, and we certainly don't need our decisions--or even suggestions--from them.

As far as "relations with other countries", you are right. The Swiss have always minded their own business, and been far ahead because of it.

As far as not avoiding wars, when was the last time Switzerland declared war on another country, or had another country declare war on it?

I am a big admirer of the Swiss model, and it is something I have studied.

I don't think we need international accords on this matter as much as this type of recognition on a unilateral basis. At face value, the UN would seem to be the first challenge for recognition of our status as a minority, but they've only ever mediated these things on an ethnic basis. Tell your friends who you are, precisely, that's the only way this can be elevated to the highest levels of dialogue. I think what happened to this declaration is that we aren't as different as we're made out to be. Abnormal, yes, but in terms of a minority we're completely invisible. What we're really seeking isn't concessions, it's recognition of our human rights in terms of our perception. Rights are all or nothing propositions, moreover they're in the eyes of the beholders.

I think you're vilifying something that could really help you. No matter if you're in favor of it, socialized medicine, if our country finally accepts the standard, stands to save a lot of lives and a lot of minds. On this basis I don't really care whose pockets get invaded, because mine are certainly empty for lack of recognition here. My education might not have been such a rocky road if international law told people I wasn't too different to interact with them. The UN has no rights in particular, only directives. It's a right of yours and mine to make executive, split decisions in the interests of those who can't do so for themselves, and I think if the positions between Autistics and regulatory bodies like the UN were reversed, we would advocate for the right of the UN to help NTs, because we are already the primary advocates for our own causes.

Sir, I can't see where the UN has ever done anybody any good, and certainly not Americans.

I would also ask if you've ever been to a truly socialist country; it's something I wouldn't wish on anybody. Socialism is the modern analog of slavery and serfdom.

While I certainly won't defend the medical status quo, the problems are such that they would only be made worse by socialism.

Do you have any idea why others might object to you thinking that what they worked hard for is yours for the taking? How is that different from theft?

This is interesting to me. There is potential here, though the wording of several parts of the document you posted are fairly good clues as to why it probably failed. The idea could potentially be improved, refined and tried again.

Deaf communities of the world have received recognition, respect and a certain amount of leverage via the the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Deafness is a cultural and linguistic identity. The inability to hear is only a disability when dealing with hearing people (who do not sign) or technology geared towards hearing people and leaving out the Deaf/deaf. Deafness is viewed as a difference, rather than a 'flaw' as disability is often perceived. Deafness is valued within the Deaf community. (Note: The capital D denotes cultural Deafness, not the simple medical definition which is written as deafness with a lower case d).

Is there really enough of a parallel to try a similar approach or not? That is what needs to be considered more deeply.

Not that I should be dignifying the derisive finger pointing as my comments only concerned one social program in a vehemently capitalist economy, but you don't need to look any farther than the world health organization, international atomic energy agency or world food program UN agencies to see them doing good for everyone. Socialism isn't to be confused with maoism or totalitarianism. No two governments have the same economic principles because no two nations have the same resources. By voting in favor of healthcare reform, I do not intend to directly misappropriate anyone's money, but there exists a certain criminality in accumulating such a concentration of wealth as to affect the health of one's peers. The UN defined its' stance against complex carbon emissions as hazardous to all living organisms, and we just shut down the EPA, just 10 miles from my backyard lies hundreds of acres of oil spills.

well mabe AFF died but the idea could still be achieved,if we will make our own petition the the UN as a group and not as single individuals who working seperatly it can still be

Hi I agree that being on the autism spectrum is a minority status worthy of international recognition. The coming together of people on the spectrum, to demand international understanding and recognition, is very valuable. This will help us forge links and take our struggle to a higher level, to have this international recognition.

I was recently diagnosed and my parents begged me not to tell anyone, not even my kids. To hell with living in the closet! Let's get recognition and a declaration of our rights. As soon as the subject of aspie comes up people start talking about Sheldon on the The Big Bang Theory. If we don't get the message out there the media will, and it won't be the message we want.

Thanks. Yes, I think so too. In order to get attention at the UN you have to have a short-hand demand though. Let's say the indigenous peoples of the world, their demand at the UN is that indigenous peoples be given the same status as modern nation states. This is unlikely to ever happen, but it started discussion at the UN and after twenty years of campaigning they have a very secure foothold at the UN and get their demands met in many minor areas, down to special committees being set up for them, research seminars about treaties between indigenous peoples and modern nations being held, and next year the General Assembly discussing indigenous issues at a high-level "world conference". I think "minority status" has the potential to be such a short-hand demand for our community that would bring immediate attention to many of the more intricate issues surrounding autism. Good point about the Deaf communities too.



AFF tried the petition route, though again, I don't know if the petition was ever submitted to the UN. There's no date and they only managed to gather 177 signatures. Here's the link:

http://www.petitiononline.com/petitions/AFFDec/signatures

Petitions aren't the way to go, in my opinion. But there's endless possibilities nowadays for civil society organizations to submit input, reports, research, etc. to any number of consultations and relevant UN meetings every year as well as to speak in plenary at conferences like the Forum on Minority Issues. One gets only three minutes to speak, but that's a lot more attention already than an online petition that no one at the UN even knows exists.



One thing to bear in mind is that the UN tends to speak of "minority issues" rather than "minority rights" and that the recognition of any kind of minority status depends on how many countries are willing to recognize it. So, yes, racial and religious minorities currently fare better than, say, sexual minorities (because many countries still outlaw homosexuality). I'm not yet sure where autism would fall in this regard. The ideal situation would be if we could get the support of one or more country delegations. That would open a lot more doors, make it easier to organize autism-related side events during major conferences, and so on, but it will take some lobbying. Which countries are most friendly toward the rights of people on the spectrum?



Agreed, but every minority was "invisible" before they started making themselves more visible.