Breaking: Advocate Does Not Want Autistic Input on New Bill

Post Reply New Topic

The Office of Advocacy for Autistic Children, Michael E. Robinson who is heading up proposed Autism Reform Act on the website change.org just told an autistic individual that their opinion is not wanted.

Furthermore the autistic individual copied the bill onto a google document to encourage public editing and was accused of pirating the bill.

Read more at http://www.aspieweb.net/autism-input-un ... -advocate/

Typical hatred towards ASD.

Hah. Does he work for Autism Speaks or something? I thought they cornered the market on not wanting autistic people to say anything, but pretending like they care.

It has become apparent to me that "autism advocacy" groups where all the members and those in charge are NT don't really care about autistic people. They only care about their business and keeping their business going. Michael Robinson and "Autism Speaks" want control over autistics and they want to be heard. But they don't truly care about autistic people despite the title of their company. This is almost similar to a "company" that is really just a pyramid scheme, in that their main goal is to keep their business going and not at all to actually supply their supposed product. Would you believe in an advocacy group for black people which is run and operated by white people? Of course not. Would an advocacy group for Jews which is really run and operated by Christians or atheists hold any water? No way. People who work for these autism awareness groups (most of them anyway) just want to be in the spotlight and want financial gain. They could give two and a half craps about autistic people and their wellbeing.

You have to keep in mind, while he says "We need your input", he could very well be refering to only parents of ASD people. The problem with "advocacy" organizations is that they require the "leaders" of the org to view the "clients" as helpless, ignorant, and in desperate need of guidance and guardianship. They view them as perpetual children, basically. Therefore, to try and actively get the input of the "clients" would create cognitive dissonance in the minds of the "leaders". They must either refuse the input of the "clients", or change their opinions about them. Refusing their input is significantly easier, to justify their opinions to both themselves, and the public at large.

It is deeply disturbing to read so much animosity towards people and groups whose intention is to increase knowledge and visibility. What? Arent't they doing it just the way you want? If you smell conspiracy, pyramid schemes and illegal intent (because that is what is being alluded to here), why aren't you DOING anything about it. Just bitching on the 'puter is all this amounts to.
BTW: I just sent in my donations for Autism Speaks and requested their newsletter.

ETA: Here is my reasoning: Growing up gay in a hetero-world I have learned that (like publicity) bad representation is still representation. You may not like the person, their voice & ideas or what they're advocating. But at least they are speaking on your behalf. Don't like it? Do something about it.

I'm not going to get into the merits of Robinson's proposal, but I want to point out that what he posted on change.org is not a "Bill" in the sense of a bill drafted by a member of Congress to be submitted for debate and passage. It is, as he calls it, a legislative proposal outlining major points he wishes to be included in a much more detailed law to be presented to Congress. As such, I suppose he can legitimately claim copyright on the language and yes, copyright violations are illegal. "Samuel" doesn't come across to me as particularly informed and makes only general and not very helpful criticism.

Rather than getting into it with Robinson, those interested in a law reflecting the views of autistics should formulate and post their own counterproposal that addresses autistic concerns in a reasonable and concise way.