Making good arguments to prove a Genocide of Autistic People

Post Reply New Topic

We all know many people say "are you serious" and whatnot when people claim that a "cure" of autism, sterilization of autistic people, or related things (like aversive Therapy) would count as torture and Genocide of Autistic People.

First we get definitions of "genocide"

we use the UN definition

http://www.preventgenocide.org/genocide ... altext.htm

Autistic people, especially the "lower functioning" Autistics, but HFAs are at risk for this as well, have this as a examples

subsection 3 of article 2, under " (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group" states


It's interesting given the "mentally disabled", the "Mentally Ill" and whatnot have had their marriages prohibited, forced abortion and forced sterilization (see Eugenics), etc.



Arguably some of the limits placed on autistic families could go under that. I need some more info, have there been instances of similar incidents happening with people with Asperger's?

and the last one is:



how nice. Those places like the Judge Rotenburg Center and whatnot provide that.

to put this in a short term



anyone have good articles on this, etc?

Would "Mass Murder" or "Ethnic Cleansing" be a better term for this than Genocide? Explain and please expand

EDIT: assuming people try to attack autistic people as a viable ethnic group or nation



again please add more.

EDIT: a good link I remember
http://www.ventura33.com/clock/

Last edited by Warsie on 26 Dec 2008, 12:00 am, edited 1 time in total.

So what?
What is one expected to actually do in light of this "information"?
Seriously, no one of importance expects nor really cares about the extermination of any species on this planet, much less the autistic community.

prove that the idea of a genocide of autistic people is not an exxageration, etc and prove it with definitions and cases from the past and present



I'd say the influential NGOs like Greenpeace and whatnot, some US federal legislators like Dennis Kucinich, UN officers and minsters who care about the environment, European Union politicians who care about the environment, etc DO care



yeah. The best hope is the internet, or getting elected.....

Why should I have to prove anything?

Then wouldn't this conspiracy theory best be directed at them?

I don't understand this statement.

Sorry, but I simply don't see a problem, and even if I did there isn't a damned thing I could do about it. I'm just one un-employed SOB with less than no value in the great scheme of things.

I DO care about the extermination of a species on this planet and I DO care about the threat of extermination, or intolerance, of any given Autist. A lot. Warsie gave a good argument (thank you Warsie) and there are certainly enough horrifying accounts of those with autism being mistreated! Plenty enough and go ask your local Disabilities Services Advocate about the specifics (it's scary)!

Warsie, I'm right on track with you're alluding too. I wish I knew more of the specifics but I do what transpired fairly recently about an Autistic grade-school student, her first name is Isabelle. She is but one of many, same story, just different scenario here. Isabelle was doing well in school, progressing, no behavioral problems whatsoever (except very shy/vulnerable). She then began with a new teacher (who is now is jail for assault). Isabelle would stim/squirm in her class but the teacher, who had NO training or experience with autism, thought she would 'cure' Isabelle of this habit, and her autism, by 'teaching her a lesson.'

Isabelle was locked into a small broom closet, for up to 3 hours at a time. Documented that Isabelle would be screaming, crying....meltdown. (who wouldn't)? The teacher would not relent. After one 'Time-Out' of hours, Isabelle urinated on the floor. The teacher then became uncontrollable and REALLY punished Isabelle for allegedly, 'making a mess.'

I read, afterward, Isabelle is recuperating but has PTSD. She was cheated out of her education time and kept in conditions that were akin to a prison isolation cell.

Warsie, there's so many more....countless. I think some here on Wrong Planet can attest to what's been done to them too.

NocturnalQuilter: I am not bashing you nor trying to initiate controvery (the contrary, in fact) but I've read many of your posts. Often one will state what has happened to them or their own insights, which are warranted! Then you can attack by negating their stance just because you personally didn't have that experience, or saying 'There's no evidence of that (when often there IS), or even inserting your own statistics! Might help if you just LISTEN, you don't need to agree but just look at what's presented. One can ALWAYS take issue with something, such as 'mincing words' or just contriving. Even 'looking the other way.' And no need to marginalize those who've had difficulties, such as by calling them cutsie names, like 'hey Tiger' or 'buttercup.' Not nice when one is hurting and that's offered by you to intimidate. Ok?

Anyway, Warsie has brought up some real points! And these do effect us. Just the stats: Those with autism are prone to what is termed 'medical or therapeutic abuse.'

Means: How is the act being performed?

Motive: What is the goal for the act?

Opportunity: How does the perpetrator access the victim?

Perpetrator: The one that commits the act.

Victim: Whom the act is committed upon (individual, group, or government).

Crime: An act that is generally recognised by law that would harm a victim.


Let's take that last one. By law a victim is the person or entity that is harmed by an act. The law also defines what is harmful. Saving a person's life against their will is not an illegal act, while ending a person's life against their will is an illegal act.

Saving a person's life when that person can not give consent is also not an illegal act. This allows good samaritans to give CPR without first having to obtain permission from an unconscious person. This is called "Assumed Consent" - it is assumed that any reasonable person would want their life saved.

But what if that person merely can not communicate effectively? What if they do not understand the treatment that they are to receive? This is where Power of Attorney or legal guardianship comes into play.

If the laws are written so as to define an autistic individual as being incapable of understanding the treatment or "cure" that they are offered, or that they even "need" to be "cured," are there rights violated if they are given the treatment without their understanding or knowledge? How to explain the benefit of the "cure" to someone who may not even understand that they have a condition that can be "cured"?

One day, a formerly ASD-afflicted person wakes up "cured" and begins to behave in a completely neurotypical way after receiving the "cure." Would this person thank those who gave the treatment? Would he or she instead file a lawsuit for and assault that resulted in neurological damage? How to prevent retribution against the people who have "cured" Autism?

Simply re-write the laws that define a "victim"! Put laws on the books that state that anyone diagnosed with an ASD is incapable of rendering informed consent to be "cured," and that therefore they can be "cured" without their consent - or even their knowledge and understanding - and their cries of "I didn't ask to be cured" will carry the same legal weight as "I didn't ask to be born." After all, how many kids sue their parents for conceiving and giving them birth?

So what I'm reading is that I'm just a troll insinuating myself into threads to provoke and "intimidate"? I should be so lucky to have that kind of power.
No worries, I've been called far worse by far better. So what if I don't agree the the latest conspiracy theory du jour?
Is this another instance of If You Don't Agree, Don't Post Aything?
I wasn't aware that was how this forum worked (though many would prefer it that way).
So, tiger, I think I'll stick with what I want to post, and you do the same and we'll all get along just fine.
Smooches!

so people cannot say you're lying and exxageration when you believe a genocide of autistics is possible/happening



it's not a conspiracy theory, it's a conspiracy FACT. The curebie organizations like Autism Speaks and their influence on the general public and politicians are undeniable. They admit they want to "cure" autistic people, and probably wouldn't be sad with sterilization of abuses if it's done "for their own good" (Judge Rotenburg Center)



using the internet as a means of help. Or trying to go into politics for an office to do something.



It only takes one person to start a revolution/ignite one. Even if it's informing others about your POV and spreading it around. The main problem is HOW to build a Fringe Alliance that is robust and able to oppose the Mainstream's views and desires.

My main idea is for a confederation of all pariah groups through all societies on Earth to form an Alliance to be able to help each other and oppose encroachment from the mainstream. Using the internet, of course. People are doing that type of stuff on hidden services on the internet already!

Been thinking of that for years, in one form or another....

The above information... it kind of scares me. Most people are okay with me being an Aspie (well, I don't tell anyone about it, but they don't notice and just think I'm eccentric if they even know three-syllable words less common than "marmalade") What sort of crazy NT thinks that attacking someone will normalise them anyway? Or that normality is a good thing. (I admit, it would be easier for normals to deal with normals in social situations, BUT...!) *almost-fuming*

Best of luck to you in your endeavor.

yeah. check my del.icio.us account. have to search on there
http://delicious.com/Warsie

have some stuff linked here

http://www.autistics.org/library/angry.html

http://amanda.autistics.org/

http://billdunlap.wordpress.com/2008/10 ... e-against/

http://mikestanton.wordpress.com/2007/1 ... e-it-down/

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... lcome=true



see Amanda Baggs' experiences (ambeund on wrongplanet)

Last edited by Warsie on 26 Dec 2008, 1:18 pm, edited 2 times in total.

thanks.

I am not going to respond to any further of your posts on this matter, but just to clarify: Of course, any inhabitants may post their opposing viewpoints! That's part of the learning/communication experience. But degrading another or 'inserting' your own words, then attributing them to OPster is not fair. No one insinuated otherwise - do post your views (not the personal slights or obtuse angles to obscure).

For just one example, Warsie wrote, you quoted (above), where Warsie starts, "I'd say the influential NGOs, like ........" You can read it too.
Then you respond, "Then wouldn't this conspiracy theory best be directed at them?"
1st: Who said 'conspiracy theory?' Further, why direct 'issue' to them - Non Sequitor.

I think you're being disrespectful to Warsie in this way. If you have differing opinions &/or wish to add, do so. But not be contriving.

If you 'simply don't see a problem' then WHY are there abundantly written, documented (10 X ^ (1/0)) accounts of all degrees recorded. Maybe you ought to not IGNORE, but just objectively look, then decide.

BTW, Tiger is usually reserved for males (re: term of endearment). Lab Pet is FEMALE - check out my video, URL below. And don't give me your depricating 'wink' emoticon.....disingenuousness is not appreciated. If you act nicely and in good-faith, then others will treat you in kind.

Proceed, Warsie & others. I think you've found some good links. I like the essay written by Kathleen Siedel, 'The Autisitic Distinction.'

Gee, for not responding, you sure had a lot to say.
I'm just a dumb, ign'ant "NT". What do I know?

when did you become neurotypical

also it's ignant. Haven't heard ANY n***a spell it ign'ant before.

EDIT: googled your way of spelling it, you're right

u a n***a

I think that the auties and aspies do get a raw deal, but if as a group we were to use legal action to get a better deal out of life then we need to be careful. I think that using as a first resort the UN law on Genocide is a bad idea, I think that if we are to use the courts we would be better to use existing national laws and court judgements.

I think that it is better becuase a court is more likely to accept an existing law or legal judgement being applied rather than having to make up a new national law based upon international law. Also by knowing the national law in detail you would make a better impression on the court.

Fnord mentioned the way in which the law is written, I would like to point out that it is possible for legislation to be illegal becuase it conflicts with a consitution or state law can conflict with federal law. A possible example of this which I choose at random is an Ontario law on racing on a public road.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/inde ... opic=11781

This law is likely to be illegal becuase of the lack of due process, I support the idea that reckless drives should be fined, lose their licenses and perhapes their cars. But we owe them a trial first, after a fair trial then maybe we should crush their cars and put them in jail.

The second class of illegal legislation is the type of law which correctly forumlated on paper so that the issues associated with the first type of illegal legislation are avoided but it is a law which is so patently morally offensive that either a court will reject it or after the act a body such as the Nuremberg court (which dealed with the worst of the nazis still alive after WWII) would judge the law as being illegal. But I think it is much harder to use this second type of legal reasoning.

To give an example of how I think something can be done correctly and wrongly consider the following case.

A member of staff using an electric shock pain device kills a person by shocking them too many times, when brought to trial he says "I was only following orders, so it is not my fault"

Wrong. One defense is that "I was only following orders" which has now been named the "Nuremberg Defense". I think that it is not good to use the court judgement used either at Nuremberg or Eichmann's trial.

Right. Instead look for an existing legal judgements and consider the idea of turning around this defense into prima faca evidence of conspiracy.