|
Re: Single Equalities' and Human Rights Commission Consultation - opposition
to Single Commission and support for 6 + 1 model. Multiple disadvantage &
the need to make sure that these commissions are elected by the relevant
groups
Dear Sir/Madam,
This is a submission on behalf of DANDA - The Developmental Adult
Neuro-Diversity Association, the world's first national charity covering all
types of neurodiversity in adulthood (the more often than not overlapping
conditions of developmental dyspraxia, dyslexia, attention deficit
(hyperactivity) disorder (ad(h)d, dysgraphia, dyscalculia, asperger's
syndrome, tourette's syndrome and related conditions). Neurodiversity is the
most common form of lifelong disability, but also one of the least
understood and most grossly underresourced.
In common with Greater London Action on Disability (GLAD), the British
Council of Disabled People (BCODP) and the Black and Ethnic Minority
umbrella representative Civil Rights' organisation, the 1990 Trust, we
oppose the setting up of a single equality and human rights commission and
instead favour the "6 + 1" model advocated by all the above organisations:
one commission for each strand of equality and one human rights commission,
to deal with other areas of human rights, multiple disadvantage (where more
than one type of discrimination is present, e.g. sickle cell anemia and
thalassemia, which disproportionately impact on specific ethnic groups, or
black dyslexics, to name but two examples).
At a public consultation held at the Greater London Authority in May, hosted
by the 1990 Trust with the support of GLAD, we stated, with the full and
unanimous support of all those present, that we needed to ensure that all
7commissions were directly elected by their user groups and were thus
user-controlled, rather than just consisting of Government appointed
bureaucrats and political appointees.
We also need to ensure, as was made plain, that multiply disadvantaged
groups are represented, such as black dyslexics, for example, who must also
include significant religious minorities with their own separate
representation, e.g. black muslim women dyslexics, black orthodox christian
women dyslexics and dyspraxics over the age of 50 (members of 7
disadvantaged groups).
These groups tend to be the most disadvantaged, hence the term multiple
disadvantage and thus need the greatest protection and support. How else,
for example, are groups like the Newham Deaf Asian Women's Association to
have their rights properly protected?
Neurodiverse people (nds) must have their needs met, including:
1. Understanding of their different body language (including eye language)
and communicative styles.
2. Quiet, non-open plan spaces.
3. Short-term memory problems.
4. Concentration problems.
5. Difficulties with understanding subtle communication signals.
6. Other social interaction difficulties.
7. Frequently co-ordination difficulties.
8. An end to job adverts requiring people to be "well organised", "good
communicators", and "team-players".
9. Proper support for the special diets we often need, such as gluten and
milk free as well as additive free and purely organic diets.
10. Proper signage and information legible for all (including large type,
reverse letter dyslexia compliant, visual distress compliant (not just black
type on white paper, but a whole kaleidoscope of other colours).
In addition, nds tend to have great difficulty getting a full and
comprehensive diagnosis, even privately (if they can afford it), let alone
on the NHS. The situation is even worse for treatment and worst of all for
adults where it is far worse than for children.
As was also pointed out, it is only in the last few months that the
Disability Rights Commission (DRC) has finally had its first meeting of a
Neurodiversity Group.
Disability in general and neurodiversity in particular, needs far more time
to develop in its own right.
There is every likelihood that a solitary representative of the disabled
people (let alone political appointee) as in Northern Ireland, will not be
someone who has a full and proper understanding of neurodiversity, let alone
the needs of nds.
All too often, even user-led umbrella disability organisations, in all our
experiences, are ignorant, and sometimes outright hostile, to nd needs.
Let alone the rest of the "equality movement".
We also support the Paris Principles (as agreed under the Paris Agreement of
the UN Human Rights organisations and agencies of 1991), namely that human
rights need to be comprehensive in every sphere of human activity and not
just confined to employment, for example.
Another issue raised was that of religious rights. All those present who are
active in religious organisations, such as myself (a member of the Parish
Council of the English Orthodox Parish of St.Michael, Guildford (under the
Synod of Archbishop Chrysostom, Metropolitan of the True Orthodox Church of
Greece, Serbia, Russia and England), emphasised that our organisations want
to have their rights fully protected, especially against the relentless
persecution by the "ecumenist" movement of those who refuse, out of
religious conscience, to join it.
We also confirmed that the full and proper implementation of the Paris
principles was essential for the proper protection of religious rights.
All this was taken on board and agreed unanimously at the joint consultation
in May, although we still await the minutes.
Yours faithfully,
Adrian Whyatt, Treasurer, DANDA - The Developmental Adult Neuro-Diversity
Association
____________________________________________________________________________
This email and all attachments have been scanned by Kingston Communications'
email Anti-Virus service and no known viruses were detected.
____________________________________________________________________________
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|
