Independence Before the Right to Inclusion is Not Equality

Filed Under (Accessibility, Activism, Aides and Assistants, Discrimination, Diversity, Inclusion, Law) by Estee on 11-11-2014

We at The Autism Acceptance Project will be addressing the following:

We need to discuss problems with autism programs, our communities (including schools) and inclusion. There is continued segregation and fissure within the autism community over the notion of recovery and independence. Our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Section 15, states:

Equality Rights

Marginal note:Equality before and under law and equal protection and benefit of law

15. (1) Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.
Marginal note:Affirmative action programs

(2) Subsection (1) does not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration of conditions of disadvantaged individuals or groups including those that are disadvantaged because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability. (84)

It is, therefore, everyone’s duty to accommodate – equal rights means the right to be included. While Section 15 and other instruments exist and rights are stated, they are still not enacted. There are a lot of conditions for the participation in many programs, many of them made for the autistic population, and of course in our community-at-large. A recent court case cited this issue (Moore vs. British Columbia) whereby it was noted that remediation before the right to inclusion is not inclusion; this is in effect, discrimination. In fact, the term is adverse effect discrimination whereby the concept of remediation is a barrier to participation and inclusion. We can point to many autism services that segregate, punish, or attempt to normalize the autistic citizen as such. In Moore, this statement was made although not highlighted enough. The disability community must be involved in shaping the meaning of accommodation, and they are missing from the discourse in cases like Moore v. British Columbia, 2012. In short, remediation is not accommodation; the former can be viewed as a disciplinary term and the latter must be created in accompaniment with disabled people to enable disabled people. The case of Moore can be scrutinized in more depth regarding the ontological constructions in policy and law that continue to exclude people with disabilities in the school system and in other programs.

Problematic is our notion of independence as a criteria for participation and enabled (or supported) participation in the community. As a result, many autism programs, and of course universities and schools, maintain this barrier to participation. It happens when human assistants (appointed and/or approved by the autistic person) are not allowed to accompany autistic citizens; when children are segregated into autism classrooms; and when many folks who have significant challenges are not provided access under the assumption that they are not able because they are in need of support. Such assistance is akin to the deaf requiring an interpreter, however, our notions and associations around independence remain the foundation under which exclusion still occurs; such notions require our demolition. These conditions to participation are neither accommodation nor equality. This is also supported by Rioux and Frazee:

“Equality under s. 15 entails much more than simply ‘accommodating’ persons with disabilities into existing societal norms and structures leaving unscrutinized those norms and structures themselves. Substantive equality challenges the very existence of mainstream structural and institutional barriers, including the socially constructed notions of disability which inform them. For persons with disabilities, equality means the right to participate in an inclusive society. It does not mean the right to participate in mainstream society through the adoption of non-disabled norms.” (Rioux and Frazee, 1999).

If you attended the talks and film screenings in Toronto with the film’s subjects Larry and Tracy (Wretches & Jabberers) – autistic people who type to communicate and require assistance – it becomes clear(er) that most autistic individuals who are given access to assistance and communication devices with support can participate. It also becomes clear the levels of injustice that take place everyday for citizens who struggle with speech and physical differences. However, most of our therapies are built to make the individual as independent or non-autistic as possible. We require a standard (and law) by which service and assistance supports the rights of the autistic agent to be included. We know that many people will never “measure up” (as we like to think that they can be normalized through isolating intensive interventions) to become fully independent, but can enjoy life and participate given opportunity and access. By segregating autistic people and putting these conditions on their participation, we as a Canadian society are devaluing the autistic citizen.

We will be discussing ways and means to address this barrier, and call into question organizations (many of them autism organizations themselves who claim to provide services that are funded by the public purse) who provide a qualified inclusion – to those people whose bodies appear and behave as “normal” as possible. There will be thousands of autistic Canadians who will, as such, never achieve the quality of life that the Charter states, is their entitlement.

For further consideration and discussion, please view this video with Yvonne Peters, Gwen Brodsky, Ravi Malhotra who Discuss Inclusion After the Moore Case. This video provides some legal context for this discussion:


Rioux, Marcia H. and Frazee, Catherine. (1999). The Canadian Framework for Disability Equality Rights in Melinda Jones & Lee Ann Basser Marks, et al., eds. Disability, Divers-Ability and Legal Change, Kluwer Law International. p. 89.

A Better Autism Awareness Month?

Filed Under (Ableism, Acceptance, Accessibility, Activism, Advocacy, Autism and Employment, Autism and Intelligence, Autism and The Media, Behaviours, Contributions to Society, Critical Disability Studies, Diversity, Inclusion, Institutions, Uncategorized) by Estee on 08-04-2014

I’ve been sitting back and watching. While not all things are perfect, I have to recall what it was like in Ontario 12 years ago when I was first introduced to this social phenomenon called autism. CNN had numerous reports on the “epidemic” of autism; the MMR vaccine was blamed; there were numerous reports of questionable remedies that put autistic children in harms way; there were hate blogs written about autistic people and parents who wanted to love and support their children.  The blogesphere was not yet syndicated and contained burgeoning home-made blogs by people labeled with autism and we learned a lot from autistics who wrote them – about activism, identity, the right to be who we are in every neurological way. Indeed, neurology is a term of the times which has redefined difference (neurodiversity). Although this is critiqued by many of those belonging to the disabled community as the new normalizing term (Lennard Davis, The End of Normal: Identity in a Biocultural Era, 2013) thereby losing its utility,  I suppose I belong to a group who believes that we might not have gotten to this place of questioning, and beyond an institutional disabled identity (i.e. segregated and isolated), without this renaming and reconceptualization. To further highlight Davis’ important question:

“If we are now living in an identity-culture eshatron in which people are asking whether we are ‘beyond identity,’ then could this development be related in some significant way to the demise of the concept of ‘normality? Is it possible that normal, in its largest sense, which has done such heavy lifting in the area of eugenics, scientific racism, ableism, gender bias, homophobia, and so on, is playing itself out and losing its utility as a driving force in culture in general and academic culture in particular? And if normal is being decommissioned as a discursive organizer, what replaces it?'” (Davis, 1).

Davis argues that diversity has become the new normal.He also makes an important point that there are some people who do not have a choice of identity, which, in my words, may dampen the concept of diversity for our community. In particular, disabled identities are not chosen. Perhaps we now have to think beyond identity and challenge the concepts of acceptance and community in a world where these lines are always expanding and contracting.

That said, I remember what my introduction was to autism. Mothers and fathers before me remember institutionalization. Parents advocate for a world where autistic children are accepted, even if in a neoliberal paradigm (in other words, while we can see its shortcomings, we still do many unpleasant things to survive). It seems the “strengths” of autism at least are earning a place at the employment line, which then perhaps allows our children to get an education and better services. Perhaps our kids will be understood for their sensory, communication and social issues and not be reprimanded or judged for them. All these seem like good things. I would like to imagine a world where we never forget – where many of the younger generation of ABA therapists and teachers have no recollection of “different” kids in their neighborhood suddenly disappearing. There is work to be done to educate people working in the field on the history of disability and institutionalization and how close we always seem to be to doing that again. Must we continue to ask why this is happening despite the advocacy for autism acceptance?

And finally, in Davis’ words:

“There is a built-in contradiction to the idea of diversity in neoliberal ideology, which holds first and foremost each person to be a unique individual. Individualism does no meld easily into the idea of group identity. And yet for neoliberalism it is a must. In a diverse world, one must be part of a ‘different’ group – ethnic, gendered, raced, sexual. It is considered boring if not limiting, under the diversity aegis, to be part of the nondiverse (usually dominant) group. So diversity demands difference so it can claim sameness. In effect, the paradoxical logic is: we are all different; therefore we are all the same.

The problem with diversity is that it really needs two things in order to survive as a concept. It needs to imagine a utopia in which difference will disappear, while living in a present that is obsessed with difference. And it needs to suppress everything that confounds that vision. What is suppressed from the imaginary of diversity, a suppression that actually puts neoliberal diversity into play, are various forms of inequality, notably economic inequality, as the question of power. The power and wealth difference is nowhere to be found in this neoliberal view of diversity….Ultimately what I am arguing is that disability is an identity that is unlike all the others in that it resists change and cure…disability is the ultimate modifier of identity, holding identity to its original meaning of being one with oneself. Which after all is the foundation of difference.” (Davis, 13-14).

While I acknowledge Davis, I find myself thrust into an acceptance paradigm that allows Adam to be in a classroom and in the community, however imperfect (requiring time, exhaustive and emotional effort, Adam’s emotional effort and his ‘trooper’ ability among it all) – and all of this based on proof of competence and ability as he counts money so fast that the adults in the room have to check to see if he’s right (he is). I think it is great if we can enable others to see autism as a way of being in the world – sensory difference as not behavioral belligerence; non-verbal disability as not an unwillingness to speak or non-intelligence. To go on: not looking at someone when they are speaking doesn’t mean that the autistic person doesn’t understand what is being said; not wanting or able to be social should not be isolating or a reason to segregate nor a reason to push one to be social just like everyone else. (So what I’m saying is that as activists and/or advocates, we are still at this place). There are still so many misunderstandings in a moment with an autistic person, and one hopes that this marketing will help. I mean, we all have to survive, right? Adam’s survival is no different than mine except that he is at a clear disadvantage despite “neurodiversity.”

While recent autism advocacy is far better than I can remember 12 years ago, it remains services and employment based (and I am not at all suggesting we don’t need to do this important work to discuss services and accommodations past the age of 21…but we need to discuss this also in a much larger context). A discussion of the inequalities about which Davis and others speak must also be a topic to discuss the bigger picture of what we mean when we talk about inequality. Another part of this discussion might be to discuss all the the proofs that an autistic person has to demonstrate before earning a place at the school desk and in the boardroom – and a discussion why these suggest human value. These may not acquire the immediate services that people need but they are important to our evolution. We can do this while continuing to mine the various meanings of purpose.


About Me


I’m a PhD candidate at York University, Critical Disability Studies, with a multi-disciplinary background in the arts as a curator and writer. I am the Founder of The Autism Acceptance Project (, and an enamoured mother of my only son who lives with the autism label. I like to write about our journey, critical issues regarding autism in the area of human rights, law, and social justice, as well as reflexive practices in (auto)ethnographic writing about autism.