There is a difference between inappropriate contact as a result of unrestrained libido, and as a result of a social malconformance, or a simple accident. I would find it rather insensitive if a complete accident, such as flinging an arm about or grasping something to keep balance was turned into a sexual harassment charge simply because my gender tends to (or is portrayed to tend to) engage in heinous sexual conduct.

I sincerely caution you against passing this kind of stereotypical judgement. Granted, this case is not an accident per se, but is the purpose of our legal systems to educate, or to punish blindly? And, in this regard, how can we state that any person is educated in the wrongness of their action? Intent? Motive? Where should the line be drawn, especially when you consider people who may not have the capacity to know that their actions constituted a crime, or the severity thereof?

It would probably be wrong to say that our system is currently completely ineffective, but it is still subject to prejudice, and will continue to be that way as it tries to be unbiased towards all sorts of differences it might encounter. There is no such “one justice fits all.”

Aspergers differs in that it is neither intentional nor temporary; a person claiming aspergers as a defence is arguing that they do not understand that they can be guilty when their reasoning at the time of the offence indicated to them that their actions were justifiable.

It’s similar to the insanity defence, with the distinction that the Aspergic simply doesn’t understand *why* their actions were illegal, since law is based on reason and their actions seemed reasonable at the time.

You sure?

http://www.aspieweb.net/aspergers-as-a-legal-defense/comment-page-1/#comment-470 says:

“I’m not unsympathetic to his plight Larry; but I’ve just read the inditement [sp?], He wasn’t just looking around, he was installing remote control software, deleting logs and accounts, and leaving “F-ck the Yanks” graffiti as well as direct threats to continue disrupting the networks. And this happened over months and months.”

“6) issues in which typical autistic actions are taken to be ‘harassing’ or ‘offensive’ to non-autistic people (because of their intolerance and ignorance)…”

Check out http://tinyurl.com/yf2dqfc :

“…Alek, I just want to second what Mina said about women having, for our own safety, to be sensitive to creepy vibes from men. For a while there was a janitor in my office who was, well, creepy. I suspect he has some form of mild retardation, but the fact is, he never did to the men what he did to the women; he would come up behind me way too close and start talking right in my ear; he would wander into my female colleagues’ offices and sit down even if they were in the middle of working; he would insert himself into conversations between women. And there was something else…an undefinable but creepy vibe.

“Now, maybe he’s just socially awkward. But what if he’s not? If he doesn’t follow social norms about how close to stand how do I know if he’ll follow social norms about touching? If he follows me down the hall when I’ve given off clear signals that I don’t want him to, where else will he follow me?

“I’d rather be rude than be followed; I’d rather be rude than be groped; I’d rather be rude than be assaulted…”

I bet you’d call her “intolerant” and “ignorant” too. Personally, I’d rather be what you call “intolerant” and “ignorant” than let just anyone do just anything and everything he or she wants to do to my body just in case he or she is autistic.

He says he should not be deported to America as it would be too traumatic, he should be kept in Britain for “medical reasons” (to prevent trauma).

The fact that he has been INTERPRETED as saying this is proof of the FANATICISM of the supposed autistic rights activists who support the principle of autistic people being judged and “punished” (violated) by normalist institutions.

I have already said: we are not the type of “object” which the legal system posits (normal rational instrumental individuals), therefore we cannot legitimately be judged by it. Even if we could, whatever right it had to judge would be overridden by human rights concerns over whether it could give us a fair trial (given that it doesn’t understand us) and whether it could punish us without violating human rights (given that it is designed with neurotypical people in mind).

Emily – you’re totally wrong. The effects of someone being incompetent is not that they be prevented by other means, i.e. punished through the back door. The logical effect is that they be left alone. Driving is a special case because it requires a license. Using a computer does not require a license and should be considered a protected basic right as it is a means of free expression. If it occasionally gets misused then so be it, it’s time people learned to live with a bit of risk instead of waging war on difference.

On the wider issues – yes of course the case is absolutely abusive. It is disproportionate, violates British sovereignty, involves double jeopardy (it was already dealt with here and then is raised again), violates legal principles because he couldn’t know about the extradition risk at the time of the “crime”, violates international law because US human rights abuses are not taken into account.

One must consider however, all the other kinds of cases where people with Asperger can be victims of state oppression:

1) people who are assumed to know not to do something but don’t,

2) people who involuntarily raise their voices when angry,

3) people who fight back when grabbed or assaulted,

4) people who are traumatised and react angrily in situations such as police shutdowns and stop and search (violation of routine, communication problems),

5) issues around “touching” and personal boundaries (in both directions),

6) issues in which typical autistic actions are taken to be “harassing” or “offensive” to non-autistic people (because of their intolerance and ignorance),

7) difficulties filling in forms, which may result in “failing to meet legal duties” (such as returning census, responding to official letters, etc)

inability to conform to rigid situation requirements in terms of speech, standing/sitting, sitting still, dress, voice tone, etc – e.g. the whole bogus “contempt of court” scenario; related inability to serve as a conscript (labour, military, “alternative”, jury),

9) increasing criminalisation of controversial views,

10) increasing criminalisation of “disruptiveness” at school (and increasingly, replacement of special needs education with punitive responses to difference),

11) increasing criminalisation of technicalities (taking prescription medications certain places for instance, or various issues around when bins are taken out and in),

12) criminalisation of arguing with people in authority (at airports for instance),

13) criminalisation of self-medication to deal with stimulus overload,

14) criminalisation of aggressive actions when aggressively confronted by others,

15) the whole ASBO/injuction nightmare world of kangaroo trials for walking the wrong way up a road – one even finds cases where someone who can’t tell the time is put on a curfew (see the BIBIC report on ASBOs and psychological difference),

16) criminalisation of actions which may be linked to obsessive collecting, e.g. American laws prohibiting Megatron toys,

17) criminalising people for defying, or getting angry about, sudden and usually unexplained closures of normally public or open space,

18) legalising of violent “restraint” by teachers, police etc, and criminalising of the inevitable resistance this causes,

19) inadvertent noise or loudness (of music played on headphones for example),

20) criminalising people who make “disruptive” demands on local authority services,

21) bans on forms of dress (wearing a scarf or hood in certain places),

22) laws on failure to inform (apparently without regard for communication difficulties, fear of those in authority, failing to notice something, etc),

23) laws which make it impossible to respond legally when violated in some way by another, which a response is required but no legal channel for response accessible to an autistic person is provided,

24) criminalisation of resistance to home invasion by officials,

25) issues of nonpayment arising from failure to request in an accessible way,

All of which are clearly criminalisation of things which are either incapacities, necessary/involuntary responses, or inherent results of the condition for at least some autistic/Asperger people.

All of which therefore, criminalise having Asperger syndrome as such (morally equivalent to criminalising, say, Jews as such).

All of which logically require the admission of Asperger as a legal defence (also a formal/disciplinary defence, so a boss or service provider who discriminates against an autistic person because of these things should be liable for disability discrimination).

Granted this is different from McKinnon’s case, where the concerns are more human rights concerns rather than causal concerns. But these examples should serve to silence the people who persist in denying us defence from state persecution.

PS: Without going into details, I have had cause to use my condition as a defence at levels below that of the state (educational and work contexts for example), always in cases where someone who was already being insensitive to my condition and usually bullying me was compounding it with passive-aggression through administrative channels. Had this not been possible then I would have been driven out a long time ago.

PPS: The risk of being criminalised for being autistic is so great that it impinges in extreme ways on my ability to exercise basic liberties and to carry on daily life.

PPPS: The situation in Britain has got worse and worse in the time I’ve been alive, to the point where the risk I’m at is far greater and the rights I have far less. It is at the point where I am preparing to leave the country for somewhere with a more liberal climate, despite the obvious difficulties this poses. I do not think that any autistic person would feel safe here if they were aware of the enormity of the risks and the kind of institutional hatred for difference which is now in place. I think that many deal with this by pretending it doesn’t affect them, imagining it’s only acts they feel “responsible” for that can get them into trouble, imagining they will never engage in involuntary acts or be criminalised for harmless actions or just for being who they are, or simply by not knowing about what’s really going on, by assuming it’s the mythological “criminals” and not people like us whose lives the system is ruining.

But I am also criticising the UK government for this treaty and it’s misuse, and for abnegating all responsibility for what could be settled in this country, one thing is for sure, Gary McKinnon is not a clear and present danger to the US state in the same way that the real terrorists are. already the UK government has used the draconian reaction to terrorism as an excuse for shutting up anyone who is awkward, be that a pensioner and veteran labour supporter hecking at a party conference, or anyone who demonstrates against these injustices, who can be subjected to arbitrary stop and search. It is not just the anti terrorism laws either.

The reason I cannot be at the demonstration to be held tommorrow is because I am already booked somewhere else at that time. I will be revisiting George Fox house at Lancaster University. I was last there for the same conference two years ago, when the Lancaster Six were still recent memory, a group of students who had been prosecuted under new trespass laws for disrupting a meeting they had legitimate reason to be in. Even student protest is being criminalised, Before I started my presentation I reminded all present of the history of that.

I have made my feeling on this treaty clear to the Government, and that is as much the point of issue as Gary McKinnon, because under this treaty no UK citizen is safe from malicious or vexatious prosecution from any of the other states where this treaty applies, without the need for that state to bring any proper evidence, if you do something that upsets any foreign government you could be in trouble. There are at least 151 Mp’s who have signed an early day motion (the equivalent of an MP’s petition) against this piece of legislation.

And as for CS to call me a racist that is really a straw man argument, there is a lot more I could say about that but don’t have time, do you really think the Criminal Justice system in the US is treating African Americans equally, no not if you are also economically disadvantaged the existance of a prosperous black middle class is no more evidence of a lack of racism and oppresion in the US than the existance of working class home owners is of there being no class discrimination in this country, if you want to call me anything call me a die hard old school leftist.