Existing Human Rights Create New: a Submitted Claim

By Maurice Frank

I can't be the only person who has come across the easily demonstrated but unpublicised existence of several items that would secure liberty and democracy more genuinely and strongly.  Now stand recorded to a formal human rights process, by submission to Scotland's All Our Rights in law project from 2020. This circulates further that wide-ranging submission and explores further the basis of its content and where it leads.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Maurice Frank
• Release date: Aug 30, 2021
• ISBN: 9798201153397

Maurice Frank

A libertarian minded ordinary citizen in Scotland, who chanced to come across all the issues in this human rights notice, and a Human Rights Bill process to submit it to !

Book preview

INTRO

This book is in 2 parts: the submission made to Scotland's Human Rights Bill process, and back-up discussion and evidencing of the politics and background around the items in the submission.

Ch 1 to 15 are the submission I made on 16 Dec 2020, receipted by Clare MacGillivray, to the project All Our Rights in Law, on a new human rights law to pass in Scotland, to the background of Britain's projected movement away from having human rights law following Brexit. Ch 16 to 28 are thoughts on it and its implications.

When the All Our Rights in Law project consulted, it sought to collect ideas, proposals. You know how rightly cynical you feel about that, how the political elite will make an appearance of listening then do the same thing as intended from start. Not this submission, this is different. This is not ideas and proposals: mostly not. This is citations.

This submission comes from an ordinary Scottish resident and British citizen with no particular status, certainly no law qualifications. Yet this submission lays claim to newly defined human rights, and as its basis, shows how they follow from, and already are logically part of, the already established human rights. So it cites and claims that these newly defined human rights exist. It is a human rights law notice of that. Anyone can refer to it and cite it as a human rights law notice. It does not defer to the political elites to decide, it inserts into a human rights law process and its record a direct claim to the new items, that stands immediately. That is distinctive in how it impacts.

That is a new way to deal with determining human rights, the opportunity to do it taken when a new participative type of human rights law project created it. Formerly the political elites held all the control of determining what officially human rights are. This piece of participation is an advance since then, reflecting grown civic interest in participation and demand for it.

THE HUMAN RIGHTS SUBMISSION

1: ON GROUP SUBMISSIONS

I declare being a human rights stakeholder in several ways, that I submit in personal capacity but with these organisational connections showing my extent of stakeholding:

* I am lodger of EU petition 1448/2014, citing from ECHR an independent Scotland's incompatibility with EU membership, by reason of non-observance of ECHR, unless its citizenship by parental descent is unrefusable

* I am submitter to the autism strategy process, of a submission that by containing a crime report, set a new human rights accountability in health-related service strategies.

* I am one of the long term regular autistic participants in the Autism Network Scotland's work.

* I am chair of Edinburgh Lothian Asperger Society, a support and voicing society: its name predates me.

* I am winner of court case SQ 121/11 (Edinburgh) confirming that councils have no power to decide that a council tax appeal is not relevant and ignore it.

There is at present a flux of accepted language and no words available without offending someone, to declare that I am autistic without a learning disability. Able or ably autistic, high functioning, Asperger syndrome, are all terms accepted by some but offending others.

GROUP SUBMISSIONS AND PEER PRESSURE

As personal expression is a human right and all features of population groups' lives inform another human right, both are violated for any person who gets excluded from the hearing of a population group's views by reason of peer pressured infighting in the minority group. That gives you you a duty of care to scrutinise all group submissions for whether their character is free speaking or peer pressured, and never to treat any population group as spoken for, entirely or principally, by any dogmatic and peer pressured circles claiming to speak for it. The same as radical feminists do not speak for all women, so a militant strand in the autistic scene, characterised by ever shifting demands to ban words and phrases, does not speak for all autistics.

As a group disadvantaged in social ability, vulnerable to exploitation of our literality and lack of cue instincts, any acknowledging of our existence with minority needs at all acknowledges that environments of unjust social behaviour, where rejection is easy and fair play is unsecured, works head-on against all rights conceived for us and against our accurate unintimidated hearing about them. Leaving us to those environments automatically breaches any rights process. Any autism activist who argues that one person's rejection can lead to others' inclusion, is automatically proved an abuser of our safety and vulnerability, and exactly the type of unethical practice that by our nature we have a human right against being allowed. The voices who speak fairly for autistics are those who take a strong ethical line against rejectability in groups and for ethically defined safety of everyone's inclusion, like my ELAS group does.

The autistic scene is factionally divided. Firstly, the human rights duty is not to take any of the quick-rejecting excluding factions as our whole voice, but automatically to hear the ethically inclusive voices and to take us as the more genuine representation of any socially troubled population group. Secondly, that logically establishes a position that it is actually a part of human rights protections of any population group:

* to have an organised community with ethics of inclusion and of safety from rejection,

* to be taken as spoken for only by that community, and not by any community that they can get rejected from as a result of personal infighting or factional popularity issues.

* also not to be taken as spoken for by national-scale charities that do not operate with an obligation to say items raised from the population group's grassroots, but that entirely decide for themselves what to say and what priorities to choose.

An immediate test of this for autistics is the need to see the purported Autistic Pride Day' banned, because it was invented by forces from the easy rejection wing of the autistic scene. That makes it an assault on emotional vulnerabilities, capable of worsening exclusions and tipping suicidality triggers in already vulnerable exclusion victims, to observe APD. But for 2 years the government has observed it, by a flag at Leith, under lobbying of more forces from our scene's easy rejection wing. Vulnerable victims matter more than a look-good gesture. Accountability to put a stop to that is a measure of your work's efficacy.

It has been likewise a lazy political culture to routinely accept big national charities as voices for the population groups they claim to work for. An example so is clinching because it is a maltreatment of children and abuse survivors. That has been the case of a big autism charity, selling books by autistic child authors, while long sustaining a refusal accompanyingly to publicise the existence of wronged child authors: persons who as children were cruelly unjustly prevented from achieving child authorship by other impositions such as school homework load. I am one.

CRIME REPORT

The forces who caused me to have a crime report have ironically providentially made it my means to ensure, that the above on good and bad voices for population groups is not just an appeal to reason. It is evidenced as a feature of an actual case, on the entire condition of the adult average-ability autistic scene in the Forth region, and attached to the present autism strategy. It features the conflict of inclusive and easy-rejecting forces in our scene.

It concerns broken ethical safety of support services, heightened by the adult protection principle, reported at both those levels. In a complex case, it features droppings and head-on betrayals of support actions in mid-action, violations of the emotional safety and trustability of organised support relations, and malicious emails. I made this crime report within a submission to the autism strategy's consultation on its present stage, on 21 Nov 2017, a time still in the middle of the case's events.

While free to report it on to the authorities, the strategy workers also had a recorded citable duty for the strategy work not to breach the protection issues raised, and for the strategy's outcome on reliable autism services to be informed by the crime report case's content about actions of services and support groups. This ties the autism strategy to automatic having to act on those issues by seeking pursuit of the crime, and it ties the authorities to have to pursue the crime to enable the autism strategy's delivery.

In this way, reporting the crime by this route, instead of direct to the authorities in the normal way, gave the authorities an automatic obligation to pursue the crime, instead of discretionary power to decide whether to. This pattern is good for human rights, it establishes that the human rights of protected population groups should be protected by having ongoing policy strategies about their support, exactly so that the authorities will in this way stand automatically forced to pursue cases on violations of inclusion and of support trust. This makes all support services ethically safer. Consider how corruptible and a conflict of interest it has been, for the Adult Support and Protection Act to make a council social care department into one of the authorities collectively deciding whether to act on a case that partly is against itself. My case is one such, and this route of reporting it rightly overrides that problem.

Enforcement of this responsibility includes because not upholding it is an action established to risk motivating suicides. It will prevent, as has not been prevented without it, abusers of this nature retaining their tokenistic look-good places on local working groups of the strategy.

In order not to give potential triggers for suicidality to any members of vulnerable groups, which step may not be knowingly taken, the submission cites that there has to cease ever to be given to anything, by offices and authorities, certain types of answer. Knowing that we must not be placed in an exploited relationship in terms of adult support and protection. Knowing that an incidence of suicidality also has been associated with autism, from social exclusion suffered from failed communications and from the anxiety commonly accompanying the condition's communication challenges, the responsibility to communicate with effective practicality includes by reason of not giving any potential trigger causes for suicidal feelings. It follows that this responsibility BARS GIVING ANY TYPES OF ANSWER THAT ARE AVOIDANT of meeting the definite defined needs that exist in the case of any vulnerable group. IT PROVES AND ESTABLISHES THAT NONCOMMITTALITY IS AN EMOTIONAL ABUSE !!!

Hence the submission cites that all protection law authorities at all times perpetually, ARE OBLIGED TO ONLY GIVE THE ACTUAL ANSWER UPHOLDING PERSONAL FAIRNESS, TO EVERYTHING. It cites that all parties delivering any service, including all public offices and caring agencies, and businesses in like role, cease to be allowed to give any of the following specified types of answer :

* Be noncommittal,

* Use the word unfortunately or any synonyms of it, as a weapon to assert that an unfairness shall stand,

* Deny that they should do anything or answer substantively until an indefinitely deferrable eventuality,

* Ignore, or omit to answer, any of the entire content of the evidence available from the person being answered,

* Declare unilaterally that any step not reasoningly accepted as upholding personal fairness is their decision,

* I'm sorry but .. or I'm afraid .. or I/we note your comments... or I understand how you feel but... a tough bruising assertion of decision not to fix it.

* Declare unilaterally that any of these types of answer, or any answer not standing up to reasoning, is a last word,

* Assert that these are what people will do,

* Give no answer at all because of being prevented from giving these types of answer,

* Declare any matter of fairness closed, or unilaterally close down contact, before its entire content has been fairly answered, and at a stage preventing this from being ascertained from logical scrutiny of answers given.

Consider how much difference that will make ! Writing this into human rights is offered to you as an idea, whose merit is the opportunity arising from this position already being demonstrably established in fact. That by this, all types of authority become obliged to only ever take the line in support of logically reasoned personal fairness, on everything ever. They cease to have even in theory the authority to decide not to do that. Delivery of human rights logically includes responding to situations fairly, and logically is violated by a culture of instead giving the above-listed answers; so a human right not to receive those answers, from all types of office and institution dealing with the public, is logical to write in.

The Autism Network Scotland in its overseeing of the strategy work, is following up the accountability to submissions on abuse cases including the crime report. Meanwhile, there have been other recent developments adding to the leverage that the position will be acknowledged and case will be pursued.

* As its pursuit affects frustration hence ability to comply with Covid safety instructions on touching, and affects the rightness of allowing a quarantined period to frustrate actions helping to obtain the pursuit, the test-and-trace system's aversion to seeking the crime's pursuit to prevent such a situation is now the object of an NHS complaint, lodged Oct 26. In it, the crime's pursuit is declared as part of the evidence to it.

* The crime report features in my submission to an evidence call by the parliamentary cross-party group on mental health, Nov 30.

So that its live existence backs up the existence of these gains from it, hence of writing them in.

2: NUCLEAR WEAPONS

In evidence of the non-genuineness of grassroots evidence gathered in ways that are subject to peer pressure, I cite a day conference called a Regional People's Hearing on Disarmament held in Edinburgh on 6 Nov 1999 by the United Nations Association, with its findings sent to the UN. It was a totally peer pressured occasion, conducted on a presupposition of taking a CND view, and preemptively hostile and not accepting as valid for anyone not to do that.

Someone struggling nervously to word her comment in a session whose leader had opened with the assertion that nuclear weapons are illegal, was coaxed with I'm sure... you are going to take the same line on it as everyone else. That was wrong in its assumption that everyone present held the approved view, and intimidatory that any not holding it would be ruled out. Under that intimidation that session was filled with assumptions about anyone here from others including a prominent journalist. The day's introductory speech was based on triumphant celebration of a then-recent court ruling in Greenock that referred to some CND protesters' belief that their actions were preventive of an illegality. The speech hailed this, as CND was claiming, that it was actually a decision that nuclear weapons are illegal, ignoring that already by the conference's date the sheriff who made the ruling had clarified to the media that it was not. It was only a ruling on how the protesters' belief affected actions' criminality, not whether their belief was right.

To complaining all this to the UNA, the total answer I received was: Thank you very much for your very interesting letter of 6th November. It is good to know that our Disarmament Hearing in Edinburgh raised such key issues. I am very grateful to you for writing to me. Yours in peace,

The above, and below, is my submitted answer to any parties who propose to you to enact human rights bars on nuclear weapons. The subject is usually subject to such a culture of morally certain intolerance, and resulting peer pressure, in all types of left wing inclined social circles, that the viability of the civil resistance to invasion that CND has proposed in the weapons' place since the 1980s never gets scrutinised rationally. But it must get that before any human rights conclusions can be based on it. Though Neil Kinnock got into a logical mess with it in the 1987 election, in more recent projections of the CND view as a progressive fashion we never hear objections to the viability. That is particularly unjust when the obvious objection is derisive and intolerant behaviours themselves!

All human rights are obviously violated by any hostile power forcibly replacing democracy with authoritarian conditions policed by fear. Therefore, 2 such methods, invasion or nuclear blackmail, violate all human rights, therefore human rights include to have defences against them. Therefore, if situations can happen where no other means exist than nuclear, then those weapons are not illegal, because they are not gratuitous. What would be gratuitous would be to target cities with them and massacre civilian populations: it is good that the human right to life enacts against that with any type of weapon. So it limits nuclear weapons' use to directly against the point of military attack at last ditch survival point against conquest. Within that limit it is not genocide, nor is it to say so. That was the International Court of Justice's conclusion in 1996, and is fair to write into human rights.

By the rights of self-defence and of not having all rights forcibly taken away, nuclear weapons can not become illegal until campaigners for that position evidence that reliably in practice civil resistance to an occupation would happen, would be adequately and reliably organised in face of that situation's terrors, and would succeed in ousting an occupation even against a nuclear blackmailer. As yet that is a completely implausible utopian fantasy. Prime in making it so is the massive pervasiveness, in society, of nasty social behaviours to each other. How commonly folks hurt, offend, reject, betray, deride each other, fall out, and are uncaring. Those are exactly the behaviours that