dress issue is cut out of published submissions to government

Following the parliamentary hostility to the autism strategy bill for Scotland, and its defeat, the government held a consultation for its own non-statutory autism strategy here. This would never have happened but for the bill being attempted.

I see that my response has been published online, here:

But there are several unexplained odd gaps in it, and they represent where bits have been excised out. What annoys me most is on the third page, under the heading Dress. “Any uniform may prescribe clothes made from a fabric that hurts a spectrumite’s skin, causing distress and affecting our concentration and functioning. This simple fact biologically proves that any uniform or dress code is an atack upon our bodies, …” then it ends in mid sentence and there are several lines’ gap. What I had actually written continued: “… and for children this proves school uniforms are child abuse. This has been known for years, featured in autism, conferences and studies and the literature for years, back to the early 0’s. The NAS has done us biological damage by never choosing to push this issue in its campaigns. That school uniform still exists, is knowingly a national scale mass biological crime against a known aspect of human biology.”

I don’t mind if they want to blank out the NAS’s name through some code of not having named attacks in submissions: I simply chose to inform them about the NAS’s fault as described. but I mind total censorship of the autism health issue against school uniforms. Any school age folks reading, with your health getting done that wrong to, look at them wiping out from the record the issue against your uniform. When the text resumes, they have left in plenty of the dress freedom case for adults, but they blank out the statement “This proves it was child abuse for me to suffer a long trousers school uniform.” Then in fact they have blanked out an argument for adults too, where I cite good practice by the Intowork service in Edinburgh, in standing up for dress freedoms at work for aspie clients who medically need that. By blanking out that paragraph they also conveniently blank out the claim that all dress codes are genocide.

There is plenty of other nice stuff they have let in, be that acknowledged. Only, the blanking out on the dress issue contrasts with it. Is it only because my case against the gifted children movement, Faculties Not Gifts, had already been published in 2007 by the SASN [now Autism Network Scotland], that the government scribes had to leave in the references I made to its content, which include a reference to abuse, without blanking those out?

Maurice Frank
21 Mar 2011