SUPPORT, by definition, includes automatically caring about any perceived-unfair experience anywhere for anyone who you share a support circle with, e.g. fellow member of ELAS. That vulnerabilites are involved and suicidalities could ever be triggered by not following this, rightly forces your hand to agree it - that is the good strong way to hold fairness ethics in place.
Because presumption of innocence matters equally strongly the obligation does not include having to accept at the upset person's word that the place they are upset with is guilty. They have to be simultaneous, and to explain that: observing presumption of innocence towards the upset-with party, and besides that, supportiveness towards the upset party. Holding that their experience MATTERS.
It is always a breach of support to say that any person's social trauma ever matters less than some wider social convenience for yourself. Now, important progress, we can say this also breaches vulnerable groups' safe space. That is a point of law on the honesty of safety + supportiveness in absolutely any aspie organisation. On both counts it illegally risks prompting suicidality. You commit this breach if you ever, ever, tell someone with a grievance against an organisation or service, that your own good experience of that organisation or service makes you upset to hear their angle and that they should not say it. If you tell them that your preexisting belief that the organisation does good work and has done for you, means they should not say anything to you against that organisation.
It is unscrupulous ever to tell anyone that, + if is an abuse crime to do it in a support group. Impacting unfairly on every witness of it as well as the victim. Why is it these things? Because it rejects an unjust experience from getting heard and supported. It's a form of "I'm all right Jack." It announces that your happy good perception shall selfishly kick aside someone else's real situation + suffering, shall annul it from mattering.
Whatever organisation or group you defend when you do this evil, you turn it into a cult. For non-hearing of criticism is a cult situation - and an exploitation relationship, which is another point of the vulnerability law. It does the abuse of making a person feel gagged about their own maltreatment if they want to stay in social favour.
In the Jehovah's Witnesses, members are instructed never to listen to any criticism of their organisation, to automatically believe it comes from Satan! Combined with which, dissension from the leadership's instructions can result in "disfellowshipping", which means complete social cutting off of speaking terms by everyone. To take part in the shunning is itself one of the instructions that it can be a disfellowshipping offence to break! Which set-up obviously keeps their leadership from having any accountability at all from their followers, for anything they decide or do. If obviously works as a social trap upon everyone who has joined JW and complied with its instruction to drop their social ties outside it. Several controlling religions have disfellowshipping, it was the Plymouth Brethren who invented it, Scientologists call it disconnecting.
ELAS in fact has submitted to parliament that there is a public health duty for disfellowshipping to be banned. This was when new science on physical health effects of loneliness prompted a parliamentary consultation on it, in 2015, which ELAS was actually invited to respond to.
So look at the total parallel that is committed, when any aspies declare that their own good experience and opinion of a particular autism service makes them not want the upset of hearing another aspie's bad or critical experience of it. It sets up exactly the same silencing and hiding of any problems at all, as in a cult. It puts the service's managers beyond accountability. But no service, no matter how much good it does, ever deserves that loyal level of character trust. Only with accountability are malpractices + abuses deterred. Compare with the church child abuse scandals where there has been loyal trust in clergy's character. Compare it with patriotism: why is patriotism a discredited nonsense? Because it was the same loyalty to accept, or to refuse belief in, bad things from leaders, and that produced some: produced big wealth disparities and the horrors of WW1. No matter how good a particular government does, democracy always needs to watch out for it doing any bad. Consider whistleblowers, from Chelsea Manning to Peter Gregson's local campaign for them in Edinburgh council. No matter how well an institution is running, blind trust in its character will allow the types of hidden wrongs to happen that whistleblowers are needed to stop. You are a self-endangering fool if you reject the whistleblowing and declare that you would rather comfortably believe your council us above criticism because your own life is okay. When it stops being okay, you will have nowhere to turn, exactly because YOU TOOK AWAY FROM OTHERS ANYWHERE TO TURN.
That is the sheer
- folly for themself,
- maltreatment of others,
- irrationality, of openly announcing a choice to live in fantasy,
- human nastiness,
8 Jul 2019
