European Neurodivergent and Disability Rights Act 2020

Pravoslaviya

This is beyond repair, folks, OK? You cannot improve it. It cannot be improved, you can't do it. It's a nice idea, and Tobias Johnson Farage is a good guy, but this is so wrong.

So, Section I, Clause I, right at the start, it says 'member states shall ban the use of conversion therapy on neurodivergent and disabled people'. That means, if we look at the definitions, you can't try and cure a condition that limits someone's movements, senses, or activities. Neurological, mental, physical, whatever. Can't cure it. That's ridiculous, folks. We have to be able to try and cure disabilities. If someone's movements, or senses, or activities are limited, we have to be able to try and unlimit them.

In Clause II, a lot of chemicals, and a lot of medicines, that are totally safe, totally helpful in the right doses, are in the wrong dose harmful or potentially deadly, so that would ban a lot of good treatments. You can't do that. OK? If you're in the hospital, you're feeling really bad, they give you these pills, and then you're feeling great, and you're gonna get better really fast. But if you chug a whole bottle of the pills, then maybe it makes you feel not so good. So that clause is totally wrong.

Then in Section II, Clause V, it says all public facilities and private businesses shall be accessible for wheelchairs. Can you believe that, folks? All. Not 'reasonable adaptations', which is fine. It says 'all'. And sometimes you can't do it, you've got an underground train station, and you can't do it, or you have to close it for years.

And even if you can, in many cases, it's actually going to cost you a lot of money, which is all going to consultants and contractors. And in the public sector, they'll have to raise your taxes to pay for it. But your businesses are all doing the same thing. And they get money, but how much? Is it enough? I don't know, it doesn't say. So I would not support that clause, it's not reasonable, OK?

Clause IX is another beauty. They want us to take in more immigrants, folks! Who'd have guessed, right? And we should be able to decide when choosing who to let into our countries based, in part, on how much that person is going to cost the healthcare system. Because for a lot of us, maybe most of us, that's funded by tax, OK? And if someone is disabled and it's going to cost a lot of money to treat them, we have to take that into account. Nobody tells Pravoslaviya who we can and can't take into our country, or what criteria to use.

Section III, Clause II creates a right to a carer, but it doesn't qualify it. And you have to qualify it, or anyone who can be classed as disabled or neurodivergent can get a state-subsidised servant even if they don't need one.

And then we come to Section IV. Clause I is for quotas on boards, and committees, private sector or public sector, which is the worst idea ever. The single worst idea, OK? We appoint based on merit. Merit. And I'm a businessman, and we have disabled people in our companies, we have all kinds, all kinds of people, but we appoint on merit. And in Clauses II and III we get special committees where neurodivergent and disabled people get to go around, circumvent, democracy.

In Section V, Clause IV, it says the punishment for breaching the bill is losing all your professional licenses, which is crazy, OK? So a business that isn't wheelchair accessible, or doesn't have a disabled person on the board, loses its licence, has to shut down. And if it's an accredited body, like lawyers, accountants, whatever, they all lose their licenses too, their careers are gone. You can't do that, folks.

This bill has so many problems, folks, I can't support it, and really, neither should any of you. It imposes so many things on our member states, on our businesses, on everything, it's ridiculous. And that logic runs through the whole thing. You can't amend that to make it good, folks. We have got to vote it down.

Cllr Dragan Trympov

BrumBrum

The Prayoslav representative is clearly taking liberties with illegitimate criticisms. There are so many falsehoods its too much to name but I shall try to address the main ones.First of all Harmful Chemicals is clear as day , its clearly targeted at stuff like MMS otherwise known as bleach or some of the many other dangerous "miracle cures" that are touted , we are not going to be denying people legitimate safe pain medicine under this law, that is just patently ridiculous. There is also nothing stopping healing of illnesses it merely will ban claims of curing the incurable neurotypes or disabilities that do not need to be cured. We can still help those with disabilities or who are neurodivergent but the reality is most either don't need curing or are not curable. This is to stop false hope.

Second there is a clear provision in the latest update citing reasonable cost as a factor or heritage exemption among other exemptions. There should be no reason why most places cannot adapt to our most vulnerable in society , all they have to do is make a reasonable effort and if they are small businesses or institutions they will get funds and support to do so.

In terms of immigration its only right that immigrants who are disabled or neurodivergent are treated equally. There have been cases around the world where a family is denied a visa just because they have an autistic son or daughter, how is this right? This is basically telling autistic people or disabled people they cannot move like other people even if they meet other criteria, they'd still need to meet job requirements, income requirements etc

On the right to a carer and support workers this would be contingent on both a diagnoses and also a need set out in the PANA which all would have. We would not be giving out unnecessary support but without this we would leave many vulnerable people without the right level of support as is currently the case in many countries.This clearly states it is based on their needs.

On Section III clause II its true its a quota but its a quota for a good reason. Only the disabled or neurodivergent can know how a policy will affect them having that voice on the boards and comittees and valuable input into policy will help make all of society friendly to neurodivergent and disabled.

On losing your license for breaches of rules or being fined significantly , yes thats what is needed. If you intentionally do not fix the issues and deny equal access to all without reasonable grounds then you really should not be in business, if you are a business or organisation you should serve the community including the neurodivergent and disabled and its possible, I give you the example of Roscoes throughout the EU who have a sensory room in every supermarket that is big and programmes to help neurodivergent , and it actually benefits them economically but even if it didn't they would have a moral responsibility to do reasonable adaptations so that all can shop there.If we were to add the amount of exemptions mr Trympov wants then there would be literally no protections for disabled like there are at present as nations, companies and organisations would wriggle out of serving entire groups of the population leading to them to be treated as second class citizens.This legislation is a question of whether you accept treating disabled and neurodivergent as second class citizens or as equals , we treat women as equals now , we treat all races as equal why should this be different because one thinks differently , experiences the world differently or is disabled by how society and the environment is structured. Surely we should be making the whole of Europe is friendly to all its citizens , and if people are worried about costs to smaller countries we'd be providing adaptation funds to those nations to cover costs for vital services to the Neurodivergent and Disabled the same way we use European funds to support development of all countries.If people want to add qualifications such as Learning disability in that definition section we would be open to that but at the moment thats the implication anyway as a disability is different from physical effects of a disability. No one is arguing against fixing physical disabilities and if one can be got to walk again thats great but thats not what the definition is covering.

Tobias Johnson Farage

Inquista

Mr. Trympov, you're not a European Councillor. You have not completed, or are currently undergoing, or even intend on ever undergoing any sort of process underlined in the EACA which allows Councillors to take office. In the past, I've had to eject such people from our Council chamber for these reasons, but I shall allow you to participate in the remainder of this current session as a guest speaker on behalf of your country until you're a legitimate Councillor. If you feel that I am depriving you in your rights in any way, then please feel free to take me to the ECoJ.

As for the Act at hand, I'm confident with proper amendments, we can pass something that provides genuinely meaningful and impactful support to neurodivergent and disabled communities, which are communities that been completely overlooked by the European Council in the past.

I think Councillor Gökçen has proposed some rather good amendments, both in terms of content and formatting, which I support. If Councillor Tobias Johnson Farage could somehow successfully incorporate Councillor Gökçen's concerns on Section IV(I) that would be great, so that way we can have one of the sets of the identical amendments withdrawn. Although, I feel that specific clause will be a particular technical headache to properly flesh out, and because I think it might be a particularly unpopular clause as well, it might be best to accept its removal in order to reach a compromise to see this legislation passed.

Councillor Tilki has also raised some very good questions, particularly Section IV(III) and Section IV(V). I suggest remedying them such:

Section IV
III. Member state governments shall include ~~, where possible and appropriate,~~ the input of neurodivergent and disabled into different aspects of government policy.

Section IV
V. Member states shall provide monetary funds ~~shall be made available~~ in appropriate amounts to assist small and medium sized enterprises, as well as small organisations, to adapt to the needs of neurodivergent and disabled people. ~~This shall be in the form of EU accessibility funds provided on basis of need, though member states may provide additional funding.~~

Section IV(III) is still pretty open-ended, but it ought to be that way. It's obviously up to the member state's government how they intend to fulfill that clause - since the EU has many different forms of governments, with so many different sorts of jurisdictions and areas of policy - and it ought to be up to the governments to decide in what sort of capacity they intend to make good on this. If member states intend to shirk this clause, then it will ultimately be reflected in the Neurodiversity and Disability Strategy and Reports, no doubt.

For Section IV(V), I think it's better that the member states pay for these endeavours, rather than an 'EU accessibility fund' - because such a fund doesn't exist and would also need to be legislated.

I very strongly and fundamentally disagree with Mr. Trympov on virtually all of his other comments, particularly on 'curing' disabilities, harmful chemicals, and his comments on disabled and neurodivergent immigrants.

Mr. Trympov has pointed to one technicality in which he has a point, which is Section II(V). I see it has been included in Councillor Johnson Farage's amendment, which is great to see. Although, there is a slight wording issues (wrong version of 'there) and a bit of a run-on sentence, so I suggest amending it thus:

Section II
III. Reasonable adaptations shall be made in public and private commercial zones travel, leisure venues, and public facilities for neurodivergent and disabled visitors. All public facilities and private businesses Commercial areas, offices and residential areas, public or private, shall be required to be accessible by wheelchair unless there is a valid reason not to do so, such as unreasonable cost, or threats to the of heritage of buildings, their structural integrity, or their character.

Mr. Trympov's comment on Section III(II) made be do a pretty long double-take, but I actually think it's fine as it is. On one hand, qualifying what a carer is could be good to ensure that people get the proper support that they need, although I doubt member states will either institute personal servants or allow people to argue to have personal servants as Mr. Trympov has expressed. On the other hand, the reason why I would be hesitant to qualify this is because it is highly reasonable that the member states themselves already have carers and support workers, and I have good faith that member states will not interpret this clause against the spirit in which the legislation has been proposed. If we properly qualify the term carer or support worker, then we might also limit the scope too narrowly, or, again, too broadly - which might potentially damage or reduce the services that they could require. I trust that the member state governments will do better in interpreting and executing this clause according to the definition of carers and support workers within their own health and support systems.

This has been pretty good and constructive feedback, for the most part, and I hope that the rest of the council can contribute to the remainder of this discussion so that we can get the best and most agreeable version of this important legislation passed.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

Mennrimiak

Im worried that i can not do anything but to be aganist this act, of course this is a good action for disabled people and all of that but my position is aganist for some parts of it that that are simply horrible, like the part of forcing companies and governments to have at least one disabled person working with them but is not as someone i dont remember if it was mr Farage that says companies can do it because many are powerful companies and they can afford paying another employee but the truth is that no, those companies would contract disabled people and litterally make them do nothing just to comply with the law and avoid them messing with their business, that means dissabled people would keep on the same work for most of their lives their opportunity to escalate on a job would be practically reduced by most and this is just one of the things, if i were to remove what i dont like this act would be nearly 4 parts long, so, im gonna stay aganist

Adam Karlssen
Councillor for Mennrimiak

BrumBrum

EUROPEAN NEURODIVERGENT AND DISABILITY RIGHTS ACT

Proposed by Cllr. Tobias Johnson Farage (United Duchies) and Cllr. Edward Firoux (Inquista)

PREAMBLE

An Act to establish the rights of neurodivergent and disabled people. This Act shall ensure that neurodivergent and disabled people shall have the ability to access quality and meaningful services, be included in areas of policy and representation, and be protected from services which may harm them.

DEFINITIONS

I. Neurodivergent: differing in mental or neurological function from what is considered typical or regular (frequently used with reference to autistic spectrum disorders); not neurotypical.
II. Disabled: having a physical or mental condition that consistently and regularly limits their movements, senses, or activities.
III. Conversion therapy: therapy used to purportedly cure neurodivergent and disabled people of their neurological conditions or their disability.
IV. Aversion therapy: a form of psychological treatment in which the patient is exposed to a stimulus while simultaneously being subjected to some form of discomfort.
V, Conditioning: a form of learning whereby a conditioned stimulus becomes associated with an unrelated unconditioned stimulus, in order to produce a behavioral response known as a conditioned response; or using rewards and punishments to promote a type of behaviour or punish a type of behaviour in order to condition a neurodivergent to act neurotypical.
VI. Duty of care: a legal obligation to sufficiently care and appropriately accommodate a person while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm said person.

SECTION I - BAN ON HARMFUL THERAPIES

I. Member states shall ban the use of conversion therapy on neurodivergent and disabled people.
II. Member states shall ban any use of electroshock, electroconvulsive devices or any harmful or potentially deadly chemicals on neurodivergent or disabled people.
III. Member states shall ban aversive conditioning therapy on neurodivergent or disabled children. Mentally capable adults of sound mind may voluntarily choose to undergo conditioning therapy, as long as consent is provided by all parties involved, and provisions are made with those of sensory needs as required.
IV. Potential risks of any type of therapy used on neurodivergent and disabled people must be disclosed and thoroughly explained before the therapy process begins.
V. Member states shall ban and shall cease any promotions by any persons or organization that claim the ability to cure neurodivergent conditions.
VI. Conversion therapy and electroshock techniques used on any person, and use of aversive conditioning on any child, shall be considered abuse and torture and treated as such before the law of the member state.

SECTION II - EQUALITY OF ACCESS

I. Neurodivergent and disabled people shall be provided equal access to services, employment, the democratic process, public consultation and complaints system, the immigration and refugee process of that member state and/or the European Union and shall not face discrimination based on their neurodiversity and/or disabled status.
II. The member state shall make adaptations to ease the process for neurodivergent and/or disabled people to access services, employment, the democratic process, public consultation and complaints system, the immigration and refugee process of the member state and/or The European Union.
III. Reasonable adaptations shall be made in public and private commercial zones travel, leisure venues, and public facilities for neurodivergent and disabled visitors. All public facilities and private businesses Commercial areas, offices and residential areas, public or private, shall be required to be accessible by wheelchair unless their is a valid reason not to do so such as unreasonable cost or threat to heritage buildings character.
IV. Reasonable adjustments and accommodations shall be made for neurodivergent or disabled people to move freely and easily in areas of construction or renovations of public buildings or public developments.
V. Businesses, organisations and government departments shall allow for means of non-verbal communication for neurodivergent and disabled people.

SECTION III - QUALITY CARE

I. Member states shall ensure that their citizens shall have the right to undergo a free independent assessment for neurodivergent conditions, or an assessment of their neurodivergent needs, within a six-month period upon the recommendation of a doctor/or general practitioner or psychologist.
II. Member states shall ensure that neurodivergent and disabled people shall have the right to a carer(s) and/or support worker(s) for all their neurodivergent or disability-based needs.
III. Member states shall institute a mandatory duty of care for the needs of neurodivergent and disabled among all health practitioners, social workers and carers.
IV. Member states shall ensure that each neurodivergent or disabled person shall have their own Personalised Additional Needs Assessment, which shall be used to direct and inform their personal care, education and other adaptations for services they seek to access.

SECTION IV - POLICY INCLUSION, REPRESENTATION AND FUNDING

I. The European Union shall include at least one neurodivergent and/or disabled person on all unelected boards or committees accredited to the European Union. This shall also apply to any enterprise, division, non-profit, or public sector organization with more than 250 employees that operates within the European Union.
II. Member state government departments shall include committees for neurodivergent and disabled people to provide input on the quality and access of service delivery.
III. Member state governments shall include the input of neurodivergent and disabled into different aspects of government policy.
IV. Member state governments must publish a Neurodiversity and Disability Strategy and Report every at least once every 4 years or 1460 days. These reports shall demonstrate how member state governments have adapted and improved upon services, the quality of care, and the accessibility of services available to neurodivergent and disabled people in their country within that time period.
V. Member states shall provide monetary funds in appropriate amounts to assist small and medium sized enterprises, as well as small organisations, to adapt to the needs of neurodivergent and disabled people.

SECTION V - IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT

I. All member states of the European Union are required to adjust their national law(s) with this Act in 6 months from its approval by the European Council.
II. Member states shall be responsible for closing all services and therapies banned within this Act.
III. It shall be an illegal and punishable offence in all member states to provide,knowingly aid or practice services involving conversion therapy, elektroshock or electroconvulsive techniques on neurodivergent and disabled people, the use of aversive conditioning on any child, or promoting practices which claim to cure neurodivergence or disabilities.
IV. Any persons or organizations found in breach of this Act shall have all their professional licenses for their area of practice revoked by their member state(s) or be faced with significant fines if they do not fix the issue.
V:Any persons found in breach of section I shall be prosecuted on a criminal basis.

I propose these amendments for vote

Spain

I thank the United Duchies' Councillor for this bill, but I think instead of making bills many people won't accomplish, like Mr. Trympov, and overtasking the European Institutions, we should propose the European Commission a programmme to push inclusion forward in Europe. Anyway, the bill also needs some amendments, so despite I'm very supportive of the purpose of this act, I won't reveal my vote until all amendments have been voted.

Donald D. Tusk
Councillor for Spain

Inimicus

Mr Speaker, I must admit that I am currently completely confused by what version of the bill we're currently discussion or what specific amendments have been made. I would ask colleagues to specifiy the sections their amendments concern more concisely and briefly; it is currently much too unclear what sections have proposed amendments and what those amendments are.

Hetty Tilki
Empire of Inimicus

Pravoslaviya

Cllr Tilki is so right, and honestly, if we're changing the entire bill as an amendment, then we need to be able to debate that if it goes through. Either we should debate more now, or have another debate after we vote on amendments, if that's OK, but we can't have no debate on what is basically a totally different bill. What's going on?!

Cllr Dragan Trympov

Alkharya

I agree with Mr Trumpov and Councillor Tilki. Councillor Farage, please clarify the changes you've made to the Act. I haven't been more confused in the Council before.

Aylin Gökçen
Councillor of Alkharya

Inquista

Considering the extensive changes being made to the bill, it is probably best that is is withdrawn and re-proposed altogether.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

BrumBrum

We withdraw this bill for reintroduction to reflect the great amount of changes.

Tobias Johnson Farage

Inquista

This version of the bill has been withdrawn from consideration.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista