There is no such thing as a human right to equal outcomes, and there is no such thing as a human right for people with disabilities to be put, by an unequal use of power and unequal allocation of resources, in the same position they would have been if they did not have disabilities causing the problem.

For example there is no right for someone who can't hear, to be provided with all the resources to put them in the same position as if they could hear. To treat them the same as everyone else is not unequal treatment, it's unequal outcomes.

The author is not complaining about a failure to afford equal treatment, he is complaining about a failure to afford equal outcomes, which not a human right, not a positive right, not any sort of right and which if actually carried out and enforced in practice, would spell the complete destruction of human society.

If you don't understand why, Graeme, then you need to stop and *think* before rushing to publish your blather.

Attempts to enforce equal outcomes of unlike cases is abusive and unjust, and none the less so for the fake moral superiority of its pained supporters who JUST HAPPEN to make money above the market rate for their services that by living at the expense of everyone else under cover of their fake, unequal, and anti-social moral theory.

Helping the needy by voluntary giving is both entirely laudable, and entirely different from what Graeme is doing and advocating.

While there are undoubtedly some sad stories out there, articles like this don't help the victims.

Take the key point raised by the author:

"Australians with disabilities, particularly those with communication challenges or complex support needs, do not receive equal treatment in our criminal justice system."

A statement completely at odds with the examples that preceded it.

Each of the scenarios presented showed that the criminal justice system was indeed treating them equally. Equally, it could be argued, to the point of indifference. But equally, nonetheless.

It would surely be more accurate to say that Mr Innes is advocating that these people be treated unequally, as a result of their disabilities. And then to point out that a little more sensitivity to their additional needs might be a good thing.

But to shunt their predicament willy nilly into the seething cauldron of claimed privilege that is "Human Rights" is counterproductive.

“Maria’s” parents would know more about what she wanted to say than anyone outsidthe family would; and it’s unbelievable that “Maria” couldn’t communicate in front of her parents things that she would be OK telling to police or any other strangers. And it would be hard for anyone with a smidgin of modesty to talk about such things to anyone, even though it must be done. And, of course, we are not reading a first-hand story, here. People are always being admonished, continually and with great scorn by people claiming to know that most people don’t ‘understand’, that disabled people just ‘want-to-be-like-everybody-else. This is absolute tripe; they are not like ‘everybody else’, and they can’t have it both ways.

The disablement industry is constantly putting out conflicting claims for its cause, and it is a big turnoff, particularly when they are after other peoples’ (taxpayers) money. The most irritating thing, and I speak only for myself here, is the silly description of disabled children as “special”.

As for the daughter of “another couple”, and “Henry” heading-to-jail, we can’t be expected to be sucked in without the word of a qualified practitioner, not just a public servant, as Mr. Innes is. There is no proof that these disabled people are not as cunning as a hat full of monkeys in some areas, who are playing the system in a way not far removed from the didn’t-know-what-I-was-doing-because-I-was-on-drugs-and-grog plea.

The difficulties with police and courts occur for other people too. They are not disabled, just slow-thing or poorly educated. They don’t get any special consideration; you have to get a special brand, and have a costly tax-payer funded commissioner to get help.

Our sympathy is due to parents with disabled children; and, in some cases, help from the public purse is necessary. But, you cannot call for some people to be treated like everyone else, then attempt to give them ‘rights’ that don’t, and should not, exist.

Time to move on the AHRC, Senator Brandis.

Australians with disabilities, particularly those with communication challenges or complex support needs, do not receive equal treatment in our criminal justice system.
Graeme Innes,
Well, neither do decent citizens who are victims of crime. Criminals are the only ones who receive equal treatment. Why, even our taxes are used to provide legal aid against us.

Also Graeme, if these are "human rights", then either you're discriminating against the equal entitlement of all the other disabled people else in the world to the same right as non-humans or sub-humans, or you're discriminating against Australians as some kind of milking-chattel belonging to government.

Which one is it, and why?

Of course we know you're not going to answer the question. The reason is because your concern is not about human rights at all. It's about you living high on the hog at other people's expense.

It seems most have misunderstood the author's point.

Look at the stat that nearly 50% people shot by police have a mental-illness.

What can we take from this fact?

At very least that the system is unequipped to deal with pointless and irrational violence such that many like violent persons who may have some mental illness can more easily find themselves being shot by police rather than being helped by some services. Surely the fact that someone who is in that situation with police pointing guns their way and yet persists in acting violently and dangerously to others so that police have to act., is not really rational and clear-minded?

And the 50% statistic here should reinforce this.

The idea is not to place mentally ill people in positions of money and power without effort, but to understand that some people (maybe mentally-ill, maybe emotionally disturbed) may need extra services so that they can live outside of the prisons etc., perhaps instead of police AVO -ing every mentally-ill person they attend often putting them in prison, maybe forced psychiatric care could be considered.

I don't agree, Matthew S.

>>It seems most have misunderstood the author's point.<<

Which was, in summary...

"Australians with disabilities, particularly those with communication challenges or complex support needs, do not receive equal treatment in our criminal justice system."

The article then proceeded to re-define equal treatment as unequal treatment, and attempts to justify this inequality as an extension of "Human Rights".

And I think most of the posters so far clearly recognized this.

Your offering is at least in one sense more practical, and possibly more humane...

>>...some people (maybe mentally-ill, maybe emotionally disturbed) may need extra services so that they can live outside of the prisons etc., perhaps instead of police AVO -ing every mentally-ill person they attend often putting them in prison, maybe forced psychiatric care could be considered.<<

Although I suspect that the introduction of forced psychiatric care might not be entirely in alignment with the authors concept of human rights. The choice "slammer or nut-house" might not be as straightforward as you envisage.