Thank you for your kind words. If I could give a case in Australia, though, in 1996, Martin Bryant, a man of low intellect, committed what was, to date, the worst mass murder in the country. Leaving aside the paranoid conspiracy theorists who claim he was the patsy for a higher authority looking to disarm the country, Martin Bryant was obsessed with guns, and from reports I've heard (I knew someone who went to school with him, who said that he was, now, I'll be kinder than they were, somebody who didn't fully understand the consequences of his actions. He allegedly hit a kid over the head with a spear gun, while spearfishing, and said, I just wanted to see what would happen) he wasn't someone who could understand the consequences of his actions. I also know of the case of a man who, I don't think he was autistic, but he had severe mental health concerns, who murdered a young man who'd befriended him, but was found to be too ill to stand trial. I did not want to imply that people who are on the lower end of the spectrum (I don't like functioning labels, and I say they're misleading, just like the old, "It's not rocket science, is it?" ignores the fact that to a rocket scientist, rocket science may be easier than small talk) should not have the protection of the law. I did say, and this brought me into conflict with my mother, that I supported keeping the man who murdered Stephanie Scott in the Special Needs Section of the prison. She asked why, and I explained that, a) the other prisoners may abuse him, b) he's likely to find the banging of doors and other sensory issues overwhelming, and c) he mightn't be able to cope in the mainstream. She then said, "But why should he have special treatment?" and I replied it was a human right, and that prisoners, no matter how bad their crime, didn't, in this day and age, deserve to lose all rights.

See, my mother doesn't understand why I, as an autistic person, should have wanted or been entitled to special treatment at school.