Argument that any stammer is a "disability"?

(Applies only to acts of discrimination before 1st May, 2006.
Link to postion from May 2006 onward.)

One might say that any stammer should be covered by the DDA if someone discriminates against the person because of it. Why exclude a "minor" stammer from protection? However, that's not really a legal argument. This page deals with possible legal arguments that any stammer counts as a "disability" within the DDA (unless perhaps it has no effect on normal day-to-day activities).

These are possible arguments only and would not necessarily succeed. Though I think the arguments have some merit, they contradict the current official guidance! This page can get quite technical - just look at it so far as you are interested!

1, Argument based on general meaning of "substantial" in the guidance notes
2. Argument based on Human Rights Act and European Convention
3. Argument based on EU Framwork Employment Directive

1. Argument based on general meaning of "substantial" in the guidance notes

This argument is based on the statutory Guidance on matters to be taken into account in determining questions relating to disability

Part II Para A1. of the guidance sets out the principle of what is meant by "substantial": "The requirement that an adverse effect be substantial reflects the general understanding of "disability" as a limitation going beyond the normal differences in ability which may exist among people. A "substantial" effect is more than would be produced by the sort of physical or mental conditions experienced by many people which have only "minor" effects. A "substantial" effect is one which is more than 'minor' or 'trivial'.".

I would argue that any stammer goes beyond the normal differences in fluency which may exist between people. Stammering is characterised by sometimes simply not being able to get the word out, or sometimes having to use some special speech technique to get the word out. This is not the kind of dysfluency which non-stammerers have - for example when a person is unsure of how to say what he wants and maybe stumbles while trying to sort it out.

If therefore any effect of a stammer is substantial, any stammer will be a disability unless it simply has no effect in normal day-to-day situations.

It is important to bear in mind that this is inconsistent with the Para C19 of the 1996 guidance notes. This says that it is not reasonable to see a minor stutter as a "disability". However, the notes are not law, and one might argue that the nature of stuttering seems not to have been fully considered in the light of the general principle in para A1 (I suspect it wasn't), and that accordingly the general principle should be followed rather than the faulty application of the principle to stuttering.