EAS Sufferers
Receive European Court Backing
The European Court of Human
Rights in Strasbourg today made a landmark
judgement that finally recognised the plight of
EAS sufferers. The ruling will also lead to a
major review of European employment law.
Employment Aversion
Syndrome, or EAS, remains one of the most
controversial of the ever-increasing group of
modern psychological disorders – behaviours,
previously considered unremarkable, that have
been medicalised by the assignment of a three
letter acronym, and legitimised by the formation
of a support/pressure group.
‘Those experiencing
EAS are unable to face the prospect of employment,’
explained a spokesperson for the EAS Society of
Great Britain. ‘Sufferers have often,
however, been stigmatised by society and have
experienced discrimination in being considered as
idle, scrounging layabouts.’
The test case at the
European Court concerned Mr Max Langour of London.
His EAS had compelled him for many years to
remain in bed each day until the pubs were open,
and then spend his remaining waking hours
watching TV from his sofa - within easy reach of
a case of lager.
The Court heard of how,
despite his EAS, the UK Government had harassed
Mr Langour into seeking employment with indirect
threats of homelessness and starvation. ‘Max
hadn’t no health problems except EAS,’
revealed a family friend to BBC News, ‘so
they said he couldn’t have no benefits.’
Lawyers for Mr Langour
argued that being compelled to undertake tasks
for an employer constituted “inhuman
treatment”. ‘When his EAS demands he
should be asleep, drinking at his local pub or
watching TV,’ his lawyers told the judges,
‘unwanted employment is clearly contrary to
Article 3 of the European Convention on Human
Rights.’
His lawyers further argued
that ‘economic compulsion upon Mr Langour to
seek employment is, in effect, forcing him into
state sponsored prostitution of his time and
energies.’ The Court concurred that this was,
for an EAS sufferer, “forced or compulsory
labour” and hence “slavery or
servitude” contrary to Article 4 of the
Convention.
The Court again supported
the view that attendance at a disliked workplace
by Mr Langour for specified hours was a prima
facia example of “deprivation of
liberty” and hence contrary to Article 5 of
the Convention. Also that “normal family
life” was inevitably compromised for an EAS
sufferer by being at an unwanted place of
employment for significant periods of the week.
The judges therefore concluded that this would
plainly be contrary to Article 8 of the
Convention.
EAS sufferers are reported
to be delighted by the decision. ‘We believe
our members are now fully vindicated by the
European Court’s judgement,’ said a
spokesperson for the EAS Society of Great Britain.
‘European governments must now recognise the
right of EAS sufferers to not work, and their
right to be eligible for state benefits adequate
to support their lifestyles.’
Currently there is no
biological diagnostic test for EAS.
‘Diagnosis is symptomatic and usually based
on the answer to the question “Do you want
to work?”’ confirmed a leading EAS
specialist. ‘A negative response is
considered diagnostic of the disorder. It is
believed,’ she added, ‘that there may
be around 40 million sufferers in Britain, alone.’
In the light of the
European Court judgement, the British Trade Union
Movement has advised all who believe they may be
affected by EAS to resign from their jobs with
immediate effect, put their feet up and pour
themselves a drink.
Civil rights groups have
expressed fears that ‘yet another typically
bonkers ruling from Strasbourg will give the Tory
Party further justification for withdrawing from
the European Convention on Human Rights and hence
free them to trample on genuine rights of British
citizens.’
|
