David Pfeiffer's post and the responses hit at my major teaching and research
interest-international human rights law.
Although there's some contrary examples I'm not sure there's much more attention
to disability in intl human rights circles now. I'd be grateful if others could
mention other contrary examples.
The recent Rome Treaty establishing an international criminal court, as I
understand it, repeats the language of the Genocide Convention not mentioning
disability. Thus if disability is the basis for mass killing it wouldn't be
criminal.
Refugee laws generally repeat the UN Refugee Convention's reference to a
"well-founded fear of persecution" on account of a host of factors not including
disability. Sexual orientation and gender are also omitted; very creative
lawyers can use the language "other social group" in a few gender-based cases,
in just one involving sexual orientation that I know of. But zero based on
disability.
The UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights passed the General Assembly in
1966, but just repeated the Declaration's language on nondiscrimination with no
mention of disability.
The European Convention (I think also Cassin's doing) refers to "sex, race,
colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social
origin, association with a natl minority or other status." I don't think "other
status" was put in to include disability.
The African Charter even includes "fortune." But not disability.
The American Convention has "other social condition." But not disability.
The UN Human Rights Commision did have a rapporteur on disability who concluded
with a 43 page report in 1993. It's excellent, as are IMO most of the work done
under the Standard Rules. But it's not the same as treaty obligations, which
the Conventions are.
The only Convention which to my knowledge specifically mentions disability in
its nondiscrimination provision is the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
IMO the human rights courts and commissions have side-stepped the euthanasia
issue, meaning that national governments haven't felt constrained by human
rights standards. (Again if I'm wrong please correct me) If disability had
been included in nondiscrimination provisions it would help.
Art
Larry Arnold wrote:
> One could argue that it were not spelled out because the political self
> awareness of disability as a means by which society oppresses deviancy had
> not yet matured, and that Roosevelt were a pycoogical victim of the
> oppression in that throughout his political carreer he allowed his
> disability to be effectively concealed from the American Public.
> > An Historical Irony or an Historical Outrage?
> > David Pfeiffer
> > Center on Disability Studies
> > University of Hawaii at Manoa
> >
> >
> > While reading an article recently I was struck by what might
> > be called an historical irony, but what might also be called an
> > historical outrage. The article was written by Brian Urquhart (a
> > former Undersecretary General of the United Nations) and was
> > titled Mrs. Roosevelt's Revolution. It appeared in The New York
> > Review, April 26, 2001, pages 32-34. It was a review of the book
> > A World Made New: Eleanor Roosevelt and the Universal Declaration
> > of Human Rights by Mary Ann Glendon.
> >
>
> ________________End of message______________________
>
> Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
> are now located at:
>
> www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
>
> You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
________________End of message______________________
Archives and tools for the Disability-Research Discussion List
are now located at:
www.jiscmail.ac.uk/lists/disability-research.html
You can JOIN or LEAVE the list from this web page.
|